Kashmir

Press, Volume XCIV, Issue 28150, 13 December 1956, Page 14

Kashmir

Time has continued to run in India’s favour in the Vale of Kashmir, as the Pakistan delegate reminded the United Nations last week. Being the man in possession (through friendly governments in Srinagar), India has been able to do morel than imprison Kashmiri politicians! who have shown too much independence. It has contributed capital for the social and economic progress of Kashmir, although Indian spokesmen claim that the help has been proportionately no greater than that given to other provincial governments. These funds have been well used by the Kashmiri Government, whose present Prime Minister (Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed) is credited with imagination and energy, if not with much respect for democratic principles. The imprisonment without trial of the Prime Minister’s predecessor and original friend of India (and of Mr Nehru), Sheikh Abdullah, does not seem to,have caused much discontent among the prosperous craftsmen and peasants of Kashmir. Why, then, does Mr Nehru so

obviously regret his original promise to abide by the result of a plebiscite and his Government insist that the results of a plebiscite would be bad for everyone concerned? On the face of it, Kashmiris would be happy enough to vote for the union with India into which they are already drifting. The reason is a predominantly Moslem population. If religious passions were roused in a plebiscite

campaign the Kashmiris might easily vote for union with their coreligionists in Pakistan. The campaign would also add to the communal bickering and fighting going on in those parts of India proper, such as Uttar Pradesh, where there are strong Moslem minorities. Unless the United Nations is prepared to take some strong action, India is soon likely to have its way—and Kashmir, without a plebiscite. India has enough friends in the United Nations to make strong action improbable, even if the United Nations were not already involved in enough problems. The Kashmir Constituent Assembly has, not surprisingly in view of the imprisonment of opposition leaders, done its utmost to complete

accession to India, though with greater autonomy than other States enjoy. Discussion on the new constitution has been limited in both

Srinagar and New Delhi. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed has firmly denied that the United Nations has any jurisdiction in this matter, claiming that it is purely for the Constituent Assembly to decide. India’s cheerful support of this claim is in contrast with its attitude

on international affairs generally, though not as much as might appear. First, the Indians believe that Kashmir, like the creation of Pakistan itself, is really a domestic matter arising from the partition they opposed at the outset because they wanted one secular State. Second, the high moral tone adopted by India about such matters as the British and French action in Egypt should not conceal the fact that Indian interests are intimately involved in the leadership of a broad front of neutralist States. India has good practical reasons for maintaining the neutralist group, as well as moral reasons.