The First War of Indian Independence-1857 by M.Y.taryaby

8/14/2019 The First War of Indian Independence-1857 by M.Y.taryaby

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-first-war-of-indian-independence-1857-by-mytaryaby 1/23

Younus Taryaby, the chairperson of the Kashmiri Workers Association ‘Britain’, prepared this paper for a meeting of “committee 1857” held on 20 th October 2007 inBirmingham, Britain. On 30 th August 2008, the Central Committee meeting of theKashmiri Workers Association approved this paper after some amendments.

The First War of Indian Independence-1857: reclaiming of the Indiannations’ voluntary unity against imperialism

A slave nation cannot establish a classless society, abolish exploitationand bring about equality among men (people). For such a nation, the

first and foremost task is to break the chains of imperialist dominationthat bind it. In other words, revolution in a slave country has to be anti-imperialist and anti-colonial.(Collective Works of Bhagat Singh, p.15)

A close examination of anti-imperialist history of India indicates that the First War of Indian Independence - 1857 provided the voluntary bases for the unity of all Indiannations in their struggle against British imperialism. The historical events that followedthe First War of Indian Independence testify that both the voluntary bases for the unity of different people and the anti-imperialist struggle in India were lost out to the Indian elite(the present Bharati and Pakistani ruling classes) – the loyal servants and the products of imperialism, and the tools of oppression of the diverse and different nations of India.Consequently, the national question in India remains unresolved and the goal of IndianIndependent Movement continues to be unaccomplished. The reclaiming of the Indiannations’ voluntary unity in their contemporary struggle against national oppression andimperialism would, this paper suggests, be a right course to take for bringing therevolutionary struggle in India back on its track.

A Historical BackgroundIt was not the first time in 1857 that a war was fought against British imperialism inIndia. Dr Safdar Mahmood, a Pakistani writer, enlists about 24 unsuccessful wars of resistance fought against British imperialism in India before the First War of IndianIndependence. These wars include the War of Bengali Independence (1757). The Four Wars of Mysore’s Independence (last in 1799), the Marathas War of Resistance (1803/4),the Gurkha war (1814 – 16), the War of Sindhi Independence (1843), the War of PunjabiIndependence (1845/6), the War of Kashmiri Independence (1846). Above all and mostimportantly the Pukhtoons’ direct war against imperialism started soon after the fall of Punjab and continues till today with the exception of a short break.

These aforementioned wars fought against British imperialism by different people for theindependence of their natural ancient homelands in India are not recorded in history

books as Indian wars. Simply, because there was no India in any unified or homogeneousterm as one country, one nation, or one people as many people are being misled by theone-nation theorists or puppets of imperialism to believe it. There also did not exist, for the people of India, any common geographical identity, such as ‘Indian’ as the Britishcolonialists had perceived it at the time of setting up their East India Trading Company in

1



1599. What existed in India at the time were different people having different naturalancient homelands ruled by local Rajas, Maharajas, Ranies, Nawabs, Sultans, Kings,etceteras. John Keay (2000), an English historian, calls it “indigenous regimes” – sovereignties belonging to natives or natural ancient countries. These ancient countriesfought many wars against the British imperialism during the first one hundred years of

British colonial expansionism in India, that is from 1757 to 1857.

The history of British colonial expansionism in India during the first one hundred yearsstands witness to barbarous exploitation, looting plundering and killing of every people

by the British imperialism. Above all, these wars of British colonial expansionismwitnessed the destruction of the boundaries of natural ancient homelands of every people,and the manufacturing of forced unity (a kind of prison house) amongst the annexedIndian nations. Thus, the Indian nations were enslaved and bound in the chains of BritishImperialism. Moreover, an imperialist policy of bringing about subservient feudal,capitalist and service classes from indigenous population to guard the colonial structureand to serve the interest of imperialism was in operation. This is a brief background of

the First War of Indian Independence- 1857.The Indian Independent MovementThis paper does not intend to go into the events of the First War of Indian Independenceas they are well recorded on the pages of history books. On the contrary, it suggests thatthe First War of Indian Independence-1857 appears to be a collective product of allunsuccessful wars fought by different people against British imperialism before 1857 andcovers a vast area from Burma to Afghanistan and from Nepal to Baluchistan.

