Wednesday, October 14, 2020

PART 4 TUMULTOUS GEO POLTICS OF KASHMIR Dining at the High Table: The Early Military History of Kashmir

 SOURCE:

https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/dining-high-table-early-military-history-kashmir



PART FOUR


REFERENCES


PART  ONE: Nights Without End: Four Days with the Hizbul Mujahideen

https://bcvasundhra.blogspot.com/2020/10/tumultous-geo-poltics-of-kashmir-nights.html


PART  TWO:  The Heaven Born: The Men Who Ruled Kashmir

https://bcvasundhra.blogspot.com/2020/10/part-2-tumultous-geo-poltics-of-kashmir.html


PART  THREE  : Puppeteers Without Strings: Pied Pipers of Hate 

https://bcvasundhra.blogspot.com/2020/10/part-3-tumultous-geo-poltics-of-kashmir.html


PART  FOUR Dining at the High Table: The Early Military History of Kashmir

https://bcvasundhra.blogspot.com/2020/10/part-4-tumultous-geo-poltics-of-kashmir.html


PART FIVE :   HISTORY OF DOGRA EMPIRE:  Mastermind The Emergence  of Gulab Singh

https://bcvasundhra.blogspot.com/2020/10/part-5-tumultous-geo-poltics-of-kashmir.html?zx=b395f07a5f64b481

PART SIX Stones of Silence: Ladakh and Beyond

https://bcvasundhra.blogspot.com/2020/10/saturday-october-17-2020-part-6_19.html


PART SEVEN :   Kingdom of Mountains : Dogras and the East India Company

https://bcvasundhra.blogspot.com/2020/10/part-7-tumultous-geo-poltics-of-kashmir.html


PART EIGHT :  Cat and Mouse Games  :British Empire and the J&K Maharajas

https://bcvasundhra.blogspot.com/2020/10/part-8-tumultous-geo-poltics-of-kashmir.html




      Dining at the High Table: 

The Early Military History of Kashmir 

                    BY 

                   Shiv Kunal Verma


     


  • September 13, 2020.   





  • The chain of events relating to the Jammu and Kashmir region have to be understood. The Kashmir Valley, by its very location, far from being isolated, has been an integral part of the subcontinent’s military history even before the days of the Mauryan Empire. Photos: Jahangir with Prince Khurram, c. 1635 (Painted by Balachand/Padshahnama)   

The Kashmir Valley by itself has always been a part and parcel of the subcontinent’s military history.




Bandrol, Kullu: Time and again one hears the lament that Kashmir somehow evolved as an isolated entity, and hence it must be treated as a special, stand-alone case. This argument is at best fallacious, and though it could ironically apply to the Northern Areas, Zanskar, Baltistan and Ladakh to some extent, the Kashmir Valley by itself has always been a part and parcel of the subcontinent’s military history. There are of course a lot more aspects that define a region, but at the end of the day, it is the military geography that eventually defines the strategic boundaries of a nation state. A recap of major events during the early period extending from Ashoka to Ranjit Singh helps us to understand the region and the importance of modern day frontiers better.


Geologists believe that the Vale of Kashmir was once a huge lake called Karewa, which was formed when the Jhelum River was blocked by the rising Pir Panjal Range during one of the periodic phases of the great Himalayan uplift. When the trapped waters finally escaped by gouging a deep cut across the Pir Panjal at Uri through what is now known as the Jhelum gap, the valley of Kashmir came into being. Its nucleus then revolved around the extremely spectacular capital city of Srinagar, which is believed to have been built by the great Mauryan emperor, Ashoka, around the year 250 BC. The valley’s name is attributed to the Sage Kashyap, being a corruption of the original Kashyapamaar.

 During the Mauryan period, Buddhism established firm roots in Kashmir, spreading further into Ladakh, Tibet and Central Asia. Militarily, the region had come into prominence even before Mauryan times when Alexander’s Macedonian army crossed the Hindukush through the Kaoshān Pass to enter the Kabul Valley in 327 BC. Here the Macedonian divided his troops into two columns—the southern column under Hephastion was to enter the Indus Valley via the Khyber Pass, while the larger northern force, commanded by the young Alexander himself, took the northern route reaching the Jhelum (Hydaspes) River via Takshisla, where he was confronted by Porus, the Paurava king.


