On 14th August 1947, the Indian sub-continent gained freedom from the Royal British Empire in the form of 2 different states: Hindu majority Union of India and Muslim Majority Dominion of Pakistan. All the Princely States were given the option to join either Pakistan or India. Viceroy Lord Mountbatten advised all of them to join either Pakistan or India based on a referendum, rather than choose independence. This process worked for most states; however, three princely states emerged as a battleground: Hyderabad, Junagardh and Kashmir. India used its army to gain Junagardh and Hyderabad, despite the latter’s Muslim majority. However, both were surrounded by miles of Indian territory and therefore Pakistan could not do anything. Kashmir, as a state that bordered both India and Pakistan, was a different issue.

Both nations laid claims to Kashmir for different reasons. India pointed out that the ruler of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, was Hindu. Due to this, Kashmir should become a part of India. Pakistan stated that since Kashmir was mostly Muslim, it should join Pakistan, and wanted a referendum to be held to validate that. India, knowing that a referendum would only hurt it, refused and tried to pressure Maharaja Singh into acceding to India. Maharaja Singh had other ideas and wanted Kashmir to be an independent state. With all three parties wanting different things, tensions ran high. Maharaja was concerned that choosing either Pakistan or India would result in him losing power. Pakistan offered him preferential treatment, but he wasn’t sure he could trust them. He believed that if he kept on delaying his decision, he might be able to stay independent. However, patience in Pakistan and India was running out.

Pakistan feared that the Maharaja was making a deal with India and not holding a referendum. It knew that if India got Kashmir, the lives of the millions of Muslims in Kashmir would not be safe. Frustrated by the Maharaja, and fearful of what could happen, Kashmiri Muslims stared a revolt in West Kashmir. There is a lot of evidence saying that the Pakistan Army provided arms to the Pashtuns and Kashmiris. However, this has never been proven and all the sources, like local Hindus and India’s state news agency, are not credible.

The violence in West Kashmir spread to Jammu, and the Hindu majority there started to commit horrible atrocities. Hindus coming to Kashmir from Sialkot and Lahore brought reports of Muslim atrocities there, which made the situation worse. In West Kashmir, Muslims coming from Delhi, Lucknow, and other cities told about the Hindu atrocities they had witnessed, which made the violence even worse. Today, the most commonly accepted number of people who died is two million. Higher estimates range from four to six million. Rebel forces in West Pakistan, at that time, had started to form a government there, and called themselves Azad Kashmir (Free Kashmir).

The Maharaja, fearing for his life and knowing that his dream of an independent Kashmir had long since evaporated, asked India for help. The government of India, however, told him that he needed to accede to India before they could provide him with aid. He immediately acceded to India, and the Indian army officially entered Kashmir for an “aid” mission. The speed at which they were able to take over East Kashmir, including Jammu, has spiked controversy. Some people say that the Indian army already had units inside Kashmir, while others say that the Army was just that good. The first claim makes more sense, because both the Pakistani and Indian army were similar in every aspect except for size, since they were trained and supplied by the British.

With Kashmir in what was essentially civil war, and the body count around the country beginning to rise, Lord Mountbatten flew to Lahore to speak with Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Governor General of Pakistan. He told him that since Kashmir has not chosen, the will of people should be followed, which would make Kashmir Pakistani, along with Hyderabad and Junagardh. Jinnah, however, rejected him. He didn’t believe that the British had the clout to keep that promise. He also knew that due to the bloody nature in which Hyderabad and Junagardh had been taken, the Indian army would never give it up.