The First War of Indian Independence laid down the bases for two historicaldevelopments for the future to take course with a common geographical identity, India.Firstly, it forced the British imperialism to suspend its policy of annexing “indigenousregimes” at least for another 90 years. As a result, there were two India: British-India,the product of British wars for its colonial expansionism, and Princely States India alsoknown as States-India, the escaped indigenous regimes from British wars of annexation.Secondly, it also laid down the seeds for an Indian Independent Movement to bedeveloped in the future, covering a vast area from Burma to Afghanistan and Nepal toBaluchistan.

What most have been said or written about the Indian Independent Movement is actuallythe history of Indian Independent Movement of British-India, especially the history of one-nation theorists (Bharatis) or two-nation theorists (Pakistanis) . This is an incomplete

picture of the Indian Independent Movement. There is a big jigsaw puzzle to be filledinto this history of India. The missing jigsaw puzzle consists of the Indian IndependentMovement in States-India. A brief description of the Indian Independent Movement inBritish-India could assist in drawing a comprehensible picture of the Indian IndependentMovement in States-India.

2



Indian Independent Movement in British IndiaThe events of the First War of Indian Independence revealed the people’s power sproutedfrom the voluntary unity of all Indian nations against imperialism. This revelation

provided a strong possibility for the development of an anti-colonial and anti-imperialistmovement based on the voluntary unity of all ancient countries in India. Faced with such

a threat, the British imperialism intended to introduce colonial Indian nationalism inBritish India in order to thwart anti-imperialist resistance and to preserve the Indiannations’ forced unity which was structured during its colonial expansionism-from 1757 to1857. The term colonial Indian nationalism is used here to describe an Indiannationalism that preserves forced unity of Indian nations and serves the interest of colonialism and imperialism.

The Indian National Congress was set up with the British official inspiration and blessingas an instrument for diluting the emerging anti-colonial and anti imperialist Indiannationalism. “A[n]… English civil servant founded Congress in 1885. Acting with the

blessing of the Viceroy, Octavian Hume had sought to create an organization which

would canalize the protests of India’s slowly growing educated classes into a moderate,responsible body prepared to engage in gentlemanly dialogue with India’s English rulers”(Collins and Lapierre in K. Lal 2001:22). This was the objective background for theformation of the Indian National Congress in British India.

Mohandas Gandhi: Leader of one nation theory.

In the process of serving their imperialist masters, the Indian National Congress led byBritish reared and nourished capitalist and service classes, became the instrument for themanufacturing of one-nation-theory or Bharati ideology popularly known as Akhand (unified) Bharat - a notion of indivisible sacred India within the framework of the Britishintroduced paradigm of colonial Indian nationalism. This notion can also be called asmodern Brahminism based on the philosophy of Arya-Hindu-Bharatavarsa , whichdenies completely the existence of natural ancient homelands of different people in India.Ideologically and politically Bharat stands, in the name of secularism and Indiannationalism, for the Union of India without Indian nations having any right to consent or dissent.

This is the prevailing political situation in Bharat today. Any idea suggesting more thanone nation in India is seen as anti-national, anti-people, and anti-Indian and it deserves to

be crushed and destroyed violently. This is the ideological hotbed that crops the hatred

3



against two nation theory, Pakistani ideology, or any other national liberation movementin Bharat.

This Brahministic and colonialist character of the Bharati State in India can be judged bylooking at “Framing Geelani, Hanging Afzal (2007)”: a collection of letters with

reference to the Kashmir liberation movement. This book is written not by anyrevolutionary, Muslim, or Sikh, but Nandita Haksar– a Brahmin pundit and a humanrights campaigner in Bharat. This book explains how the police, the army, the media, thecourts and other agencies in Bharat operate under the influence of modern Brahminism.

On 13 December 2001 Bharati Parliament was attacked. Afzal Guru, a Kashmiri patriot,was arrested, tortured and forced to ‘confess’ at a media conference. He was denied theopportunity to defend himself-he did not have a lawyer. The court found that evidenceagainst Afzal Guru was fabricated and documents were forged. The Bharati SupremeCourt ruled that Afzal Guru was not involved in the attack or part of any group. Despitethese rulings Afzal Guru was sentenced to death to “satisfy the collective conscience of

the society” (2007:192). It is not only the people of Bharati Occupied Kashmir whostand against the Bharati oppression, the people of Assam, Nagaland, Manipur,Rajputana, Jharkhand and Tripura are also engaged in the movements for their independence and they are making great sacrifices in their struggle against Bharatioccupation. The root cause of blood spilling in Central Punjab has yet to be analyzed

properly.