The battle on the Jhelum in May 326 BC was fought between two different civilizations and the details of the actual clash, though fascinating by itself, is not of particular importance to our immediate narrative. What is of relevance is the fact that Porus was isolated by Alexander even before the two armies clashed. While in Takshisla, the brother of King Abhisara, the ruler of Kashmir and Hazara had already offered submission to Alexander. While Porus controlled the territory between the Jhelum and the Chenab, he was now surrounded by hostile forces; Takshisla to the north where King Ambhi was a firm ally of Alexander and Kashmir to the northeast where another Paurava ruler—Porus’s nephew—who was his sworn enemy was sitting on his eastern flank. By all accounts, both Greek and Indian, Porus was outnumbered heavily but still managed what can be described at best as an “honourable draw”.


Alexander’s all conquering army, having swept aside all opposition in eight years of constant battle, had had its first reality check on the banks of the Jhelum. Porus at that time was reigning over a relatively small kingdom. Towards the east, his border did not extend beyond the foothills and to the west his kingdom was short of the junction of the Jhelum and the Chenab, a width of barely 60 kilometers. And yet, according to the Greek chronicler, Mestrius Plutarchus (known to history as Plutarch) the battle with Porus was enough to weaken and depress the spirits of the Macedonians to the extent that they were unwilling to advance further into India beyond the Beas where the armies of Magadha and Anga were waiting. Once again, the “ifs” and “buts” of history could never have been more glaring—had Alexander walked into a unified state rather than a fragmented arena, who knows which head would have adorned the title “Great” down the millennia!


Kashmir again came into prominence early in the 11th century when the Loharas came to power. Samagramaraja, the first ruler of the dynasty, sent a contingent to the Shahi Trilochanapala to oppose Mahmud of Ghazni. Ironically, Kashmir at that time was then one of the last bastions of Hindu dominance in the north. Three successive attempts by Mahmud to invade the valley failed for various reasons. For the next 300 years, while the rest of North India was overrun by Muslim invaders, Kashmir survived as a Hindu state until the last king, Suhadeva, lost the Valley to the Ladakhis in 1320 and Lhachan Gaulbu Rinchana assumed power. A Buddhist who wanted to convert to Hinduism, he was rebuffed by the Kashmiri Pandits because of his “low birth”. Rinchana then turned to Sufi missionaries and converted to Islam, taking on the title, Sultan Sadruddin Shah. The advent of Muslim rule in Kashmir had begun. Three years later Rinchana was succeeded by his son, Haidara, who was deposed by a one of his officers, Sahamera, also known as Shah Mir and Shah Mirza. Initially, Sahamera placed Udyanadeva, a relative of Suhadeva on the throne, but in 1339, Sahamera seized power and had himself crowned as Shams-ud-din.

In May 1398, as the Chagatai Turks with Timur at the helm swept into northern India, they crossed the Jhelum close to where Porus had fought Alexander. Historians believe that in less than a year, Timur inflicted upon India more misery than had ever before been inflicted by any conqueror in a single invasion. Having let loose the Army of Islam which defeated the Delhi Sultanate, Timur backtracked to Kabul and Samarkand, killing as many Hindus as his army could lay hands on. The Kashmir Valley, fortunately by then under Muslim rule, escaped Timur’s fury, but the same cannot be said for the Raja of Jammu, who was forcibly converted and his subjects murdered en masse.

While Timur was running amuck in the rest of North India, Shams-ud-din’s successors had more or less established a firm foothold on the Valley. Sikander came to the throne in 1389 as an infant when Qutb-ud-din died. He subsequently removed all signs of Hinduism and Buddhism from the Valley. According to Firishta, he issued orders proscribing the residence of any person other than a follower of Islam in the Valley. Many Brahmins, rather than abandon their religion or their country, chose to commit suicide while immigration of Muslim immigrants was welcomed with open arms. After the reign of Sikander, his son Ali Shah kept up the anti-Hindu and anti-Buddhist stance.

