Sumantra Bose discusses the origins of the conflict in Kashmir. (5:35 min)

Fathom: Can you explain the origins of the conflict in Kashmir?

Sumantra Bose: In 1947 the British withdrew from India leaving behind a partitioned subcontinent. Two independent states, India and Pakistan, had come into being. Jammu and Kashmir was at that time one of approximately 562 so-called "princely" states that had existed in India under the British. It is important to remember that the British, even at the height of their imperial power, directly administered only about half the subcontinent. The other half consisted of these 500-plus princely states of varying sizes, which were nominally under various tinpot Maharajas. Basically, they were principalities, which had submitted to overall British imperial control but were nominally independent or autonomous kingdoms or principalities.

The conflict in Kashmir is one of the bitterest legacies of the partition of India. Learn more about the convoluted origins of this conflict.

Jammu and Kashmir was one of the largest of this category of princely states, which were nominally self-governing but ultimately under British control, like the rest of the subcontinent. At that time, the princely states had three choices on paper: they could either accede to India; they could accede to Pakistan; or they could opt to be independent units. This was on paper; in practice there were two choices: you go with India or with Pakistan. What would Jammu and Kashmir do?

	Ready Reference
	Kashmir A beautiful region of S Asia, Kashmir is covered with lofty, rugged mountains, including sections of the Himalayan and Karakorum ranges. Rivers, including the Indus, run through relatively narrow but heavily populated valleys. The valley of the Jhelum River, the celebrated Vale of Kashmir, is the most populous area and the economic heart of the region; it produces abundant crops of wheat and rice. The noted handicraft industry, particularly the making of woolen cloth and shawls (cashmeres) has declined. Tourism has grown in importance since the 1960s but was adversely affected in Indian Kashmir by civil strife in the 1990s. The state of Jammu and Kashmir, India's only Muslim-majority state, is normally governed by a chief minister responsible to a bicameral legislature with one elected house and by a governor appointed by the president of India. Reproduced with permission from The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Copyright © 2000 Columbia University Press. All Rights Reserved.

Jammu and Kashmir was ruled by Hari Singh, a Hindu Maharaja whose name was a byword for capricious, autocratic rule throughout the Indian subcontinent. However, the decisive majority of the population of Jammu and Kashmir consisted of Muslims at the time of decolonisation, partition and independence in 1947. Jammu and Kashmir at that time was approximately 77 percent Muslim, 20 percent Hindu and 3 percent other, mainly Sikh. Under the partition formula, Jammu and Kashmir probably belonged to Pakistan, being a territory with a solid Muslim majority. However, its ruler was a Hindu king who was above all concerned with preserving his own inheritance. He would do anything, including acceding to Pakistan, if Pakistan would agree to leave his throne intact.

What actually transpired was a complicated sequence of events, which led to this tinpot despot of Jammu and Kashmir declaring allegiance to India and formally acceding his domain legally to the Indian union. Since then the territory has been the focus of an intense territorial dispute between India and Pakistan.

The major basis of the Pakistani claim is that it was a solid Muslim-majority territory. The claim is also that, according to United Nations Security Council resolutions passed in the late 1940s, right after this drama, a plebiscite or referendum should have been held throughout the territory of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir to ascertain the wishes and allegiances of the people. The plebiscite was never held. Since 1948/9, when the first India-Pakistan war over control of Jammu and Kashmir ended, Jammu and Kashmir has been divided into two zones. One part is under Indian control and is known in India as the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, an integral part of the Indian union. It is known to Pakistanis as occupied Kashmir. The other part, which is less populated, is under Pakistani control and on the other side of the Line Of Control (LOC) that separates these two zones. It is known in Pakistan as Azad Jammu and Kashmir, or "free", "liberated" Jammu and Kashmir. The Indians call this region Pak-occupied Kashmir (POK).

That is the genesis and the crux of the Kashmir dispute; both sides had a claim to this princely state; both sides ended up with effective control over one part of the former princely state but not the whole of it. Both sides have persisted in maintaining control over its own portion and persisted in dubbing the other part as illegally occupied territory.

Fathom: What is the Indian response to the Pakistani allegation that it was the people of Kashmir and not the prince who should have decided who Kashmir belonged to in 1948?

