The Crown of India

Current map of Kashmir indicating the various regions under different administrations. The entire area within the thicker black border was the Kingdom of Kashmir under Hari Singh (Source: Indian Defense Review)

Few issues dominate Indian foreign policy like Kashmir.  For as long as modern India has existed, Kashmir has been a thorny issue and I suspect it is likely to be so for many decades to come.  It has been the cause of at least three wars and innumerable skirmishes.  It has been described as a tinderbox given its ability to initiate war between two nuclear powers.  It has been a practice ground for Islamic militants, most of them non-Kashmiri.  Most of all, it is the place where two groups with everything in common except religion come together.  Many blame the Kashmir issue on Pakistan and the creation of Pakistan in the first place.  This is a rather interesting point.  For while Pakistan is certainly the cause of most of the problems today, the problem cannot be blamed on its creation.  In fact, it is interesting to note that there was perhaps no way for Kashmir to have ever been a peaceful region, a Switzerland of sorts.  To understand this, perhaps a little recap of history is helpful.

As we all know of course, when the British left India, they gave the princely kingdoms the choice to either side with India, side with Pakistan, or become independent.  While the vast majority went one way or the other, Kashmir (or rather its king Hari Singh) chose independence.  So, if nothing further had happened, Kashmir today would have been an independent country nestled in the Himalayas between India, Pakistan, and China.  I imagine it to have been much like Bhutan, except Muslim.  Except for a few things of course.  First, India rejected the notion of breaking up the nation.  Our founders had dreamt of and fought for a united India as it had culturally existed for centuries.  The British were bringing up this issue of multiple nations at the last minute.  So a Balkanisation of India was completely contrary to the Independence movement.  Nevertheless, a Pakistan was being formed as a supposed home to the Muslims of the subcontinent, never mind that India would continue to have more Muslims.  Since Pakistan saw itself as the natural nation for all Muslims, it was only fitting that Muslim majority Kashmir should join it.  After all, what need is there for "one home" for Muslims if each Muslim majority region became its own country.  Most importantly, what was preventing other regions within Pakistan, often with little but religion in common, from forming their own little countries.  For example, why shouldn't there become countries such as Balochistan, Sind, West Punjab, and Pashtunistan?  So an independent Kashmir brought into question the very idea of Pakistan.  On the other hand, India's founding fathers envisioned a secular country for all people of the subcontinent.  For them India was not a country of Hindus and not defined by religion in any way.  It was the home for all inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent.  An independent Kashmir or a Kashmir as part of Pakistan threatened the very concept.  It would be admitting that people of different religions or different regions cannot be under one central India.  In other words, it brought into question the very idea of a unified India. 

Now imagine if Jinnah and the Muslim League had never existed to demand a Pakistan.  Such what-if scenarios are fascinating to me and in future posts I wish to explore this concept further.  You will be amazed at how different our world (and yes, not just the region) would have been today had one man not lived.  But sticking to Kashmir, I feel that had Pakistan not been formed, Kashmir would have become an independent country.  I am sure the Indian government would have tried to coax it into joining the union as it did with other princely kingdoms.  As much as I idol worship Sardar Patel, I think even a man of his abilities would have failed to bring Kashmir into the fold.

There are three possible scenarios I envision:

1. Kashmir would have remained independent but with great internal strife with three religions and being landlocked.  I imagine that such a Kashmir would have been roped into the Cold War with Communist Russia attempting to depose the king and Western countries attempting to bring democracy.  Having to virtually conduct all its trade through an India that resented its existence would not have helped.
2. China would have invaded it during its invasion of Tibet and at the very least taken the regions of Aksai Chin, Leh, and Ladakh, if not the entire country itself.  We would have then seen the kind of freedom struggle we are seeing today in Tibet.  Except it is likely to have been way more violent as it would have been fought not by otherwise peaceful Buddhist monks but militant Muslims supported by international jihadi groups and other groups covertly supported by India.
3. India would have invaded it to take it by force.  It would have then existed as a part of India but with a simmering separatist movement supported again by the Chinese government, international jihadi organizations, and perhaps local groups dreaming of a Switzerland of the East.

In all three scenarios, Kashmir would have been far from the gorgeous valley that I remember from my visit in 1989.  I have painted a rather grim picture of a region that is without doubt one of the most beautiful parts of the world inhabited by a beautiful peaceful people.  This is however the fact of reality, that as humans we have found a way to make a fight for God, King, and Country paramount in our lives.  To be sure, I do not think the future need be this grim.  I hate to leave the post here, but will do so to not only maintain brevity but leave you with food for thought.  The fact is that none of the three scenarios presented above happened, and Kashmir finds itself pulled in different directions.  I remain hopeful and confident that Kashmir will soon become a proud region and once again take over the mantle it held for millenia - The Crown of India.