M.A.Jinnah Leader of two nation theory.In many aspects the situation in Pakistan today is not different from that in Bharat. The

birth of Bharati State in India is a result of “one nation theory” and one-nation theorycaused the birth of Pakistani State based on “two-nation theory”. Both theories areoffspring of the colonial Indian nationalism and the British colonial policies to rule India

by using religious differences. For this purpose the puppet Nawabs of Britishimperialism had set up the Indian Muslim League in British India in 1905; and aBrahminism-Muslim conflict, often described as Hindu-Muslim conflict, was set in train.

In the process of serving their imperialist masters, the Indian Muslim League in BritishIndia emerged as a resistance force to one-nation theory or modern Brahminism byconstructing its own two- nation theory based on religious identity of non-Muslims andMuslims in India. The two-nation theory defines itself in the form of the Pakistanresolution of 1940. “The [Pakistan] Resolution [1940],” as stated by John Keay(2000:496), “called for a constitution whereby areas in which Muslims are numerically ina majority, as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India , should be grouped tocontinue Independent States in which the constituent elements shall be autonomous and

4



sovereign .” It is important to note that the Pakistan Resolution neither demands for the partition or division of India into India and Pakistan, nor it stands for the division of anyancient homeland, country, or state. On the contrary, it shows clearly that Pakistan would

be in India and the states having Muslim majority would be independent and sovereignstates.

Although, the Pakistan Resolution fails to recognize the rights of Indian states havingnumerically non-Muslim majority which appears to be an ideological flaw, it presents alogical resistance to one-nation theory or modern Brahminism. The two-nation theoryrecognizes, clearly, the existence of different people having Muslim majority with their rights to independent and sovereign states in India. However, the leadership of theMuslim League betrayed Indian states having Muslim majority by changing the PakistanResolution into Muslim nationalism. This Muslim nationalism is developed in Pakistanto preserve the chains of imperialist domination - the forced unity of different people inPakistan.

The Pakistani rulers’ denial of different nations’ rights recognized in the Pakistanresolution, laid down the basis for the birth of Bangladesh in East Bengal. Theunresolved national question of oppressed nations in New Pakistan can also be seen fromthe emergence of PONM: the [P]akistani [O]ppressed [N]ations’ [M]ovement. PONMstands for a new constitution of Pakistan to secure the rights of different nationsguaranteed in the Pakistan resolution of 1940. The struggle of Kashmiri people againstthe Pakistani occupation in both parts of Pakistani Occupied Kashmir that is the PakistaniOccupied Northern Kashmir and the Pakistani Occupied Southern Kashmir is a historical

phenomenon. These prevailing situations in Bharat and Pakistan indicate that the so-called ‘Indian independent movement’ led by National Congress and Muslim League inBritish India was a form of colonial nationalism. Modern Brahminism in Bharat andMuslim nationalism in Pakistan – the offshoots of colonial nationalism are no more thanfascist methods of preserving forced unity of Indian nations.

This means that Bharati and Pakistani states are new forms of British Raj and prisonhouses of the Indian nations. These prison houses of Indian nations were built with the

power of the sword of the British imperialism. All colonial institutions; the armies, the police, the law, the judiciary and the civil service, which were structured by the Britishimperialism to guard these prison houses, are still intact. This is not the completedescription of so-called ‘Indian Independent Movement’ in British India. The history of anti-colonial Indian nationalism in British India gives us some insight into the real natureof Indian Independent Movement and identifies the means for breaking the chains of imperialist domination in India.

Anti-Colonial Indian Nationalism in British IndiaAfter the collapse of the First War of Indian independence, the Ghadar Party carried thefirst main political phase of a revolutionary struggle against British imperialism. TheHindustan Socialist Republic Association, led by Shaheed Bhagat Singh, developed thesecond main phase of anti-colonial and anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle in India.

5



However, the question of internal nature of the national question in British-India did notarise till 1930.

In 1930, Mohammed Iqbal, the Indian poet and philosopher suggested two options in hisfamous khutbah (sermon)-e-Allahbad about the internal nature of the national question in

India. Iqbal visualized the independent states for nations having distinguished languages,cultures and histories as a permanent solution to the Indian question or a separatehomeland for the Indian Muslims consisting of states having Muslim majorities (Pro.Mohammed Arif Khan - Pakistan to Iqbalistan). This idea of a separate homeland for theIndian Muslims visualized by Iqbal in 1930 provided the base for the Pakistan Resolutionof 1940. It can be concluded that Iqbal suggested the idea of ‘independent states for thenations in India’ in the context of Indian history and the idea of ‘a separate homeland for the Indian Muslims’ in the context of one-nation theory based on modern Brahminism. Itis important for this analysis to note that Iqbal did not see a separate homeland for theIndian Muslims outside India, and he did not intend to surrender his Indian identity.

