History of Kashmir Issue

The History of the Kashmir Conflict

According to tradition, the word "Kashmir" is derived from the Sanskrit word Kashmira, meaning "a land devoid of water."

Kashmir Geography

"Kashmir is Red Line in between India & Pakistan"

The Kashmir Valley is located in the far northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent.

Until August 14, 1947, during British rule, the total area of the state of Jammu and Kashmir was 135,942 square kilometers. The Jammu province covered 19,921 square kilometers, Kashmir province spanned 13,742 square kilometers, and Ladakh province extended over 102,285 square kilometers. According to the 1941 census, the total population of the state was 4,021,616.

Kashmir Significance for Pakistan Agriculture

Three major rivers, the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab, flow through the valleys of Kashmir. The Indus River originates from Ladakh, passes through Gilgit-Baltistan, and enters the plains of Punjab. The Jhelum River emerges from the Pir Panjal range, joins the Neelum River in Muzaffarabad, and flows through the central Kashmir Valley before reaching the plains. The Chenab River forms the southern part of Kashmir, encompassing most of Jammu, before entering Punjab.

The first Indo-Pakistani war over Kashmir lasted from October 22, 1947, to January 5, 1949—about one year, two months, and fifteen days. After the ceasefire, the territorial divisions stood as follows: Indian-occupied Jammu covered 19,921 square kilometers, Indian-occupied Kashmir 11,093 square kilometers, Indian-occupied Ladakh 15,901 square kilometers, Pakistan-administered Azad Kashmir 6,669 square kilometers, and Gilgit-Baltistan 47,983 square kilometers. Additionally, after the 1962 Sino-Indian war, China gained control of 14,983 square kilometers in Ladakh, which included the 3,006 square kilometers ceded by Pakistan to China shortly after the conflict.

The Rulers of Kashmir

For centuries, the people of Kashmir lived under the rule of various dynasties, including the Pandavas, Mauryas, Kushans, Gonandiyas, Karkotas, Utpalas, and Loharas. Kashmir's history can be divided into four major periods: the ancient Hindu era, which is documented in Kalhana Pandit's Rajatarangini; the era of Muslim Sultans, known as the Sultanate of Kashmir; the Mughal period under the Mughal emperors; and the Durrani period under the Afghan rulers.

In the eighth century, Arab Muslims made several attempts to conquer Kashmir. During the eleventh century, when Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Punjab, Raja Champala sought assistance from Kashmir’s ruler, Raja Sangram. Despite sending a large army, Raja Sangram was forced to retreat after a failed attempt to capture Kashmir due to severe winter weather and snowfall.

In the fourteenth century, a fleeing Buddhist prince from Ladakh named Rinchen became Kashmir’s Prime Minister and then its king in 1320. Under the influence of the Sufi saint Bulbul Shah, Rinchen converted to Islam and adopted the name Sultan Sadruddin, becoming Kashmir's first Muslim ruler. He appointed Shah Mir, a Muslim leader from Swat, as his Prime Minister. After Sadruddin’s death, Shah Mir established the Muslim Sultanate in Kashmir in 1339, marking the beginning of a period during which Islam flourished in the region. Artisans from abroad were brought to Kashmir, teaching locals their craft, which led to the Kashmiri shawl becoming a celebrated brand.

In 1586, Mughal Emperor Akbar annexed Kashmir, incorporating it into the Mughal Empire as one of its provinces.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh and the Rise of the Sikh Empire

Maharaja Ranjit Singh was born on November 13, 1780, in Gujranwala to the leader of the Sukerchakia Misl, Mahan Singh. At the age of 12, Ranjit Singh succeeded his father as the leader and, at 16, married into the Kanhaiya Misl, which strengthened his position by merging two powerful Sikh factions. This was a period of intense power struggles in the Indian subcontinent, with the Mughal Empire weakening and new forces trying to assert dominance.

Following the death of Ahmad Shah Abdali in 1772, the Afghan grip over Punjab began to weaken. In 1799, Ranjit Singh captured Lahore, defeating the rival Bhangi Misl, and declared himself the Maharaja of Punjab. He successfully defended the region against Afghan invasions and, in 1819, extended his rule to Kashmir by defeating the local resistance. However, Kashmiri Muslims continued to resist Sikh rule, with guerrilla warfare persisting until after 1837.

The Dogra Rule under Gulab Singh

Gulab Singh Jamwal, son of Raja Kishore Singh of Jammu, rose to prominence in the army of Maharaja Ranjit Singh due to his military prowess and conquests, including the annexation of Ladakh and Baltistan. After the First Anglo-Sikh War in 1846, the British East India Company sold Kashmir to Gulab Singh for 7.5 million rupees, making him the first Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. Gulab Singh established Dogra rule, which lasted until the partition of India in 1947.

Under Gulab Singh’s regime, Kashmiri peasants were reduced to serfs on their own land, forced to pay taxes to the Maharaja. In the wake of rising oppression, protests began, leading to a historic revolt on July 13, 1931, when a large crowd gathered outside the Srinagar Central Jail to support Abdul Qadir, a political dissident. The British-backed Dogra authorities opened fire on the protesters, killing 20 people. This day is now commemorated as Martyrs' Day in Kashmir.

