October 27 marks Black Day for Kashmiris, commemorating the day in 1947 when Indian troops occupied Jammu and Kashmir, a pivotal event that set the stage for decades of struggle and strife in the region.
Kashmir, once a paradise nestled in the heart of South Asia, now stands as a symbol of broken promises, illegal occupation, and a people caught in the crossfire of power and politics. The broader region of Kashmir holds significant geopolitical importance due to its strategic location among the three nuclear powers: Pakistan, India, and China. Additionally, Kashmir shares a border with Afghanistan, situated at the intersection of South and Central Asia, while Central Asia serves as a geographical link between Europe and other regions of Asia. Jammu and Kashmir has long been known as a paradise, but sadly, in recent decades, it has become a lost paradise.
Jammu and Kashmir was one of the largest Muslim-majority princely states, established in 1846 and encompassing 222,236 sq km (85,806 sq miles) before the partition of British India in August 1947. Following partition, approximately one-third of the territory (78,114 sq km or 30,159 sq miles) came under Pakistani control, while India illegally occupies 143,304 sq km (55,330 sq miles), often characterized by a heavy military presence and strict control over the local population. China controls approximately 37,555 sq km (14,500 sq miles) in Ladakh, known as Aksai Chin, and in 1963, Pakistan ceded the Shaksgam Valley (5,180 sq km or 2,000 sq miles) to China. According to the religious composition, the population of Jammu and Kashmir in the 1941 British census was 77 percent Muslim, 20 percent Hindu, and 3 percent from other groups, primarily Sikhs, with a small number of Buddhists.
The Jammu and Kashmir dispute originates from the period of decolonization and the British transfer of power. At the time of the Indian subcontinent’s partition in August 1947, the principle of “communal majority” was used to determine the future of British India. Two independent dominions, India and Pakistan, were established based on the premise that Muslim-majority areas would constitute Pakistan and Hindu-majority areas would form India. There were 565 princely states that became legally independent with the lapse of British paramountcy, and Lord Mountbatten urged their rulers to accede to either dominion based on geographic location and the will of their populations.
While most princely states acceded smoothly to either India or Pakistan, exceptions like Hyderabad, Junagadh, and Jammu and Kashmir revealed India’s contradictory approach. In Hyderabad and Junagadh, India used military force to occupy these regions, disregarding the Muslim rulers’ decisions to align with Pakistan or seek independence. Yet in Jammu and Kashmir, a Muslim-majority region, India accepted the Hindu ruler’s accession, violating the communal majority principle it had enforced elsewhere. India used pressure tactics and intimidation to secure the Instrument of Accession, effectively forcing the ruler’s hand to legitimize its occupation. This selective and coercive approach exemplifies India’s hypocrisy, leaving an enduring occupation and complicating the region’s struggle for self-determination.
Although the accession of Jammu and Kashmir had yet to be determined, the Jammu massacre occurred against the backdrop of inter-religious violence following the 1947 Partition of India. From August to October 1947, approximately 250,000 to 300,000 Muslims were killed in the Jammu region, and nearly one million Kashmiri Muslims were displaced. The violence was largely perpetrated by Dogra Hindu state forces, who sought to drive Muslims out through threats and fear, leading to what some describe as a form of “ethnic cleansing” of Jammu’s Muslim population. The massacre incited anger among Pakistani tribesmen, prompting them to cross the border on October 22, 1947, in an effort to assist their fellow Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir. In response to this incursion, the non-Muslim ruler of the Muslim-majority state requested assistance from the Government of India. The Indian government, in turn, insisted that he first accede to the Indian Union, claiming that the “Instrument of Accession” was signed on October 26, 1947. The following day, October 27, India deployed troops to Kashmir. However, serious doubts surround the legitimacy of the “Instrument of Accession.” India has not presented this document in any international forum, nor has it been shown to the UN or Pakistan. Additionally, in 1995, Indian authorities reported that the original document was either lost or stolen, raising further questions about whether the Maharaja actually signed it.
Governor General of India Lord Mountbatten remarked that the permanent accession of Jammu and Kashmir would not be recognized until the people of the region were consulted. However, the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, while claiming to uphold this principle, paradoxically pushed for the integration of Kashmir without genuinely involving its populace. In 1948, India brought the Kashmir issue to the United Nations under Article 35, Chapter 6 of the UN Charter, which outlines means for the peaceful resolution of disputes. This move is telling; by acknowledging the Kashmir issue as a dispute, India effectively undermined its own claim that the Instrument of Accession constituted a permanent transfer of territory. Moreover, India conveniently avoided taking Pakistan to the UN under Chapter 7, which deals with acts of aggression, despite its accusations against Pakistan. Both nations accepted the UN resolution of January 5, 1949, which mandated a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir, asserting the people’s right to self-determination. Yet, India’s subsequent actions reveal its reluctance to honor this resolution, highlighting a blatant disregard for the democratic principles it professes to uphold. India’s acceptance of the UN resolutions ultimately exposes the Instrument of Accession, regardless of its authenticity, as a null and void justification for its ongoing occupation of Kashmir.
The United Nations established the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to facilitate negotiations between the two nations. In January and August 1948, UNCIP passed two significant resolutions calling for a plebiscite under UN supervision, a ceasefire, and demilitarization in the region. From 1948 to 1962, the UN continued to issue resolutions emphasizing the need for a plebiscite in Kashmir. However, in 1964, India abruptly shifted its position, passing a parliamentary resolution that declared Kashmir an “integral part” of India. This declaration set a troubling precedent for the disregard of Kashmiri autonomy. In a further unconstitutional act, India unilaterally revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019 without the consent of the state assembly.
Since then, Pakistan has consistently raised the issue on various international platforms, advocating for the rights of the Kashmiri people. This unresolved situation has not only fostered instability at both regional and international levels but has also led to three wars between the two states, alongside numerous low-intensity conflicts. Since 1947, Pakistan has been providing political, economic, and moral support to the Kashmiri people, highlighting India’s failure to honor its commitments and the urgent need for a resolution that respects the will of the Kashmiri population.