On Tuesday 19 Aug 2008 8:22:46 pm Biju Chacko wrote: > I've never understood the kneejerk Indian opposition to a plebiscite > in Kashmir. Why would a supposedly free and democratic nation object > to the principle of self-determination? Shiv, perhaps you could > explain that to me -- since you seem well versed in the issues.
Briefly the sequence of events is as follows: 1947 - British India split into India and Pakistan. 600 odd "Independent states" ruled by kings/princes asked to decide whether they wanted to join India or Pakistan as per the legal terms of the agreement. Maharaja Hari Singh of the independent princely state of Kashmir tries to buy time to decide by signing "holding treaties" with India and Pakistan. India agrees. Pakistan doesn't. Pakistani irregulars backed by Army in Mufti attack Kashmir - and overwhelm Hari Singh's defences and almost reach Srinagar. They are literally held up because they waste time raping and pillaging. Hari Singh hollers for help from India and signs the accession agreement to join India in exchange for help. By 1948, Indian forces push back raiders from Kashmir to what is the present "Line of Control" and are poised to retake the rest of Kashmir At this stage, Nehru inexplicably goes to the UN and agrees to a UN mandated cease fire and agrees (offers) to hold a plebiscite. The terms for holding the Plebiscite (agreed in 1948) are 1) Pakistani forces to leave the occupied territory first 2) Indian forces to leave after that 3) Plebiscite to be held. It turns out that Pakistani forces did not leave and neither did the Indian forces. Much water has flowed down the Jhelum since. Nehru's plebiscite decision was never popular in India and he came in for much criticism. Pakistani troops not pulling out was a convenient excuse and a perfectly valid one from the legal standpoint. The plebiscite agreement is now defunct for many reasons and can be discarded as a data point in history. Nothing will bring it back. Despite my references to India as a weak state and Indians as meek, Indian actions in history do not really support that contention 100%. Indian forces made sure that Hyderabad's recalcitrant Nizam was defeated and the state joined India. The Portuguese were summarily evicted after military action after they failed to leave. I believe that the biggest error made by Pakistani leaders was to underestimate India. But in many ways the formation of the country was a mistake. But I can't see what else would have happened. I have written an article about my views on the effect of partition on Indian Muslims that is currently online (for reader comments). The link below leads to that article. http://www.adl.gatech.edu/research/brmsrr/2008/BRMv7No1PartitionFactor080806.pdf Use the link below for comments http://brmsrr.blogspot.com/2008/08/partition-factor-in-status-of-indian.html shiv