Sumantra Bose considers the legitimacy of the prince's decision. (3:34 min)

Bose: The prince, however despotic and useless he may have been, was the legal authority to decide on the issue of accession, so the Indians are on relatively strong ground in this regard. In fact, latter-day Pakistani complaints that the people rather than the prince should have made the decision are rather unconvincing, as the Pakistanis themselves in the immediate run-up to independence in July-August 1947 were busily negotiating with the same Maharaja in an effort to get him on their side. He was keeping all his options open at that point in time. Indeed, his accession to India was, until October 1947, two months after independence, by no means a foregone conclusion.

Where the Pakistanis are on stronger ground is in their claim that the UN Security Council resolutions called for a plebiscite to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants of this disputed territory, and that never took place. The Indians have a rejoinder to that: they say it never took place because the Pakistanis failed to withdraw their forces from the part of Jammu and Kashmir that fell under Pakistani control after 1947 as Azad Jammu and Kashmir. So this debate could go on ad infinitum without settling a single issue of any importance. What is important is that the Indians were able to get most of the populated areas of Jammu and Kashmir under their control, including the prize piece of real estate, the Kashmir valley, known for its natural beauty.

Sumantra Bose

This ethereal panorama is a view of the Pir Panjal range, which sweeps across the Kashmir valley, taken from the Anantnag district in the Kashmir valley. The author stopped to take the photograph, while fleeing from a nearby bomb blast. The Kashmir valley is renowned and prized for it's natural beauty. Kashmir's landscape includes sections of the Himalayan and Karokorum mountain ranges as well as numerous valleys.

	Glossary
	Maharaja Hari Singh Maharaja of Kashmir in 1947, at time of independence and partition, he was grandson of Raja Gulab Singh, the Hindu chief who acquired the Kashmir Valley in 1846. After much vacillation, Hari Singh decided to sign the Instrument of Accession to the Indian Union. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah Charismatic Kashmiri leader of the National Conference Movement. He campaigned for the rights of Kashmir throughout the 1930s and 1940s. Sometimes known as Sher-e-Kashmir, the Lion of Kashmir, he won Kashmir a semi-autonomous status within India, and became Kashmir's first prime minister in 1948.

Ultimately, the Indians gained Kashmir because the most important political movement of that time among the Kashmiri Muslims preferred India to Pakistan, if it came to a choice between these two. So it was not just the Maharaja's signature that sealed the deal for India; the Indians were able to get the result they did because they had the support of the most influential political movement of Kashmiris at the time, the National Conference Movement. This was led by a very charismatic Kashmiri leader called Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah. Sheikh Abdullah was known at that time as Sher-e-Kashmir, the Lion of Kashmir, and there was little doubt about the fact that he preferred India to Pakistan. This preference was a decisive factor.

Why are Pakistanis reluctant to acknowledge the importance of this factor? It is because it blows a big hole in the myth of Muslim solidarity. It shows that there were influential Muslim groups, including Sheikh Abdullah's movement in Jammu and Kashmir, which were not in favour of Pakistan simply because they were Muslims. They were prepared to take their chances in India and test India's claims to being a secular, tolerant and inclusive republic.

Fathom: Is religious division a useful way of viewing the divide within Kashmir itself, or does it just serve to confuse the issue?

Sumantra Bose considers the religious aspect of the conflict. (3:47 min)

Bose: There is a religious element involved in the equation and in this conflict. First of all, there is a dispute between a Muslim state, namely Pakistan, and a "predominantly Hindu state," namely India. This immediately injects a religious element into the conflict. Beyond that, because of violence, ongoing guerrilla war and counter-insurgency throughout the region over the last ten years, a lot of Muslims feel that they are victimised just because they are Muslim. They feel victimised by the forces of a state that claims to be secular but is actually less than secular--it does not live up to its own pretensions.