In 1420, Ali Shah was most probably killed while fighting against the Khokars, and his brother, Shahi Khan, was crowned with the title Zain-ul-Abidin. In a reign that lasted half a century, he was perhaps the greatest Muslim monarch to have ruled over Kashmir. He made a sincere effort to undo the injustice done to the Hindus by his two tyrannical predecessors. During his reign, the Kashmir Sultanate reached its geographical zenith, his empire and influence extending over Gandhara, Sindhu, Madra and Rajapuri. To the north and west, Ladakh, most of Tibet and the country on either side of the Indus River came under his control. Zain-ul-Abidin allied himself with the Khokhar chief, Jasrath, who in turn brought the entire Punjab under his control.

Even as the Mughals swept into India in the early 16th Century, Babur had his eyes on Kashmir, but an expedition sent by him met with no success. Both Babur and Humayun were too busy fighting other battles to turn their full attention on Kashmir, but Akbar coveted the state for its climate and environment. After a cat and mouse game that started in 1578, when the then ruler, Ali Shah agreed to strike coins and read the khutba in Akbar’s name, the Mughal emperor finally succeeded in capturing Kashmir only in October 1586 when an expedition under Qasim Khan forced Yakub Khan into exile in Kishtwar. Akbar himself visited Srinagar six years later, when he turned Kashmir into a reserved territory (khalisa).

Akbar introduced an elaborate system of village level revenue during his reign and also built the Hariparbat Fort as a famine relief measure. His son, Jahangir, laid out the famous Shalimar and Nishat gardens and introduced the Chinar tree from Iran. In 1620, the territory under Mughal rule was further extended to the south with the capture of Kishtwar. Jahangir in turn was succeeded by Shah Jehan in 1627, who was then followed by Aurangzeb in 1658, the last Mughal emperor who had any impact on Kashmir.

Next in the chronology of events, Nadir Shah’s invasion of the seat of Mughal power at Delhi in 1738 had weakened their imperial hold on Kashmir. With the decline of Mughal power in India, the governors of Kashmir became irresponsible and cruel. In 1762, in alliance with the Dogra ruler of Jammu, Raja Ranjit Dev, the Afghans annexed Kashmir. When the Afghan leader, Ahmed Shah Durrani died in 1772, Jawan Sher, the Afghan ruler of Kashmir, set himself up as an independent ruler. Afghan domination lasted for little more than half a century, the period generally being remembered as one of the darkest and most brutal periods of Kashmir’s history.

The Sikh Confederacy had come into being in 1716; basically a collection of small to medium sized political Sikh states called misls. The Sikhs had first established themselves as a political power in the Punjab in 1765, when Jassa Singh Ahluwalia captured the territory annexed by Ahmed Shah Durrani but they were a fragmented lot whose mode of fighting, somewhat like the Rajputs of Rajasthan, was desultory and hardly suited to the requirements of a well-settled state. From amidst the ashes, as it were, the saga of Maharaja Ranjit Singh then emerged. He was not only one of the most important characters in the history of the Sikhs, but also in the history of Northern India.


By 1799, after a series of battles with the Afghans who controlled most of West Punjab and Gujarat, Ranjit Singh had siezed and occupied Lahore. This was a great physiological blow to the Afghans who were beginning to look more and more vulnerable in front of the young Sikh, whose own stature was growing by the day. Having tasted the smell of victory and power, the expansionist in the twenty-year old came to the fore and he turned his attention towards Jammu. The Maharaja of Jammu had no intention of taking on Ranjit Singh and presented him with a nazrana of 20,000 rupees. He then again swung westwards and marched towards Sialkot and Dilawargarh, accepting nazranas in both these places as well.


