Kashmir V: On Plebiscite

1. What is a plebiscite?

A plebiscite can be defined as "vote in which a population exercises the right of national self determination".

2. Who promised the people of Jammu & Kashmir a plebiscite?

Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, and Lord Mountbatten, Governor General of India, promised a plebiscite to the Raja Hari Singh, and to the people of Jammu & Kashmir, and it was accepted by India as a part of UN resolution of 1948.

3. Did India ever implement a plebiscite in Jammu & Kashmir?

No.

4. What is a ‘disputed territory’ during the time of Partition?

In 1947, when India and Pakistan were carved out of Indian sub-continent, Radcliffe divided the ‘British controlled India’ into India and Pakistan. Outside British controlled India, there were 565 princely states in India at that time. Lord Mountbatten and British Parliament with consent from Queen of England offered these princely states to join India or Pakistan. Independence was not assured; request to join British Empire was declined; but no explicit mandate was given to any of these princely states to join India or Pakistan. It was up to these two newly formed countries- Pakistan and India, to coax, or persuade each princely state to join either country; and Lord Mountbatten was assigned to help these two countries secure these dominions. A ‘disputed territory’, as they are usually referred to during the time of Independence and Partition, is a region to which both Pakistan and India laid a claim. When it comes to most of the kingdoms it was a logical conclusion whether it would join India or Pakistan – and each country went about pursuing and coaxing the Princes to join their country. However, there were three disputed regions at that point of time- Junagarh, Hyderabad, and Kashmir. The Kings of Junagarh and Hyderabad were both Muslim and wanted to join Pakistan but their kingdoms were predominantly Hindu. Moreover, their kingdoms were not contiguous to Pakistan and were actually lying inside India. Land-locked kingdoms were not given an option to join non-contiguous countries. Geographical separation was as much required in addition to the opinion of majority of population. King of Jammu & Kashmir was a Hindu and didn’t want to join India or Pakistan. His kingdom was predominantly Muslim. Though it was tacitly agreed by India that Kashmir would go to Pakistan owing to its Muslim majority and it being contiguous to Pakistan (and India as well), it laid claim to this kingdom when they realized that that King of Jammu & Kashmir was not joining Pakistan despite many attempts by Pakistan to coax him into signing accession.

5. Did India ever implement a plebiscite in any other disputed territory?

Yes, in Junagarh. But it was done in a haphazard way. Very few voted and hence India ignored its results and went onto occupy it. Pakistan did not protest much though the Nawab of Junagarh had already acceded to Pakistan. It was generally agreed by everyone (both India and Pakistan) that it could not have joined Pakistan without a contiguous border.

6. Did India send its troops into any of the disputed regions?

Yes, to all the three regions. To Junagarh and Hyderabad, India sent its troops against the wishes of the King. These forced accession were rationalized because India had a massive support from local population who were predominantly Hindu. To Kashmir, India sent its troops at the behest of the King of Jammu & Kashmir only after he signed accession to India (when he faced aggression from tribal people of Pakistan).

7. What was the rational for annexing Junagarh and Hyderabad to Indian Union?

They were predominantly Hindu, while the Kings were Moslem. Though the kings wished to join Pakistan, the people wished otherwise. A referendum or the opinion of the people and not that of King was the prevailing logic that was applied to rationalize all accessions. India conducted a plebiscite in Junagarh, but In Hyderabad, the massive support of population after the infamous or glorified armed ousting of Nizam did not make it necessary to justify the accession. Both Junagarh and Hyderabad did not have a contiguous border with Pakistan.

8. Was the same rationale applied to Kashmir?

No. Kashmir was predominantly Muslim and had a contiguous border with both India and Pakistan. King of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India against the claims of Pakistan to its Muslim population. If the same rationale had been applied to Jammu and Kashmir, the state would have acceded to Pakistan, and its Hindu and Buddhist population would have migrated to India (as it happened in case of Punjab or Bengal).

9. How did Kashmir become a legal entity in Indian Union?

In 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Treaty of Accession by which the state became a part of India. But the people of that state were promised a plebiscite. No referendum or plebiscite took place. Later in 1952, Constituent Assembly of Kashmir, consisting of leaders of that state ratified the Accession, but retained autonomous powers. Subsequently these autonomous powers were slowly reduced. In 1974, Kashmir Accord made Jammu & Kashmir an integral part of India overthrowing these autonomous powers completely (but retained Article 370).

10. Is the ratification of Constituent Assembly same as plebiscite?

No. The UN resolution asks for mandate from the people, not the elected leaders.