This is a real problem on the ground, because the people in the areas that are torn by violence, insurgency and counter-insurgency, are overwhelmingly Muslim. They have been bearing the brunt of this violent conflict for the last 11 years. Whereas the Indian state security forces, the army, the various semi-military forces and police units, who are engaged in combating the guerrillas, are not exclusively but are largely Hindus or other kinds of non-Muslims, like Sikhs, and most of them are from outside Jammu and Kashmir. So this injects another problematic religious slant, or what we in India would call "a communal angle" into the conflict on the ground.

Sumantra Bose

A typical Kashmiri rural dwelling. Kishtwar, Jammu region.

Ultimately, it is somewhat distorting to regard Kashmir as a religious conflict. This is because, as previously explained with regard to the genesis of the conflict, the most influential political movement among the Kashmiri Muslims 50 years ago, the National Conference Movement, led by Sheikh Abdullah, actually preferred India to Pakistan as a partner. It is true that two-thirds of the population of Jammu and Kashmir is Muslim, the remaining one-third is Hindu and Sikh, but there are really no monolithic religious blocs in the population of Jammu and Kashmir. For example, among the Muslims the single largest group, the Kashmiri-speaking Muslims, are concentrated in the Kashmir valley and a few other areas. However, they share this with other ethnic groups such as Gujjars and Bakerwals who are nomadic pastoralists traditionally, as well as Rajputs who have converted to Islam over the centuries. Similarly among the Hindus, there are various different types and groups of Hindus. There is a lot of internal differentiation among both the Muslims and the Hindus of Jammu and Kashmir. In that sense, it is quite distorting to see this purely or even predominantly as a religious conflict between Hindus and Muslims. That would be to paint the whole conflict in very simplistic black and white terms, while the predominant hue, I would say from my experience of the conflict, is grey.

Fathom: Would it be possible to explain the complexities in Kashmir itself, ethnic, geographic, linguistic and any others which are sometimes overlooked?

Sumantra Bose highlights the divisions that complicate the conflict in Kashmir. (3:27 min)

Bose: Without entering a labyrinth of complexity, let me point out the differences that exist between the different regions of Indian Jammu and Kashmir, which is the site of the most intense conflict, including protracted violence over the last 10 or 11 years.

Indian Jammu and Kashmir consists of three regions. There is one very sparsely populated high-altitude region called Ladakh. The other two regions are more populated and constitute the crux of the present conflict. One is the Kashmir valley, which is overwhelmingly Muslim and overwhelmingly Kashmiri speaking. Then there is another region called Jammu--remember this is Jammu and Kashmir, not just Kashmir--which is much more mixed. There are a variety of confessional, ethnic, caste, linguistic and other groups in Jammu.

	Glossary
	Line of Control The Line of Control is the de facto border dividing the disputed zones of Indian- and Pakistani-controlled Jammu and Kashmir. It marks the cease-fire line agreed upon by Pakistan and India in the Simla Agreement following the Indo-Pakistani war in 1971. Indian-administered Kashmir lies to the east and south and has a population of around nine million. Pakistani or Azad Kashmir occupies the north and west and has a population of around three million.

The Kashmir valley and a few other adjoining Kashmiri-speaking Muslim pockets of the Jammu region are the site of the present violence. The people here are by-and-large alienated from India. I personally believe most of them would favour an independent state, but there is a pro-Pakistan element as well. In Jammu, however, especially in the southern districts of Jammu, the population is predominantly Hindu and predominantly pro-India, and there are Sikhs as well who are also usually pro-India. So if a plebiscite were to take place with a three-way choice--I'm speaking completely hypothetically now, because a plebiscite has never taken place and it is unlikely to take place any time in the future--the Kashmir valley and a few other areas in the Jammu region with predominantly Kashmiri-speaking and Muslim populations are likely to vote by-and-large for the independence option, but most of the Jammu region is likely to vote to stay with India, as is Ladakh.

So, when Pakistani or American officials or indeed anyone else talk about the "Kashmiri people" they are really obscuring and perhaps deliberately ignoring a lot of differentiation and complexity that exist in the society, that this is a divided society with three different allegiances: one orientation towards India, one orientation towards Pakistan and a third orientation towards the idea of an independent Kashmiri state. And that is the crux of the problem. Each of these positions makes a very maximalist claim, but at the same time each of these positions is unable to command the loyalty of more than a segment of the population in Jammu and Kashmir.