For the British, keeping the rampaging Ranjit Singh confined to the north and west of the Sutlej was of paramount importance. Charles Metcalfe, the acting Governor General of India, was leaning on Ranjit Singh who in turn was procrastinating, trying every trick in the book to circumvent British designs. While he distrusted the British, the Sikh Maharaja also knew the limits of his own military strength and eventually on April 25, 1809, the Treaty of Amritsar was signed with the East India Company wherein the broad line of demarcation was the Sutlej River.     

  1[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Amritsar_(1809) ]   

  2 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Amritsar_(1846) ]  

 This arrangement was to preserve the peace with the British for the next forty years; more importantly, it also left Ranjit Singh free to expand his empire to the north and to the west–the freedom which he was to exploit to the hilt and in the process, change the very face of India during the next two decades.


Ranjit Singh spent the following years gradually pushing the Gurkhas out of the Kangra region and the Afghans out of Western Punjab back across the Indus into the hills eventually capturing Pashtun territory including the city of Peshawar. Historically, this spelt the end of Muslim domination of over a thousand years over India’s western gateway; stemming the tide of the Afghan marauders who had until then periodically poured into Northern India from the Khyber pass to commit arson, pillage and slaughter across the eastern plains of India. This was also the first time that Pashtuns were ruled by non-Muslims.


IT WAS RANJIT SINGH WHO BROKE THE THOSAND YEAR DOMINATIONS OF MUSLIMS OVER NORTH INDIA


Interestingly, the majority of Ranjit Singh’s subjects were Muslims, the numbers swelling with each conquest as Multan, Kashmir and finally Peshawar came under his control. (A)The northern and western borders of modern India were beginning to take shape, though Independent India was still more than a century away. ( A ) The British, who had emerged as the key players by then, were quite content to play the waiting game in the Punjab, and they in turn were busy trimming areas of Gurkha influence, gradually pushing them back from the Shivaliks and the Himalayan foothills into the geographical limits of Nepal.  ( B ) By 1818, the only parts of India beyond British control were a fringe of Himalayan states to the north and Ranjit Singh’s kingdom which covered the Indus Valley and Kashmir which lay to the north. Sind, though independent, was under British protection while to the south Ceylon had already been occupied by the British. To the east lay the valley and hill tracts of Assam and the Buddhist kingdom of Myanmar (Burma) straddling the Irrawaddy River. In 1819 Kashmir was formally annexed when a Sikh military force literally walked into the Valley, not only ending five centuries of Muslim rule but more importantly, bringing the sprawling Himalayan region into the political Indian equation by wresting it from Afghanistan. This one act of Ranjit Singh clearly defined the borders with Afghanistan and by annexing Kashmir, the geographical entity of the subcontinent was now more or a less a compact whole.

                 ---------------------------------------------

Shiv Kunal Verma is the author of “1962: The War That Wasn’t” and “The Long Road to Siachen: The Question Why”.

This is the fourth part of a series on Kashmir. The third part was published on 6 September 2020.



PART 3 TUMULTOUS GEO POLTICS OF KASHMIR :- Puppeteers without strings: Pied pipers of hate

 SOURCE:

https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/puppeteers-without-strings-pied-pipers-hate



PART THREE


REFERENCES


PART  ONE: Nights Without End: Four Days with the Hizbul Mujahideen

https://bcvasundhra.blogspot.com/2020/10/tumultous-geo-poltics-of-kashmir-nights.html


PART  TWO:  The Heaven Born: The Men Who Ruled Kashmir

https://bcvasundhra.blogspot.com/2020/10/part-2-tumultous-geo-poltics-of-kashmir.html


PART  THREE  : Puppeteers Without Strings: Pied Pipers of Hate 

https://bcvasundhra.blogspot.com/2020/10/part-3-tumultous-geo-poltics-of-kashmir.html


PART  FOUR Dining at the High Table: The Early Military History of Kashmir

https://bcvasundhra.blogspot.com/2020/10/part-4-tumultous-geo-poltics-of-kashmir.html


PART FIVE :   HISTORY OF DOGRA EMPIRE:  Mastermind The Emergence  of Gulab Singh

https://bcvasundhra.blogspot.com/2020/10/part-5-tumultous-geo-poltics-of-kashmir.html?zx=b395f07a5f64b481

