The Kashmir Issue: A Brief Overview and Possible Solution

"What is the Kashmir issue, what is its background, and what could be its possible solution? The majority of our new generation knows little about it, and their connection with the Kashmir issue is merely emotional. Today, I want to present the case of Kashmir before you so that we can understand the current situation and what our responsibilities are in this regard.

According to international documents, Kashmir is a disputed territory. The boundaries of this region are such that it includes: the state of Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, Gilgit, Baltistan, and Skardu, etc., which we call the Northern Areas, and the Ladakh region on the Chinese border. This entire region is called Kashmir.

The dispute between Pakistan and India over Kashmir began in 1947. Before that, this entire region comprising Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, etc., was known as 'India' (Muttahida Hindustan) and was ruled by the British. The British had begun to seize power from the Mughals 190 years earlier in 1757 AD and completed their occupation by 1857 AD. After that, the British Crown ruled directly here for ninety years. When the British began to leave India, a large majority of Muslims demanded a separate country, arguing that they could not live together with Hindus due to cultural and civilizational differences. This led to the Pakistan Movement, and eventually, the country was divided into two parts.

In this partition, one principle was agreed upon: the areas with a Muslim majority would join Pakistan, and the areas with a non-Muslim majority would remain in India. Since present-day Bangladesh was a Muslim-majority area, it became a part of Pakistan named East Pakistan in this partition and maintained this status until 1971. Similarly, Sindh, Balochistan, the Frontier (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), and West Punjab joined Pakistan because they were Muslim-majority areas. The situation with Punjab was such that, West Punjab was a Muslim-majority part of the province, while East Punjab had a mixed population of Hindus and Sikhs, so the division of Punjab was decided. West Punjab, which includes Lahore, Sialkot, Narowal, Shakargarh, etc., came to Pakistan's share. And East Punjab, which includes Amritsar, Ludhiana, and Haryana, etc., came to India's share.

United India had hundreds of small and large princely states. There were states directly ruled by the British and those called semi-autonomous states with which the British had treaties. The general nature of these treaties was that internal autonomy belonged to the Nawab or Maharaja of the state, while federal powers such as currency, foreign policy, communications, defense, etc., were the responsibility of the British government. The few states that joined Pakistan included Bahawalpur, Swat, Kalat, Khairpur, Chitral, and Dir, among others. In some of the joining states a Sharia judicial system was also in force even during the British era, such as in the states of Swat, Bahawalpur, and Dir, where the Qada (Islamic justice) system was prevalent. At the time of the partition of United India, it was decided that the rulers of these states could choose to accede to either Pakistan or India. The accession of the areas to Pakistan took place under this very principle.

The case of Kashmir was somewhat different, where the majority was Muslim, but the government was that of a Dogra Hindu family. The entire region of Kashmir, which is now divided into different parts, was ruled by the Dogra dynasty. Thus, Maharaja Hari Singh, against the inclination of Kashmir's Muslim majority, announced accession to India at the time of the partition, and the Indian army entered Kashmir and occupied it. This led to the Muslims of Kashmir declaring a rebellion against the government. The Dogra rulers had been committing much cruelty even before, which is a long story, but the Dogra Maharaja's accession to India sparked a rebellion among the Muslims, which started a new phase of the freedom movement. The people of Gilgit were the first to begin the fighting, in which scholars (Ulama) and the general public all participated. Similarly, in the areas of the Kashmir Valley, scholars initiated the struggle for freedom based on the Fatwa (religious decree) of Jihad. Here too, scholars and tribal chiefs collectively participated in the Jihad. Besides this, Mujahideen (freedom fighters) from the tribal areas and the Pakistan Army also participated in this fighting, and as a result, the freedom fighters reached the gates of Srinagar. The current liberated areas like Mirpur, Muzaffarabad, Rawalakot, etc., were all liberated during this rebellion against the Dogra government.

When Srinagar was close to being conquered, the Indian Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, went to the United Nations for a ceasefire and promised that they would accept whatever decision the United Nations made. Consequently, the United Nations put pressure on Pakistan to stop the fighting and, through its resolutions, promised that the decision regarding Kashmir would be made by the people of Kashmir through a plebiscite. UN resolutions in this regard have appeared at various times, but despite three-quarters of a century having passed, this plebiscite has not yet been held, the main reason being India's influence and pressure at the international level.

One thing often said about the Kashmir issue is, "How can you talk about the division of a region on religious grounds in this era?" To this, my submission is: on what basis was the division of Israel done, and who did it? The United Nations did, didn't it? Similarly, who orchestrated the separation of the Eastern region of the Indonesian island of Timor into a separate Christian state? And who later granted separate statehood to the Christian-majority area in South Sudan? Yet, here in Kashmir, you ask how the division can be based on religion, while Pakistan itself was created on the basis of religion.

The role of the United Nations regarding the Kashmir issue is before us, but the common organization of Muslim governments, the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), has also played virtually no role in preventing oppression and tyranny against Muslims in regions like Palestine, Kashmir, Arakan, Xinjiang, etc.

This is the case of Kashmir that I have briefly presented to you. In this regard, the first request I would make is to our own state: Pakistan's role in this case is not merely that of a supporter; rather, Pakistan is a party against India in the United Nations, and we must maintain the continuity of this role. My second request is to the scholars and the government of Azad Kashmir: the regions of Kashmir that are currently part of Azad Kashmir were liberated as a result of the Fatwa of Jihad and the act of Jihad. So, my question concerns the status of that Fatwa of Jihad today. If it still holds, whose responsibility is it to carry it forward? I would request the government and scholars of Azad Kashmir to formulate a principled stance and a plan of action in this regard, and to take the government institutions of Pakistan into confidence and not overlook them."