Prem Shankar Jha's Work Sheds Light on Jammu and Kashmir’s Accession

The accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India in 1947 stands as a critical event in the history of the Indian subcontinent. This moment, marked by intense political manoeuvring, external aggression, and urgent military responses, has long been the subject of debate, particularly between India and Pakistan. Prem Shankar Jha’s Kashmir, 1947: Rival Versions of History delves deeply into the competing narratives that surround this decision. A careful analysis of the historical facts reveals that India’s actions were not only legally sound but also ensured that Jammu and Kashmir remained under legitimate governance and control, free from external threats or interference. When coupled with insights into Maharaja Hari Singh’s decision-making process and key figures’ influence, the case for Jammu & Kashmir’s rightful accession to India becomes even stronger.

• 

Two Versions of History: India’s Legal Framework vs. Pakistan’s Claims

In the wake of Partition, two sharply divergent accounts of Jammu & Kashmir’s accession emerged, reflecting the competing national interests of India and Pakistan. The Indian version, based on legal frameworks established during British rule, holds that the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, under imminent threat from Pakistan-backed tribal invaders, made a legitimate decision to accede to India by signing the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947. This accession allowed India to intervene militarily and protect the state from further incursions.

Pakistan, however, presented an alternative version, emphasizing the state’s Muslim-majority population and arguing that Jammu & Kashmir should have acceded to Pakistan under the two-nation theory. The Pakistani narrative claims that Indian troops had already entered Jammu & Kashmir before the Instrument of Accession was signed, coercing the Maharaja into submission. Pakistan also alleges that the Pakistani tribal invasion was a justified response to atrocities committed by Dogra forces against the state’s Muslims.

Jha’s analysis offers a comprehensive rebuttal of Pakistan’s claims. He demonstrates that India’s intervention followed the legal accession of Kashmir, and that the Pakistani narrative, while politically motivated, lacks the documentary evidence needed to substantiate its version of events. India’s legal and military responses were in line with international norms, and the inclusion of Sheikh Abdullah, a prominent Kashmiri leader, further legitimised the accession by ensuring the support of the Kashmiri people.

Uprising or Invasion? 

One of the most contentious issues regarding Jammu & Kashmir’s accession remains whether the violence in October 1947 was a spontaneous internal uprising or an invasion by Pakistani-backed tribal forces. Pakistan has long claimed the unrest was a local revolt, while compelling evidence by Jha suggests it was part of a coordinated invasion aimed at seizing the region.

Reports from British officials and Indian intelligence point to Pakistan’s mobilisation of tribal forces months before any significant unrest occurred in Kashmir. On September 4, 1947, General Henry Lawrence Scott, commander of Jammu and Kashmir’s state forces, reported multiple covert incursions from Pakistan and urged the Maharaja’s government to raise the issue with Pakistan. Although demonstrations did take place in Poonch, they primarily reflected local grievances over food shortages, exacerbated by the severe winter of 1946-47 and supply disruptions due to communal violence in Punjab.

Jha’s analysis firmly concludes that the invasion was a strategic move by Pakistan, not a reaction to internal unrest. This understanding decisively tilts the balance in favor of the Indian narrative, showing that Pakistan’s tribal invasion was an aggressive attempt to seize Kashmir before the Maharaja could finalize his decision to accede to India.

Accession Under Pressure: India’s Legal Triumph

While Maharaja Hari Singh faced significant pressure during the Pakistani invasion, the legality of his decision to accede to India is beyond dispute. In response to the unprovoked aggression by Pakistani invaders, who had illegally entered Jammu and Kashmir, the Maharaja was left with no choice but to seek military assistance from India. India, however, made its intervention contingent upon the signing of the Instrument of Accession, ensuring that its actions were consistent with the legal framework established by the British.

Nehru’s insistence on including Sheikh Abdullah in the political process further solidified the legitimacy of the accession. Abdullah’s popularity among Kashmiri Muslims meant that the decision was not just the Maharaja’s but had the support of a significant segment of the population. Nehru’s approach, while cautious, ensured that the accession was not only legally valid but also democratic in spirit.

Pakistan’s claim that the Maharaja was coerced into signing the Instrument of Accession holds little weight when viewed against the legal principles governing princely states. Jha highlights that the Maharaja’s decision, though made under difficult circumstances, was in full accordance with international law. India’s intervention, therefore, was not only necessary but also justified on legal grounds.