The Role of Sheikh Abdullah and the Quest for Kashmiri Self-determination

In the early 20th century, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah emerged as a leading figure in the Kashmir struggle. In 1932, Sheikh Abdullah, along with Prem Nath Bazaz, led a movement for land reforms and economic justice. Abdullah renamed the Muslim Conference as the National Conference in 1938, broadening its membership to include non-Muslims and promoting a vision of land reforms to benefit Kashmir’s impoverished population.

Although Abdullah initially aligned himself with socialist ideals and opposed the idea of a two-nation theory, his refusal to support Pakistan after the partition of India in 1947 became a turning point. Despite Pakistan's overtures, Sheikh Abdullah favored India, which led to Kashmir’s controversial accession to India under Maharaja Hari Singh.

In the subsequent decades, Abdullah’s policies and India's military presence solidified Indian control over Kashmir, despite the widespread desire for self-determination among the Kashmiri population. The conflict remains unresolved, with Kashmir being a flashpoint between India, Pakistan, and China, and the aspirations of the Kashmiri people caught in the midst of a geopolitical struggle.

The Times of London, in its publication dated October 10, 1947, reported that during this period, the death toll of Muslims had reached 237,000. In response to these atrocities, local Muslims, under the leadership of Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan, launched a counter-offensive and successfully drove the Dogra forces out of Mirpur. Meanwhile, in Muzaffarabad, Muslim soldiers within the Dogra army rebelled, killing their commander, Lieutenant Colonel, and his staff, sparking a mutiny against Dogra rule. As a result of this uprising, the Dogra ruler fled to Jammu and never returned to his capital, Srinagar. He neither regained full control over Kashmir nor could he grant the Kashmiris their rightful freedoms.

When news of the Dogra atrocities reached the tribal regions, the Mehsud and Afridi tribes from Waziristan marched to aid the Muslims of Kashmir. By the night of October 25, they had reached Baramulla, just a night’s march away from Srinagar—and Kashmir’s liberation was within reach.

The connection between Kabul and Kashmir dates back centuries. In 1947, when a religious leader from Kabul, Mullah Sahib Shor Bazaar, received reports of atrocities against Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir, he called upon his followers to wage jihad in Kashmir. This call mobilized several tribes from both Afghanistan and Pakistan towards the region.

However, the tribesmen faltered, becoming distracted by looting and indulgence instead of pressing forward. Meanwhile, India persuaded the Maharaja, who was hiding in Jammu, to sign the Instrument of Accession. Esteemed British historian Alastair Lamb, in his book Birth of a Tragedy: Kashmir 1947, challenges anyone to prove otherwise, asserting that this document was not written by the Maharaja in Srinagar but typed in Delhi and forcibly signed in Jammu on October 26, 1947. India then deployed its troops to Kashmir. Lord Mountbatten handed over all aircraft to Congress, and author Ian Stephens describes this moment as if the Governor's House in India resembled a war-torn headquarters, with Mountbatten assuming the role of a determined war leader. Indian troops landed in Srinagar before the Kashmiri fighters could reach the airport. On the other hand, Pakistan's General Gracey refused to comply with Quaid-e-Azam's orders to send troops to Kashmir, leaving Kashmir’s liberation, which was just one night away, unattainable even after seventy years.

As a result, on October 26, 1947, the Maharaja formally requested to join India, a request that Lord Mountbatten accepted the next day with the condition that once the invaders were expelled, the future of the state would be determined by the will of its people. After the 1949 ceasefire, Pakistan and India held control over roughly one-third and two-thirds of Kashmir, respectively, and the ceasefire line was later renamed the Line of Control.

On April 21, 1948, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution outlining three steps for resolving the conflict:

1.    Pakistan should withdraw all its citizens from Kashmir.

2.    India should maintain only the necessary number of troops to ensure law and order in the region.

3.    India should appoint a UN-nominated plebiscite commissioner to conduct a neutral referendum in the state.

The United Nations appointed an Australian judge, Owen Dixon, as a mediator to resolve the Kashmir issue. Dixon proposed dividing Jammu and Kashmir into four zones—Kashmir, Jammu, Ladakh, and Azad Kashmir— and suggested holding district-by-district plebiscites. He later introduced the Chenab Formula, recommending that the river Chenab serve as the boundary, allowing areas like Kupwara, Srinagar, Baramulla, Islamabad, Pulwama, Budgam, Poonch, and Rajouri to join Pakistan while Jammu would go to India. Pakistan rejected this plan.

Here, one might question whether Pakistan acted hastily in sending fighters to Kashmir. Should it have waited for the people to rise against the Maharaja on their own, leading to Kashmir’s independence without providing India an excuse to intervene?

Looking at the examples of Hyderabad and Junagadh, it would have been a miracle to see such a scenario play out. In truth, the hasty, incomplete partition of 1947 became a territorial scramble where everyone grabbed what they could. Kashmir became a victim of this historical injustice. Pakistan obtained some parts of Kashmir, while the larger, stronger party took the rest. For seventy years now, this line has been drawn without resolution. India took a step further by revoking Article 370, stripping Kashmir of its special status on August 5, 2019.