Shaheed Bhagat Singh leader of anti colonial Indian nationalism

We have no guidance from Shaheed Bhagat Singh on the question of internal nature of the national question in India raised by Iqbal in 1930 because Shaheed Bhagat Singh didnot have an opportunity to address this question. He was martyred on 23 rd March 1931.However, we have his clear thoughts about the nature of a revolutionary struggle in a

country or state that is bound in the chains of imperialist domination mentioned at theoutset of this paper. In the light of Bhagat Singh’s these thoughts, it is important toexamine the Marxist analysis on the internal nature of the national question in India putforward by the Communist Party of India before the creation of Bharat and Pakistan inBritish India. In April 1946, P. C. Joshi submitted a memorandum of the CommunistParty of India to the British Cabinet Mission. It reads:

We suggest that the Provisional Government should be charged withthe task of setting up a Boundaries Commission to redraw the

boundaries on the basis of natural ancient homelands of every people, so that the demarcated province become, as far as possible,

linguistically and naturally homogeneous national units. Thefollowing are the national units that will come into existence after demarcation of the boundaries and after the dissolution of theIndian States: Tamilnad, Andhradesha, Kerala, Karnataca,Maharashtra, Gujerat, Rajasthan, Sindh, Baluchistan, Pathanland,Kashmir, Western Punjab, Central Punjab , Hindustan, Bihar,Assam, Orissa. The people of each such unit should have theunfettered right of self-determination, i. e. the right to decide freely

6



whether they will join the Indian Union or form a separatesovereign state or another Indian Union .(Jacob, T. G. (ed.) 1988. National Question in India)

This Marxist analysis corroborates the claim put forward by the Kashmiri Workers

Association ‘Britain’ that the very label “India” should not be understood or used in anysense of single political entity, country, nation, or people. This is a peculiar historicalcondition of India that requires a peculiar model for its revolution. The Chinese or anyother model of revolution doesn’t match with the peculiar historical conditions of India.The present structures to maintain the unity of nations in Bharat and Pakistan, asmentioned above, are the product of British colonial expansionism.

This aforementioned Marxist analysis on the national question in India rectifies flawsmade in Pakistan Resolution of 1940, provides a hammer to break the chains of colonialIndian nationalism and recognizes the people of Central Punjab as a nation with their right to a sovereign state. This analysis tears apart the heart of one nation theory, Hindu

nationalism, or modern Brahminism, the mother of all religious nationalisms in India.Above all, it provides the voluntary base for the unity of all Indian nations in their contemporary struggle against imperialism.

The above stated Marxist analysis of the national question in India also helps us in our understanding of the political cunningness of Bharati and Pakistani ideologues whodescribe the creation of Bharati and Pakistani states in British India as a division of Indiainto India and Pakistan. How can a common geographical identity be divided into parts,which loses the identity of its one own part? We have many examples before our eyes,such as divided Ireland, divided Korea, divided Punjab, divided Bengal, and dividedKashmir. Each divided part of a nation, country or people always carries its identity. Theanswer to these questions lies in the fact that there never has been, nor there is an India asa one nation, one country or one people.

By examining the Marxist analysis on the national question in India put forward by theCommunist Party of India in 1946, it can be understood how one-nation theoristshijacked the common geographical identity of all Indian nations. More importantly, itexposes, on the one hand, the paradigm of colonial Indian nationalism that denies theright to self-determination of every nation in India and reflects, on the other hand, thenature of anti-colonial Indian nationalism evolved in British India that recognizes theright to self-determination of every nation in India. This anti-colonial Indian nationalistcharacter of the Indian Independent Movement in British India has to be kept in mindwhen looking at the Indian Independent Movement in States India.

Indian Independent Movement in States IndiaAs mentioned above, the events of the First War of Indian Independence-1857 forced theBritish colonialists to suspend their policy of annexing “indigenous regimes” in India.British imperialism adopted a new policy of forcing indigenous rulers to submit their sovereignties to the British Raj by making submissive agreements and then to maintainthem. Previously, these submissive agreements with ancient countries in India had been

7



made only to annex them when favorable situation arose. After the First War of IndianIndependence, these submissive agreements with 565 states were almost maintained bythe British imperialism till 1947.