PART SIX Stones of Silence: Ladakh and Beyond

https://bcvasundhra.blogspot.com/2020/10/saturday-october-17-2020-part-6_19.html


PART SEVEN :   Kingdom of Mountains : Dogras and the East India Company

https://bcvasundhra.blogspot.com/2020/10/part-7-tumultous-geo-poltics-of-kashmir.html


PART EIGHT :  Cat and Mouse Games  :British Empire and the J&K Maharajas

https://bcvasundhra.blogspot.com/2020/10/part-8-tumultous-geo-poltics-of-kashmir.html






The men who dealt the cards that continue to influence and stymie the lives of the people of the subcontinent: Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill.


      Puppeteers Without Strings

         : Pied Pipers of Hate 

                   By

        SHIV KUNAL VERMA


     
  • September 6, 2020

Winston Churchill was closely in touch with Jinnah since the early 1930s and had done the initial spadework to accept the Partition plan.

 

Bandrol, Kullu:


             [ https://youtu.be/qHWzN0E8wj0 ]



If no-one heeds your call - then walk alone If no-one speaks (to you), O unlucky one, if non-one speaks (to you), If everyone turns away, if everyone fears (to speak), then with an open heart without hesitation speak your mind alone If everyone walks away, O unlucky one, everyone walks away If no-one looks back towards the (your) unpredictable path, then with thorn pricked (of the path) bloodied feet, walk alone If no-one heeds your call - then walk alone If no-one shines a light (on the path), O unlucky one, If the dark night brings a storm at the door - then let the lightening ignite the light in you alone to shine on the path If no-one heeds your call - then walk alone



One of the questions that seems to haunt Indian academics and intellectuals in particular, to say nothing of the 1.3 billion multitude, is the identity of India itself. If a person from Kashmir or Nagaland today thumps his chest and says his or her identity has always been different, they fail to realise that the same can be said for almost every region in India, be it Bengal, Manipur, the Punjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Kerala or Odisha. In fact, the closer we are to our respective ground zeros in our individual capacity, the more divided we are. Caste, religion, languages, even colour—we happilyekla chalo re and let’s face it, we are also convinced that the others are absolutely loony!

Unfortunately, military geography as a subject or a concept is a completely alien thought in the minds of our people. Take a step back and move away from the narrow domestic walls that surround us and the picture of the whole that emerges, whether we are shouting from behind the barricades of JNU or from the madrasas of Deoband or the khaki clad marching columns of the RSS, is of a geographical entity called “India”. It is bound by the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal to the south, the wall of the Himalayas to the north, the Naga-Patkai chain of mountains to the east and the Hindu Kush range in the west. Within this huge cauldron of different geographical features and great river valleys, we are born and will die when our time comes—and during that period, we are all branded by the same brush as one people. As we near 75 years of Independence, perhaps we should start getting used to this idea.


When the first British warships arrived off Surat in 1612, the Portuguese and the French and the Dutch had already reached “India” a hundred and fourteen years before that. The flourishing markets of the Malabar Coast, where the Hindu Zamorins of Calicut ruled and commanded the seas with their Muhammadan admirals, frankly made the Europeans look like barbarians despite all their trappings. Even after the British arrived, for another century and a half, none of these so-called European powers could establish a foothold, until of course as so often has been the case in our history, the gates were opened from within at Plassey. This one act of treachery, in a far-away battlefield in the dusty Gangetic belt, saw the rest of the subcontinent collapse like a house of cards and the subcontinent was colonialised for the next two hundred years. 

No one escaped the yoke—be it the Christians, the Zoroastrians, the Jews, the Tamils, the Biharis, the Gujaratis or the Kashmiris.


