Kashmir, which is known to be as Switzerland of east and dreamed to be more than that, is now a war torn and most disputed territory of the world with typical complexities. What conditions aggravated to such a situation of Kashmir?. Carefully observing the chronological events dating back from independence of India, here the sufferers are Kashmiri people and betrayed are the citizens of both Pakistan and India and finally to be blamed are the media and politicians of both the countries.
Jammu and Kashmir which is known for its picturesque lakes and snow covered hilly tracts was ruled by maharaja Harisingh of Dogra Rajput clan at the time of independence. Here the anomaly is Muslim majority princely state ruled by a Hindu king and with sizeable number of Hindu and Buddhist population in Jammu and Ladakh. In 1947 Maharaja Harisingh was in a state of vacillation and finally decide not to join the either of the territories of India and Pakistan. On 15th August 1947 ,J&K not joined either of the India and Pakistan and offered to sign a standstill agreement with both the countries , which would allow free movement of people and goods across the borders. Here another important person to be mentioned was Sheik Abudallah, who was a postgraduate in science from Aligarh University and started All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference which later became “National conference” including Hindus and Sikhs, giving a shape to the growing opposition towards Maharaja but who finally became the prime minister to Maharaja Harisingh.
As Maharajas relations with Pakistan deteriorated and Pakistan prepared to send infiltrators to enter to Kashmir in considerable numbers. On 22nd October they crossed the border that separated the North-west frontier provinces from Kashmir with rifles and ammunition supplied from Pakistan and paved their way to the city of Srinagar. It is described by Pakistan as spontaneous rushing of Pathan Muslims to aid co-religionists persecuted by a Hindu king and Hindu administration. In mean while Maharaja signed instrument of accession with India and India send troops to Srinagar. Indian army pushed back the raiders and most of the territory was reclaimed but Still 1/3rd portion of Kashmir was in the hands of raiders. With onset of winter the military operations were stopped and curtain for unending drama was raised with typical behavior of unpredictable twists and turns.
India ie idealistic Nehru with socialistic perspective decided to take the issue to newly born imperialistic dominated United Nations on the issue of Kashmir, which finally became India Pakistan question .Nehru bitterly regretted on taking the issue to UN, which favored the cause Pakistan in new era of global power politics on the lines upcoming capitalist socialist divide. It is a well known fact that, Nehru was a socialist and he declared as such in number of occasions, which make the US dominated UN to lean towards the Pakistan. So it is clear that since independence of India more than 1/3rd of the Kashmir is under the control of Pakistan ,then what is the need to show the entire Kashmir as a part of Indian map? I am sure that even more than 50% of India literates are in the false illusion that entire Kashmir is under the control of India and even they doesn’t know that there is a territory called as Pak occupied Kashmir(PoK). Then, what is the need injecting false pride of nationalism into Indian citizens on the name of Kashmir even without knowing the suffering of Kashmiri people and not knowing the some important facts related that. Here the people of India are betrayed by our own politicians for their electoral benefits in the name of Kashmir and hatred against Pakistan. This is not only happening in the case of India but the people on the other side of the border ie Pakistan are equally betrayed by their respective politicians.
Then coming to Kashmiris, what they want actually? Is they have any clarity on that? Whether an Independent nation or more autonomy beyond article 370 within democratic India or they want to join the Pakistan? Analyzing the each condition, if they want an independent nation, how long their sovereignty can be sustained between Pakistan and India in a land locked location? Then, if they want to assimilate to the mainstream India for a better development, is that possible with article 370 and by waving the Pakistan flags and anti- India slogans in protests. If they want to join the Pakistan, then on what lines?. Development or Religion? First option can be absolutely strike off because Pakistan matches nowhere with India in any of the fields and no need to prove that by showing statistics because it is a well established fact.
What Pakistan’s ISI tries to achieve by infiltrating mujahedeen’s in to Kashmir? Trying to instabilize India and Kashmir was nothing but a boomerang on their own developmental goals indirectly. Coming to India, if they want to absorb the kashmiris to main stream and make them to feel as Indian citizens, is Armed forces special protection act (AFSPA) an alternative giving draconian powers to Army to harass the kashmiris?
I have a strong opinion that always humanity precedes over nationalism and religion. Nation is formed and nationalism is raised for the sake of humans but not the vice versa. If humanism is at risk which is the basis for prosperity and wellbeing of a nation then there is no point of talking about false pride of nationalism in the mask of political aspirations. If peace to be established and prosperity to prevail in South Asia it can be possible only with upholding humanity and but not with nationalism which will make the things much more complex.