The area of India consisting of these 565 states is known as Princely States India or States

India having some very small states and some very big states like Junagarh, Hyderabadand Kashmir. States India consisted of one third of all India and one fourth of its total population. The Indian Independent Movement in States India developed on two levels:on the Indian states level and on the Indian States people’s level.

On the Indian States level, the States rulers represented the Indian IndependentMovement in States India. During the Round Table Conference held in London from 12 th

November 1930 to 19 th January 1931, 57 representatives from British India representedBritish India and 7 representatives from States India represented States India. On theIndian States people’s level, the All India States People’s Conference was, on the behalf of the hundreds of Indian States, encouraging direct political dealing between the States

India and the British Raj.The All India States People’s Conference was a political organization of States India andits first session was held in Mumbai (Bombay) in 1927. Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah,the head of Kashmir’s National Conference was also vice-president of the All India StatesPeople’s Conference on the eve of the transfer of the political power and prison houses of the Indian nations in 1947. The All India States People Conference was struggling tosecure the collective independence of States India from the British Raj. However, theBritish imperialism had its own designs against States India to protect its imperialistinterest in India and the interests of the ruling classes of Bharat and Pakistan.

The policy of annexing “indigenous regimes” that was suspended after the First War of Indian Independence was fully put into operation again after 90 years. Fraud, deceptionand military aggression were the means of the British colonialists to eliminate anddestroy States India completely from the map of India. The Kashmir case presents anexample of this barbarous act of British colonialism in annexing States India.

The Kashmir CaseKashmir’s written historical record goes back 5000 years. Up to 1586 AD, except for a

brief period, Kashmir has been an independent country. During this period of itsindependence Kashghar, Samarkand, Bukhara, Khatan, Khurasan, Kabul, Baluchistan,Punjab, Multan, Sindh, Qanuj, Bengal, Lankan Islands, Bombay and Jullunder all of these areas were conquered and ruled by the rulers of Kashmir. All of these areas arenow under China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bharat. These Kashmiri conquests do notmean that the people of Kashmir have any expansionist and aggressive designs againstthese areas. The purpose of mentioning these Kashmiri conquests is to make a point for those who want to know what the Kashmir is, who the Kashmiris are and where the

boundaries of Kashmir are.

8



Kashmir constitutes an area of 84, 471 square miles that existed as a single political entitywithin its recognized boundaries on 15 th August 1947 or before the Bharati and Pakistanimilitary invasions of Kashmir took place in 1947/8.

There is a Kashmiri nation with different nationalities and different faiths inhabiting the

aforementioned geographical entity of Kashmir. These different nationalities havingdifferent languages and cultures include Gilgiti, Ladakhi, Balti, Broshisky and Traiabi.Traiab is a new name for Jammu province which existed on 15 th August 1947 andincludes Poonch. (Traiab means the land of three rivers, i. e. Jhelum, Chenab and Ravi).

These areas and people, with the exception of a period of foreign occupation, more or less have always been parts of Kashmir. However, the current unity of Kashmiri nationand nationalities exists in the context of their historical and a just common struggleagainst exploitation, oppression and Bharati and Pakistani occupation of Kashmir. Theright to self-determination of every nationality in Kashmir with a right to secede from thecentre has to be recognized in their contemporary struggle against foreign occupation.

On 15 th August 1947, one hundred one-year rule of British imperialism in Kashmir endedwith its independence for 73 days. Bharat invaded Kashmir on 27 th October 1947followed by Pakistani military invasion in May 1948. On 1 st January 1949, Kashmir wasdivided, occupied and annexed by Bharat and Pakistan under the direct guidance of British imperialism. This forced division and forced occupation of Kashmir by Bharatand Pakistan backed by U.S. imperialism continues till today.

Kashmir: as a protected colony of British imperialismBefore the fall of Punjab to British imperialism in 1846, the people of Kashmir includingTraiab were fighting for their independence from the Punjabi occupation. Raja GulabSingh from a local non-Muslim Dogra family was ruling Traiab with the help of his

brothers to serve the Punjabi occupation. With the arrival of British colonialists inPunjab, Raja Gulab Singh changed his loyalty from serving Punjabi occupation to theBritish imperialism.