My generation—born in the 1960s, was repeatedly told, the British “conquered” us by adopting a “divide and rule” policy. How many pencils have snapped in classrooms when teacher after teacher has used it as an example of how easy it is to break the one individual as against the collective whole. We listened, starry-eyed, for we were also told that history was important because we must learn from it and never make the same mistake again. But what we were not told—perhaps because none of our people realised it—that even though the British left in 1947, they put into place a final diabolical plan that even today continues to rip our soul apart, turns brother against brother, and leaves us as a race fighting a perennial war that actually never should have happened. Unless we look into the mirror of time, put aside all other compulsive arguments that start with the word “but”, we frankly do not stand a chance. The greed for power, their own vested interests having taken over the narrative somewhere along the way, continues to propel us forward.Just as a single cog at Plassey led to a collapse, until the embers of Kashmir and other such similar “hot spots” are not extinguished, we will continue to remain a fractured entity.


The British on their part always looked at India as India. The Indic identity existed long before they came and though over time the physical boundaries of Empires of yore shifted this way and that, they were in essence only political lines that have no meaning in the annals of time. The concept of modern day “frontiers” was introduced for the first time by Lord Curzon when he was the Viceroy of India between 1898 and 1911, and in keeping with his thought process, various expeditions were launched such as the ones undertaken by Captains Morshead and Bailey which in 1914 became the scientific bases of delineating the boundary between India and Tibet.


In 1991, along with Lieutenant General Adi Meherji Sethna and Dipti Bhalla we were discussing doing a series of historical films with Rajiv Gandhi on the Indian Armed Forces. Though he had lost the India’s Prime Ministership to V.P. Singh two years before, Gandhi was widely expected to be elected back to power later that year. The former Prime Minister seemed to have been fairly well briefed about the synopsis that we had sent to him earlier, but my remark that we wanted to start the series from 1919 had his complete interest… We don’t have any documentary proof as yet, Sir, but we have reason to believe that the India Office had actually prepared a detailed plan for the partition of India into three separate states—Hindustan, Pakistan and Princesstan. I don’t think they were serious about the Princesstan bit, but had included it as a bargaining chip to counter any opposition from the Congress Party to make Pakistan a reality.


I was referring to the plan drawn up in 1919, where in conjunction with the Colonial Office, the Admiralty, MI 5 and MI 6, the India Office was tasked with the preparing of a blueprint that would protect British strategic interests on the subcontinent with regards to the oil fields in Persia and the Middle East. Working on a strategy that took into consideration an 1857-like scenario where a massive uprising would force the British to leave the subcontinent, the plan was prepared wherein India would be divided into three parts. This was submitted to the House of Commons, but it was rejected. In the meantime, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre happened, and the British evoked the Rowlatt Act and talk of Home Rule just fizzled out. However, the seeds of creating Pakistan primarily to serve British interests in West Asia and to counter the Russian threat from the direction of the Parmirs had been created, and it became the unofficial document that influenced events thereafter.

“The concept of a Muslim state was first advocated by Iqbal in 1930. The very word—Pakistan—only came into play three years later,” General Sethna had added, “it was first mentioned by Rahmat Ali in 1933.” Then, much to our collective amazement, Gandhi said, “The document you are talking about was indeed prepared at that time and it was declassified some years ago. I have it here.” Unfortunately, though we were to meet again to take the discussion forward, Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by the Tamil Tigers at Sriperumbudur while attending a public meeting. With him went our dream of making that document public.

The fate of India—and that of Kashmir—had been sealed in 1919 itself. Apart from wanting to retain control over the oil fields, the British plan to divide the subcontinent was also influenced by the Great Game that obsessed British military thought extensively. Kashmir’s remoteness over the years had hidden its strategic importance from the eyes of most Indian leaders, who in any case had far more immediate problems to deal with than to think of geopolitical issues.


The famed overland trading route, the Silk Road, was to Kashmir’s north. Linking Central Asia with China by way of Tibet this route was well worn by successive caravans and conquering armies some of whom included the Kashmir Valley in their grand designs. The state of Jammu and Kashmir was the largest and one of the most populous of the 562 principalities which dotted the map of India prior to the partition in 1947. It comprised an area of 84,471 square miles. Like most of the princely states during the British period, Kashmir was characterised by absolute autocracy in its internal affairs and a predominantly agrarian economy with a high concentration of land ownership. It had a constitutional status, encompassed in the doctrine of paramountcy, which acknowledged British suzerainty in all matters pertaining to defence, foreign affairs and communications, in exchange for a large measure of internal autonomy.