Mehbooba Mufti’s daughter, Iltija Mufti, remarked that today, everyone in Kashmir questions whether the decision to join India after partition was right or wrong. Who spoke for us at the UN? Imran Khan did, and the Kashmiri people appreciated it. Anti-India sentiment is now stronger than ever among Kashmir’s youth.

The accession agreement between Maharaja Hari Singh and Jawaharlal Nehru came with conditions. India had recognized Kashmir as a separate entity, and the accession was conditional. Indian authority was to be limited to foreign affairs, currency, and communication, while Kashmir retained its own flag, president, prime minister, and legislative powers.

Amanullah Khan, the late leader of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), wrote in his autobiography Juhd-e-Musalsal (Vol. 3) that in 1987, his party began an armed struggle for an independent Kashmir with the support of General Zia-ul-Haq. However, after Zia’s death, Hizbul Mujahideen was propped up against the JKLF. Nonetheless, by 1995, Kashmir was close to gaining its freedom.

Consider this: what is the crime of the Kashmiri people? Their "crime" is their love for freedom, their unwavering affection for Pakistan. India may be willing to offer them anything, but the Kashmiris desire only Pakistan. Do we, as Pakistanis, love our country as much as the Kashmiris love Pakistan? It is time for us to stand with them just as they have stood for us. The Kashmiris are more loyal to Pakistan than many Pakistanis themselves. Betraying the Kashmiris is akin to betraying Pakistan. Today, we need to inform the world that India's renewed military aggression and use of cluster bombs along the Line of Control are motivated by fears that, once the U.S. withdraws from Kabul, the global focus will shift to Kashmir. Despite India’s actions, Kashmiris will continue to fight for their freedom.

Kashmir has become a bitter pill for Pakistan—one it can neither swallow nor spit out. Over the years, Pakistan has made several attempts to reclaim Kashmir, all to no avail. Meanwhile, Pakistan spends around 1,500 billion rupees annually on defense, largely citing Kashmir as the reason, but this spending continues to yield losses. This defense expenditure diverts funds away from human development projects, stifling the country’s growth and pushing Pakistan further into debt. The nations and institutions that lend to Pakistan impose their own policies on both Pakistan and Kashmir, nullifying the purpose for which the loans were taken. This cycle, however, benefits only a few powerful generals, while the public is fed empty slogans and dreams of Kashmir’s liberation.

In 1965, Pakistan engaged in Operation Gibraltar under the guise of liberating Kashmir, but the real aim was to distract from electoral rigging. Ironically, just three years earlier, when China had India cornered in Ladakh in 1962, it had invited Ayub Khan to take action and liberate Kashmir. But Ayub, fearing the loss of his own power, wouldn’t act without U.S. approval. As a result of the 1965 war, Pakistan ultimately lost East Pakistan. In 1999, Pakistan again suffered the consequences of pursuing Kashmir’s liberation, this time through the Kargil Operation, which brought about another damaging dictatorship. Today, some still argue that had Nawaz Sharif not capitulated in 1999, Kashmir would have been freed. But if that were true, why was Kashmir not liberated between 1999 and 2008?

In 2007, Pervez Musharraf and Manmohan Singh agreed on a solution to the Kashmir issue similar to what Dixon had proposed, which Nehru had also advocated.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, in his 1967 book The Myth of Independence, wrote that Nehru’s vision aligned with that of RSS leader Savarkar—both believed in a united India, and Nehru sought not only to annex Kashmir but also to dismantle Pakistan. Four years after the book’s publication, Pakistan was indeed divided. Bhutto warned that every conspiracy against Pakistan had U.S. support, and this alliance would persist. The U.S. and India aim to erase Pakistan’s existence, and the Kashmiris are fighting for Pakistan’s survival. We hanged Bhutto, but we must not ignore his warning: the enemy’s sights are not only set on Azad Kashmir but also on Pakistan.

Given Pakistan’s emotional attachment to Kashmir, military dictators have used the issue to claim valor and cling to power, yet the result has always been the same—zero. Shouldn’t we reconsider our Kashmir policy? We can maintain our principled stance on Kashmir, but why not engage with the rest of the world on other matters?

Take China’s policy on Taiwan as an example. China considers Taiwan an integral part of its territory and refuses to recognize it as an independent state. Any country that recognizes Taiwan faces diplomatic consequences with China. Yet, despite this, Taiwan maintains trade relations with both the U.S. and China. Taiwan’s companies operate freely in China, and Chinese billionaires do business in Taiwan. Taiwan imports Chinese products, while China has never physically attacked Taiwan. Why can’t Pakistan adopt a similar model with regard to Kashmir? Taiwan remains a non-issue for China on the global stage, and trade continues despite political tensions. Can we not move beyond traditional confrontational tactics and build a more prosperous future while still upholding our principles?

This reflection reminds us that the Kashmir issue, while deeply ingrained in our national psyche, requires fresh thinking and new strategies for progress.