I am glad to have this opportunity of explaining to the House the course of events that led to our intervention in Kashmir with the aid of Armed Forces, and the attitude of the Government of India to the grave problems that have arisen in the State.
The House is aware that on the lapse of Crown Paramountcy on the 15th August this year, Kashmir did not accede to either Dominion. We were of course vitally interested in the decision that the State would take. Kashmir, because of her geographical position with her frontiers with three countries—namely, the Soviet Union, China and Afghanistan—is intimately connected with the security and international contacts of India. Economically also Kashmir is intimately related to India. The caravan trade routes from Central Asia to India pass through the Kashmir State.
Nevertheless, we did not put the slightest pressure on the State to accede to the Indian Dominion, because we realized that Kashmir was in a very difficult position. We did not want a mere accession from the top but an association in accordance with the will of her people. Indeed, we did not encourage any rapid decision. Even in regard to a standstill agreement, no speedy steps were taken by us, although Kashmir had entered into a standstill agreement with Pakistan soon after the 15th August.
We learnt later that serious external pressure was being applied on Kashmir by the Pakistan authorities by refusing to send to Kashmir supplies vital to the needs of the people, such as foodgrains, salt, sugar and petrol. Thus an attempt was being made to strangle Kashmir economically and force her to accede to Pakistan. This pressure was serious, because it was not easy for Kashmir to obtain these essential supplies from India on account of the difficulty of communications.
In September, news reached us that tribesmen of the North-West Frontier Province were being collected and sent to the Kashmir border. In the beginning of October events took a grave turn. Armed bands moved into the Jammu province from the neighbouring districts of West Punjab, committed serious acts of depredation on the local inhabitants, burnt villages and towns and put a large number of people to death. Refugees from these areas poured into Jammu.
On the Jammu side of the border, the local inhabitants, who are chiefly Hindu and Rajput, took retaliatory measures and drove out the Muslims living in those border villages. In these border conflicts a very large number of villages were destroyed or burnt by both parties on either side of the frontier.
The raiders from West Punjab into the Jammu province increased in number and spread out over that province. The Kashmir State Army which had to meet these raids at numerous points soon found itself broken into small fragments and gradually ceased to be a fighting force. The raiders were highly organized, had competent officers and modern arms. They succeeded in occupying a considerable part of the Jammu province, more especially in the Poonch area. The towns of Poonch, Mirpur, Kotli and some other places held out.
About this time the State authorities asked us to supply them with arms and ammunition. We agreed to do so in the normal course. But in fact no supply was made till events took a more serious turn. Even at this stage no mention was made of accession to India.
The leader of the popular organization in Kashmir, Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, President of the Kashmir National Conference, was released from prison during this period and we discussed the situation in Kashmir with him as well as with the representatives of the Maharaja of Kashmir. We made it clear to both of them that while we welcome the accession of Kashmir we did not want any hurried or forced accession and we would rather wait for the people to decide. Sheikh Abdullah was himself of this opinion.
On the 24th October we heard that large armed bands consisting both of tribesmen from the Frontier and ex-servicemen had broken through Muzzafarabad and were marching on Srinagar. These raiders had crossed Pakistan territory and they were equipped with Bren guns, machine-guns, mortars and flame-throwers and had at their disposal a large number of transport vehicles. They moved rapidly down the Valley, sacking and burning and looting all along the way. We gave earnest consideration to this situation in our Defence Committee on the 25th and 26th October. The position on the morning of the 26th was that the raiders were marching towards Srinagar and there was no military detachment capable of stopping them. They had been stopped for two days near Uri by the State forces under a gallant commander who resisted this advance to the point of death. These two days thus gained were very valuable.
We were asked at this stage on behalf of both the Maharaja and Sheikh Abdullah to accept the accession of the State to the Indian Union and to intervene with the Armed Forces of the Union. An immediate decision was necessary, and in fact it is now clear that if we had delayed the decision even by 24 hours, Srinagar would have fallen and would have suffered the tragic fate that befell Muzzafarabad, Baramula and other places. It was clear to us that we could not possibly accept under any circumstances the ruin of Kashmir by brutal and irresponsible raiders. This would have been a surrender to frightfulness and fanaticism of the worst type and it would have had the most serious consequences all over India. To intervene at this stage was no easy matter and was full of risks and danger. Yet we decided to face this risk and intervene because any other course would have meant ruin to Kashmir and greater danger to India.
In accepting the accession, however, we made it perfectly clear to the Maharaja that his Government must be carried on in future according to the popular will and that Sheikh Abdullah should be charged with the formation of an interim government on the new model adopted in Mysore. Sheikh Abdullah, in our opinion, had undoubtedly the support of the large majority of the people of Kashmir—Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. Further, we made it clear that as soon as law and order had been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders, the question of the State’s accession should be settled by reference to the people.
I shall not detain the House by dealing with the course of the military campaign that followed. The facts are well-known and redound to the credit of our military organization, our troops and our airmen. It must be remembered also that our operations have been very largely based on air transport in difficult circumstances. Our civil airlines and their air crews functioned with remarkable success.