Pakistan, now even more determined to get Kashmir, finally sent its army into Kashmir. India knew that its army was spread all over the country, and therefore, it could not deal with an extended conflict in Kashmir. India appealed to the United Nations Security Council, asking them for a solution. This was despite Sheikh Abdullah, the Chief Minister of Indian Jammu and Kashmir, being against it. The UNSC passed Resolution 47, imposing an immediate cease-fire and calling on Pakistani troops to secure the removal of “Jammu and Kashmir tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the state for the purpose of fighting”(UNSC Resolution 47 pg.4). It asked the Government of India to reduce forces to a minimum. While a cease-fire was signed, a truce was not reached. One sticking point was the Azad Kashmiri army. The UN reported that the presence of Pakistani troops in Kashmir was problematic; however, it didn’t seem to think that Indian troops present in greater numbers was a problem. The UN Commission came up with a two-part process that was exceptionally India biased: Pakistan would withdraw all of its troops; India would withdraw most. Understandably, Pakistan rejected this and India accepted it.

India’s position was that Jammu and Kashmir were legally India’s because of the Maharaja’s accession, and the UN plan would just confirm it. It also claimed that Pakistan helping rebels was a hostile act and an invasion of India. Pakistan’s position was that the Maharaja’s people revolted against him, and therefore his accession was not valid. It also said the the Azad Kashmir army was spontaneous, and Pakistan’s assistance to them was not open to criticism. All of this resulted in a stalemate and no troops withdrew. Since then, there have been major operations carried out by the Indian military in order to ensure that there is no political unrest in Kashmir, including arresting thousands and rigging elections. Amnesty International has accused Indian troops of abusing an Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act to detain prisoners indefinitely. Evidence of around 2,156 bodies in 40 mass graves has turned up, which the Indian government has denied repeatedly.

There have been minor skirmishes with China, which resulted in China taking Aksai Chin from India. Pakistan and China held talks and were able to reach a diplomatic solution to their territorial disputes. Later on, the 1965 and 1971 wars between India and Pakistan led to the Simla agreement in 1972, which allowed both countries to try to settle their disputes through the framework of the UN Charter.

There is no doubt that Kashmir is still a hot issue in South Asia, as it nearly led to nuclear war in 1999. Pressure applied by the Clinton administration ensured that it remained only a conflict. Today, both nations desperately want control of Kashmir, and they both claim it is their land. Since it was a semi-autonomous part of British India, it was technically not loyal to Pakistan or India. The Maharaja did want to be completely independent, but neither the British nor Indians were up for it. Pakistan was willing to make it semi-autonomous, but had reservations about the idea. Pakistan believed that since it got all the Muslim-majority parts of India, it should also get Kashmir following the same logic. India believed that since Kashmir was a princely State led by a Hindu, and not a province, it shouldn’t get the same treatment and should be a part of India. Since technically both have valid reasons, it is hard to say who deserves Kashmir.

Locke defines the State of Nature as one where a civil society exists. Internationally, we’re considered to be in a State of Nature when every country respects the others’ sovereignty. In the issue of Kashmir, it is hard to say when the State of Nature was violated and by whom. Was it when the Maharaja acceded to India? Or was it before when the tribal people revolted? One could even argue that it was when the Maharaja refused to choose a side because by refusing to do his job, he put the people under him in danger and deprived them of a civil society where their natural rights were protected. He tried to delay making a decision out of selfish reasons, and him choosing that route led to thousands of deaths. We could look even further back and choose to blame the British. Because of their poor planning and terrible mismanagement, millions of people died. They left India in a hurry, and seemed only to be concerned with ensuring that their own people got out. They didn’t care that if they just packed up and left, communal riots happening all around India might turn into mobs. This usually leads to killing, mutilations, rape, and many other atrocities. There are horrifying stories of trains being full of people when they leave and arriving at their destination full of bodies.

I strongly think that in this particular situation, the British are responsible for not ensuring a smooth transition of power. Their mess led to one of the most horrifying scenarios of what can happen when a country splits. The British could have ensured a smooth transition of power, which would have ensured that Pakistan and India stayed in the State of Nature. It would have saved countless lives and possibly resulted in Pakistan and India being great allies today, much like United States and Canada.

Disclaimer: I originally wrote this paper for a class in school. It is the same article, minus the bibliography. I will give it to anyone upon request.