Signing the Instrument of Accession

The signing of the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947, marks a defining moment in the history of Jammu & Kashmir’s union with India. Pakistan has long challenged the timeline of the signing, with revisionist scholars like Alastair Lamb suggesting that Indian troops entered Kashmir before the Maharaja formalised the accession. Jha’s detailed examination of the sequence of events, however, provides irrefutable evidence that Indian forces only entered Kashmir after the Maharaja’s legal accession was completed.

Jha underscores that the Instrument of Accession, a legal document provided by the British for princely states, was signed in full accordance with the procedures laid out by British law. Under the Indian Independence Act of 1947, each princely state had to decide whether to accede to India or Pakistan. The inclusion of Sheikh Abdullah, who played a key role in securing public support for the Maharaja’s decision, further strengthens India’s claim that the accession was not only legally valid but also democratically supported.

In contrast, Pakistan’s objections lack substantial evidence. Jha’s methodical dismantling of these revisionist claims firmly establishes the legitimacy of India’s actions and provides a solid foundation for understanding why Kashmir’s accession to India stands on sound legal ground.

Britain’s Role and the Gurdaspur Award

Another major point of debate in the Kashmir issue is the role of British officials and the decision to award the Gurdaspur district to India, providing a land route to Kashmir. Some have argued that Britain favoured India in this decision, giving India strategic access to Kashmir. Jha, however, refutes these conspiracy theories.

While Jha acknowledges the strategic significance of Gurdaspur, he presents clear evidence that the decision to award the district to India was based on legal criteria rather than political manoeuvring. The Radcliffe Commission’s decision was consistent with the rules governing the partition of British India, and Jha dismisses claims that Britain deliberately manipulated the situation to secure Kashmir for India. There is no evidence to support the idea of a British conspiracy, and Jha’s analysis affirms that India’s military and political moves in Kashmir were entirely consistent with the legal norms of the time.

Exploding Myths: India’s Case for Kashmir

In the concluding chapters of his work, Jha takes on the persistent myths that have surrounded Jammu & Kashmir’s accession. Chief among these is the claim that the Instrument of Accession was either never signed or signed under duress after Indian troops had already entered Kashmir. Jha methodically debunks these myths, offering documentary evidence that the Maharaja’s decision was legal, timely, and in full compliance with British laws governing princely states.

Jha also critiques Pakistan’s historical narrative, pointing out that much of it is based on selective interpretations of events. He argues that both India and Pakistan have constructed their versions of history for political ends, but that India’s narrative is far more consistent with documented facts and legal procedures. By debunking these myths, Jha strengthens the case for Jammu & Kashmir’s accession to India.

Maharaja Hari Singh’s Resistance and Golwalkar’s Influence

In addition to Jha’s academic analysis, other historical sources reveal important details about Maharaja Hari Singh’s interactions with both India and Pakistan. Pakistan made several attempts to woo the Maharaja, with Jinnah personally trying to visit Srinagar to convince him to join Pakistan. The Maharaja, however, repeatedly rebuffed these efforts, suspecting that Jinnah’s visit was a ploy to pressure him into acceding to Pakistan.

M.S. Golwalkar, the second chief of the RSS, also played a critical role in shaping the Maharaja’s decision. Golwalkar’s meeting with the Maharaja in October 1947 convinced the ruler that accession to India was the best course of action for preserving Jammu & Kashmir’s sovereignty. This interaction further solidifies India’s narrative that the Maharaja’s decision was made after careful consideration of the state’s future, and was not the result of external coercion.

Conclusion:

The accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India was a legally valid and strategically necessary decision, made in the face of external aggression and political upheaval. Jha’s detailed analysis of the events leading up to the accession, combined with a critical examination of Pakistan’s claims, clearly affirms the legitimacy of India’s actions. Despite Pakistan’s revisionist attempts to challenge the accession, the documentary evidence and legal principles governing princely states firmly support India’s position.

As Prem Shankar Jha’s work shows, both India and Pakistan have used history to support their respective political agendas. However, a careful and unbiased reading of the historical facts overwhelmingly favours the India’s stance. The accession of Jammu and Kashmir was conducted in full accordance with international law, and India’s military intervention was both justified and necessary to protect the state. In the ongoing discourse surrounding Jammu & Kashmir, Jha’s work provides a definitive, evidence-based rebuttal to revisionist claims and reaffirms Jammu & Kashmir’s rightful place within the Indian Union.