After the fall of Punjab, Kashmir State was rewarded for the sum of Rs. 50 lakhs througha sale deed called “The Treaty of Amritsar: 16 th March 1846” to Raja Gulab Singh whohad helped British against Punjab. The Kashmiris saw an opportunity to assert their independence from Punjabi occupation and to confront Raja Gulab Singh. This was thefirst war of Kashmiri independence against a Kashmiri ruler backed by Britishimperialism.

With the help of his masters, the British imperialism, Raja Gulab Singh defeated theKashmiris and he became Maharaja (big Raja or King) of Kashmir State practically in

November 1846. With this began a new period of barbarity, cruelty and plundering of theKashmiri people under the despotic rule of Maharaja Gulab Sing and his male heirs.

In 1857, the dying Maharaja Gulab Singh and his son Ranbir Singh were helping their British masters to crush the First War of Indian Independence. Freedom fighters from

9



British India were forbidden to seek asylum in Kashmir. 200 freedom fighters reached inJammu City of Traiab for asylum. They were arrested and handed over to the British,

probably to be tortured and murdered. Most importantly, the puppet ruler of Kashmir sent his army comprising 2000 infantry, 200 cavalry and six guns to assist the Britishimperialism in the siege of Delhi.

When the First War of Indian Independence was being crushed in a blood bath blowingfreedom fighters up in the mouth of cannons in British India, the oppressive rule inKashmir, backed by the British imperialism, was also taking its cruelest form. Thecruelest oppression of the Dogra Raj in Kashmir was bagaar (forced labour). Kashmiri

peasants, particularly Muslim peasants were arrested, and subjugated to forced labour.Whether it was work to move official goods or building roads, Muslims peasants did suchwork without pay. On many occasions these peasants died as a result of hard work andfatigue. When such Muslim peasants were physically useless they were murdered by

being thrown from mountaintops.

Under these conditions of cruelest oppression, the Kashmiri people rose up once again in1931. On the 13 th of July that year the state forces massacred Kashmiri people inSrinagar and this day has become the “ Yaum-e-Shuhada-e-Kashmir ”, the day of Kashmirimartyrs. This uprising spread gradually in many other parts of Kashmir. British armyinvaded Kashmir again to crush the uprising and strengthen the regime of their puppetKashmiri ruler in their protected colony. In Mirpur, another city of Traiab, Walait Aliknown as Batoo and Sadiq Shah, the leaders of the uprising of peasants were arrested andhanged. They are known as “ Shuhada-e-Mirpur ”- martyrs of Mirpur.

To take this war of Kashmiri independence forward, the need for a political party wasfelt, and the Kashmir’s first main political party the “Muslim Conference” was formed in1932. From the very beginning the leadership of the Muslim Conference was taken over

by the Muslims of the ruling classes. Because of the sectarianism of the ruling non-Muslim Dogra family, the Muslims of the ruling classes had lesser status than their non-Muslim peers.

The progressive elements in the lower middle classes pressurized the Muslim Conferencefor a national freedom and for the unity of the poor people having different faiths. As aresult, the Muslim Conference was changed to the National Conference in 1939. On thisoccasion slogans for the unity of poor Muslim peasants and poor non-Muslim peasantswere raised loudly. It was also declared publicly that the Kashmir’s national movementwould remain independent of British India, especially, of the Indian National Congressand the Indian Muslim League.

When progressive intellectual and political cadres realized that the leadership of the National Conference was working for the interests of the ruling classes, they left the National Conference and formed Kisan Mazdoor (Peasants Labourer) Conference.Meanwhile some leaders of the National Conference revived their previous party, theMuslim Conference. This was the political situation in Kashmir at the time when the

10



British imperialism was preparing to transfer its prison houses of Indian nations to itsloyal and puppet classes in India.

Azad Kashmir MovementAt the time when the British imperialism was preparing to transfer its colonial institutions

to colonial Indian nationalists, the Indian National Congress in British India was standard bearer of one-nation theory – the theory of Bharat with the labels of secularism anddemocracy. The Indian Muslim League had demanded Pakistan on the bases of the two-nation theory. The Communist Party of India, on the other hand, demanded right to self-determination, independence and sovereignty for every nation having an ancienthomeland in India. Under these circumstances, on 12 th May 1946, the Kashmir KisanMazdoor Conference raised the slogan of Azad Kashmir having no contradictionwhatsoever with the analysis of the national question in India put forward by theCommunist Party of India in April 1946.