One fact, however, which contributed to our success, at least as much as the military operations, was the maintenance, under the leadership of Sheikh Abdullah, of the civil administration and the morale of the civilian population. The civilian population, completely unarmed, with the enemy within a few miles of the city, behaved in a manner which showed extraordinary courage and coolness. They did so because they had a great leader and because Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs all joined together under him to throw back the enemy and to save Kashmir, their common heritage. This fact is one of the most remarkable events of recent times in India and one from which the rest of the country may well take a profitable lesson. It was certainly a factor of the most vital importance in the saving of Srinagar.
The present position is that our troops have relieved Poonch and are within eight miles of Kotli. The terrain in which they are fighting is difficult and mountainous and the roads and approaches have been destroyed by the raiders. Progress is, therefore, slow. In the Poonch area occupied by the raiders several massacres of the non-Muslim inhabitants have taken place involving a large number of persons.
I should like to say here that certain events happened near Jammu early in November which I regret very deeply. The Muslim convoys of evacuees were being taken away from Jammu when they were attacked by non-Muslim refugees and others and a large number of casualties were inflicted. The troops escorting them did not play a creditable role. I might add that none of our troops were present or had anything to do with this. We have issued the most stringent orders to our troops to protect the people, to act with impartiality and indeed to make friends with the local population. I am glad to say that they have carried out these instructions.
The House is aware that the Pakistan Government have protested emphatically against our action in Kashmir. In doing so they have used language which is not becoming any government and have alleged fraud and conspiracy on our part. I need only say that I am completely convinced that every action that the Government of India have taken in regard to Kashmir has been straight and above board and I can defend it at any time before the world. We have indeed been over-scrupulous in this matter so that nothing may be done in the passion of the moment which might be wrong. The behaviour of our Army has all along been good and worthy of our traditions.
I cannot say this of the Pakistan Government. Their case is that the genesis of the trouble was the extensive killing of Muslims in Eastern Punjab and Kashmir and that the raid on Kashmir was a spontaneous reaction to this on the part of the tribesmen. I think this is completely untrue. I regret deeply that in parts of the Jammu province Muslims were killed and driven out. This of course has had nothing to do with our Government or our forces. But this mutual killing has been a very tragic feature during these past months in the Punjab, and Jammu was powerfully affected by this. We have sufficient evidence in our possession to demonstrate that the whole business of the Kashmir raids both in the Jammu province and in Kashmir proper was deliberately organized by high officials of the Pakistan Government. They helped the tribesmen and ex-servicemen to collect, they supplied them with the implements of war, with lorries, with petrol and with officers. They are continuing to do so. Indeed, their high officials openly declare so. It is obvious that no large body of men could cross Pakistan territory in armed groups without the goodwill, connivance and active help of the authorities there. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the raids on Kashmir were carefully planned and well organized by the Pakistan authorities with the deliberate object of seizing the State by force and then declaring accession to Pakistan. This was an act of hostility not only to Kashmir but to the Indian Union. It is only necessary to see the semi-official organs of the Muslim League and the Pakistan Government to find out the attitude of that Government. If we had allowed this scheme to succeed, we would have been guilty of the betrayal of the people of Kashmir and of grave dereliction of duty to India. The results of these on the communal and political situation all over India would have been disastrous.
The Pakistan Government have proposed a simultaneous withdrawal of our forces and the raiders from Kashmir. This was a strange proposal and could only mean that the raiders were there at the instance of the Pakistan Government. We cannot treat with freebooters who have murdered large numbers of people and tried to ruin Kashmir. They are not a State, although a State may be behind them. We have gone to Kashmir to protect the people and as soon as this duty is discharged our forces need not remain there and we shall withdraw our forces. We cannot desert the people of Kashmir till the danger is passed. If the Pakistan Government are sincere, they can stop the entry of these raiders and thus accelerate the return of peace and order. After that let the people of Kashmir decide and we shall accept their decision. But if this armed conflict continues, no opportunity is given to the people to decide by peaceful means, and the decision gradually takes shape through the sacrifice and power of the people in this conflict.
In order to establish our bona fides, we have suggested that when the people are given the chance to decide their future, this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations Organization.
The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked force should decide the future or the will of the people. The raiders encouraged by Pakistan have sought to enforce by the sword accession to Pakistan against the obvious wishes of large numbers of the people in Kashmir. We cannot permit the success of this method to achieve political ends. It is a tragedy that Pakistan should ally itself to such methods instead of devoting itself to the urgent tasks of economic and social reconstruction.
Kashmir has gone through fire and I am sure that the House would like me to communicate its sympathy to the people of Kashmir for the tribulations they have been going through in recent weeks. This fair land, which Nature has made so lovely, has been desecrated by people who have indulged in murder, arson, loot and foul attacks on women and children. The people have suffered greatly from shortage of the most vital necessities of life, and yet, under the inspiring lead of Sheikh Abdullah, they have stood together in the hour of calamity and showed to the rest of India an example of what communal unity can achieve. Whatever the future may hold, this chapter in the history of Kashmir will be worth reading and we shall never regret that in their hour of distress we have been able to be of assistance to this gallant people. Kashmir and India have been bound together in many ways from ages past. These last few weeks have forged a new link which no one can sunder.
This is part of ThePrint’s Great Speeches series. It features speeches and debates that shaped modern India.