The India Office plan of 1919, despite being officially junked, had a natural supporter in one of the greatest champions of colonialism, and ironically the man at the helm of affairs when the Empire finally began to unravel, Winston Churchill. In October 1929, when Lord Irwin, the Viceroy, suggested Dominion Status for India, Churchill led protests in London calling the idea “not only fantastic in itself but criminally mischievous in its effects” and called upon his countrymen to marshal “the sober and resolute forces of the British Empire” against the granting of self-government to India. Over the next two years, Churchill delivered dozens of speeches where he worked up, in the most un-sober form, the forces hostile to the winning of political independence by people with brown or black skins.

Lest we dismiss Churchill’s outburst as that of an out of office politician at that time, it is worth recalling some of his other utterances about Indians in general. During the war years, Leopold Charles Amery, a contemporary of Churchill from Harrow, was the Secretary of State for India. Despite the fact that the fate of the subcontinent had been a keen issue of dispute between Churchill and Amery for many years, the Amery diaries underline the British Premier’s stance on India in no uncertain terms. In March 1941, when Amery expressed his anxiety about the growing cleavage between Muslims and Hindus in India, Churchill at once said: “Oh, but that is all to the good” because it would help the British stay a while longer. Further, in September 1942, quoting Churchill, the Amery diary reads: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” A year later, when the question of grain being sent to the victims of the Bengal famine came up in a Cabinet meeting, Churchill intervened with a “flourish on Indians breeding like rabbits and being paid a million a day by us for doing nothing by us about the war”.


The National Archives of Pakistan had also brought out the first series of Jinnah papers comprising two volumes in three parts. Dr I.H. Qureshi, sometime Professor of History at St. Stephens, and later Vice-Chancellor, Karachi University, confirms that Winston Churchill was closely in touch with Jinnah since the early 1930s and had done the initial spadework to accept the Partition plan. Historians had wondered who Elizabeth Gilliat was whom Jinnah was writing to on a fairly regular basis. For long it was thought that it was a fictitious name that Churchill had adopted. However, Elizabeth Gilliat was Churchill’s Secretary. As Churchill’s rival, Clement Attlee sought to hurriedly transfer power, Churchill was playing counsellor to Jinnah privately. He advised Jinnah that they should not be seen together in public while all correspondence should be addressed to “Miss E.A. Gilliatt, 6 Westminster Gardens, London”.


The “moth eaten-Pakistan” that Jinnah eventually got (the reference chiefly being to not having the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir under Pakistan’s control after Independence), suggests that larger plans and promises had been made. Even when Jinnah was adopting dilatory tactics in accepting the Partition plan as he was opposed to the partition of Punjab and Bengal, Churchill had sent a message which Mountbatten had conveyed to Jinnah that all British troops would be taken away from India, if Jinnah didn’t accept the Partition plan. Churchill had added, “By God, Jinnah is the only man who can’t do without British help”.

A hundred years have passed since the diabolical plan to split India was first conceived and tabled, and yet successive generations in both India and Pakistan, and in Kashmir, have failed to see the truth for what it is. If anything, the divisions that never existed on the ground a century ago today feel like deep schisms that are perhaps unsurmountable. To think that Churchill, an ex-Prime Minister himself, was acting on his own would be naivety in the extreme. In all probability, MI 5, MI 6 and just about every other British policy-making group would have been involved, for it was a matter of protecting British interests on the Indian subcontinent. That British interests later morphed into US and Chinese interests in subsequent years is altogether a different story, but the generations of today must dig deep into history to realise that this endless war (there simply cannot be another word for it) was never an India-Pakistan issue. The Anglo-Saxon bandmasters have perhaps long gone, but unfortunately their place has been taken by small men on all sides of the border who have continued to play the Game.

          The pawns, tragically, are you and me!

                                                              

Shiv Kunal Verma is the author of “1962: The War That Wasn’t” and “The Long Road to Siachen: The Question Why”.