Pundit Prem Nath Bazaz .Pioneer of Azad Kashmir Movement

The Kashmir Kisan Mazdoor Conference laid out a concrete programme to establish an“ Azad Kashmiri Riasat” (a free Kashmiri state) in India apart from Bharat and Pakistanwith an aim to build a classless society free from feudalism, capitalism and foreignoppression. This is the beginning of the Azad Kashmir Movement and it continues in oneform or the other till today.

There were three other main political forces in Kashmir who also stood for anindependent Kashmir having no connection with Bharat, Pakistan, or British India.Maharaja Hari Singh, descendant of Maharaja Gulab Singh intended for theindependence of Kashmir to maintain the tyrannical rule of his family. NationalConference, in its manifesto called “ Naiyya Kashmir ” (New Kashmir), planned for asocialist Kashmir having Maharaja Hari Singh as a constitutional head of the independentKashmir state. And Muslim Conference influenced by the politics of Kisan Mazdoor Conference adopted “Azad Kashmir” resolution in June 1946 with an aim of changing anarbitrary Kashmir state into a republic Kashmir state.

On 15th

August 1947, under the Indian Independent Act of 1947, with the creation of twonew dominions Bharat and Pakistan in British India, Kashmir became an independent andsovereign state and Maharaja Hari Singh lost all rights his family used to claim to ruleKashmir under the “Amritsar Treaty of 1846”. When Mountbatton, the British ruler of “free Bharat”, was working actively to annex Kashmir for Bharat by making favorableadjustment in the boundaries when partitioning Punjab, there was a big peasants’ revolt-taking place in Poonch and Mirpur against the rule of Maharaja Hari Singh.

11



Azad Jumhuria Kashmir (Free Republic of Kashmir)“Of the 71, 667 citizens of the state of …Kashmir who served in British Indian forcesduring World War II, 60, 402 were…from the traditional recruiting ground of Poonch andMirpur” (Schofield, 2000:41). These trained retired army-men were sons and brothers of

poor Kashmiri peasants who organized themselves to get independence from theoppressive rule of Maharaja Hari Singh. This uprising is known in history of Kashmir as Poonch ni Baghawat , the Poonch Revolt. On 3 rd October 1947, over one hundred political workers including the leaders of the Muslim Conference gathered and decided to provide a political direction to the Poonch revolt.

Ghulam Nabi Gilkar Anwar .Founder President of Azad Kashmir Government

On 4 th October 1947, they set up a Provisional Republic Government of Kashmir (AzadKashmir Government), under the leadership of Khawaja Ghulam Nabi Gilkar Anwar,with its headquarter in Muzaffarabad. The Azad Kashmir Government deposed MaharajaHari Singh from the throne and declared Kashmir as an “Azad Jumhuria Kashmir ” (FreeRepublic of Kashmir). “With the termination of paramountcy of the British Crown (on15 th August 1947),” reads the declaration of Azad Jumhuria Kashmir, “the ruling familyof Kashmir have lost whatever rights it claimed under the Treaty of Amritsar, under which Kashmir was transferred by the British to Maharaja Gulab Singh, a forefather of the present ruler, for a paltry sum of Rs. 50 lakhs and that the people have set up aProvisional Republican Government with headquarters at Muzaffarbad.”

“The declaration of Azad Jumhuria Kashmir was,” according to Pundit Prem Nath Bazaz(1992:624), “broadcast on the radio Pakistan and the people of Kashmir welcomed it withgreat enthusiasm.” This is how the civil war in Kashmir broke out between the people of Kashmir under the leadership of the Azad Kashmir Government and the tyrant MaharajaHari Singh on the dispute over the sovereignty of Kashmir. This war of Kashmiri peoplefor their right to sovereignty is also known, in history of Kashmir, as Azad Kashmir Movement. All peasants and their army-retired sons and brothers who had been fightingagainst the rule of Maharaja Hari Singh in Poonch and Mirpur accepted the leadership of the Azad Kashmir Government. Hence, the rebels became the freedom fighters and theyorganized the people’s liberation army known as Azad Kashmir Fauj (Army). The AzadKashmir Army set itself towards Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir.

Bharat and Pakistan, newly born dominions in British India, did not like Kashmir becoming a third independent state in India, but they did not have any power to thwartAzad Kashmir Movement from becoming victorious. It was the British imperialism thatstill enjoyed the actual power in Bharat and Pakistan. The British imperialism stillcontrolled directly the most powerful colonial institutions of Bharat and Pakistan - thearmies of both dominions. The Azad Kashmir Movement became, suddenly, the target of

12



the British imperialist revived policy of annexing remaining natural ancient countries inIndia.