This is the third of a six part-series on Kashmir. The first and the second parts were published on 22 August and 29 August


VOICES


RICH MAN, POOR MAN

Having served repeatedly in Jammu and Kashmir throughout my career, the difference between the haves and have nots in the Valley was stunning. Rural Kashmir, beautiful and serene, was so backward that pregnant women would have to be carried over treacherous terrain for kilometres to get to a hospital to deliver a child. And yet, year after year, J&K received a lion’s share of funds from the Centre. Unfortunately, no genuine Che Guevaras who cared for the people stepped into that void, only a stream of gun-toting mercenaries sent in by Pakistan who unleashed a brand of terror that kept the kettle boiling. It is so important that Kashmir’s youth can look into the rear mirror of time so they can gauge for themselves who were and are the people who let them down.

Gen Vijay Kumar Singh (Retd), MOS& Former Chief of Army Staff


THE TRAGEDY OF KASHMIR

The first two articles in this series have been most interesting and certainly have my undivided attention. Hair-raising in places, infuriating in others (the brazen blackmail of the Abdullah dynasty and the impotent silence of the governor, an army chief no less), is eye-opening and thrilling overall. One wishes one had led half the life of excitement the writer has! Superbly written, like everything else from him.

Having travelled extensively in Sinkiang, the region to the immediate north of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, it saddens me we as a people have no idea of what lies beyond and to the west of the Karakoram range. At a time when our government is bringing about sweeping changes in our education policy, it is imperative that both the geography and history of the subcontinent, especially the events that unfolded post-1947, are brought into the gambit. Only once we know what happened, can we as an enlightened society hope to rectify some mistakes or else we are doomed to stay forever within the vicious cauldron that has been unleashed upon us.

K.V.K. Murthy, Bangalore

THE VIEW FROM LONDON

Excellent articles by Shiv Kunal Verma, which has also been widely read by my immediate neighbours, of whom almost 90% have migrated to the UK from what the Pakistanis like to call Azad Kashmir. According to them, their native region is totally under developed and the only development they have seen are the comfortable terrorist camps. Having been a part of Tiger Tops myself, I remember the days the author talks about vividly, including the flashy visits by Dr Abdullah to our office on his motorcycle. With vested interests on both sides dominating the narrative—Pakistani generals on the one side and Indian politicians on the other—almost all without exception men with clay feet, the people have had virtually no chance. It’s not just the gun-toting thugs who are indulging in rape, there are many wolves in sheep’s clothing as well. Ah, my heart bleeds and I’m glad The Sunday Guardian is stepping up to the plate.

Captain Padam Singh, London

THE HAVES & HAVE NOTS

From 1978 until 1988 I was lucky enough to have spent virtually every summer in the fabled Vale of Kashmir leading treks and setting up fishing camps in remote parts of the Kashmir and Ladakh. Even as a youngster with little attention to spare for the serious issues of politics and economics, it was hard to ignore how different Kashmir was in the way it was governed from other states of India. This was a time when one hardly ever saw armed police. And yet in Srinagar there were BSF posts that had LMGs and sandbags and fully armed troops. Security at the airport was at a level unknown elsewhere. The corruption—even by Indian standards—was astonishing. Nothing moved without a bribe and the bribes were demanded and given openly and on a scale I had never experienced. In the remote villages which we passed through on our treks and fishing expeditions, the scale of poverty was incongruous when set against the beauty of the landscape and the people. It was apparent, even then, that something was badly broken in the state. When Farooq Abdullah came to power, the polarization between supporters and opponents was marked. In Srinagar one sensed a sullen, smouldering anger at his profligacy and misplaced developmental goals. And rumours were rife of his involvement with a nascent religious extremism. I remember clearly the huge relief and optimism that Mr Jagmohan’s rule brought to the state and the subsequent anger and frustration when Rajiv Gandhi once again turned to Farooq Abdullah to form a government. It was rigged. And Kashmir, in my memory at least, seemed lost at that point.

Hashim Tyabji, Hyderabad