Bharati Military Invasion of Kashmir

The armies of Bharat and Pakistan were under direct command of the British army-generals and the British army-generals of both the armies were under the direct commandof their British General, Field Marshal Auchinleck based in Delhi, Bharat. Of course, allthe British army generals and the British civil bureaucrats in Bharat and Pakistan wereobliged to act according to the guidance and instructions of Mountbatton, therepresentative of the British Crown in India and a British ruler of “free Bharat”.

It was the British military and the British civil bureaucracy of Pakistan who organized atribesmen invasion of Kashmir lead by a Pakistani officer, Major Khurshid Anwar on 22 nd

October 1947. George Cunningham, the British governor of the North-West Frontier (Pakhtunkhawa) reveals the British design against the Azad Kashmir Movement and his

role in organizing the tribesmen invasion of Kashmir by making following notes in hisdiary: “My own position is not too easy. If I give my support to the movement(invasion ), … thousands more (tribesmen) will flock to it and there may be a biginvasion; if I resist it, I have to bear the brunt (from whom? ) if the movement (invasion )fails (to achieve its goal) through lack of support” (Schofield, 2000:50). In Italics arewriter’s notes to prompt the readers.

There were three main objectives of tribesmen invasion of Kashmir. First, it aimed to block the march of the Azad Kashmir Army from entering into Srinagar. Second, itintended to overthrow Azad Kashmir Government in order to divert its struggle fromAzad Kashmir Movement into the annexation of Kashmir in the name of accession. Thethird main objective of the tribesmen invasion was to provide a pretext for the Bharatimilitary invasion of Kashmir. The march of the Azad Kashmir Army towards Srinagar was blocked in Baramula. The Azad Kashmir Government was, in the absence of itsfounder president, overthrown on 24 th October 1947 in the name of its re-constitution.The tribesmen invaders accomplished their goal within five days and most of them fledfrom Kashmir after the Bharati invasion of Kashmir took place.

On 25 th October 1947, a day after the overthrow of the Azad Kashmir Government,Mountbatton, the British ruler of “free Bharat”, called an emergency meeting of theBharati Defense Committee in Delhi. “From henceforth the Indian (Bharati) side, and itsBritish sympathizers like Mountbatton,” asserts Alastair Lamb, “publicly ignored all thathad to do with the Poonch revolt” (1994:85). It would be more correct to say that theBharati rulers, their Kashmiri puppets ant their British masters like Mountbatton publiclyignored the Azad Kashmir Movement following the tribesmen invasion. The events thatfollowed the emergency meeting of Bharati Defense Committee indicate thatMountbatton had already completed all the preparations for his planned military invasionof Kashmir secretly. There is no evidence to suggest that the decision taken in thisemergency meeting to invade Kashmir was in response to any request for militaryassistance made by the Maharaja Hari Singh or his representative.

13



However, available record shows that Mountbatton insisted for the procurement of adocument showing Kashmir’s accession to Bharat before the invasion takes place.Surely, he wanted to justify his military invasion against Kashmir. Immediately after themeeting, V. P. Menon, the States minister was sent to Srinagar by air to obtain the

signature of illegal and deposed Maharaja Hari Singh on the proposed accessiondocument. V.P. Menon returned to Delhi next day, on 26 th October 1947 empty handed toreport Mountbatton that “[t]he Maharaja was completely unnerved by the turn of eventsand by his sense of lone helplessness. There were practically no State forces left and theraiders had almost reached the outskirts of Baramula” (Schofield, 2000:53).

The British organized tribesmen raiders were later to become known as ‘Pakistaniraiders’; a terminology frequently used by the Bharati rulers and their puppet Kashmiri

politicians. The terminology of ‘Pakistani raiders’ is still being used for both purposes; todescribe the tribesmen invaders and to conceal the contribution that Azad Kashmir Armymade in the Azad Kashmir Movement.

The empty handed return of V.P. Menon from Srinagar shows that the Maharaja HariSingh preferred his defeat in the hands of Azad Kashmir Army to surrenderingsovereignty of Kashmir to Bharat. Without signing any document showing his intentionof acceding to Bharat, the deposed and illegal ruler of Kashmir Maharaja Hari Singh fledfrom Srinagar on 26 th October 1947 because he lost out completely to the Azad Kashmir Army in the civil war. However, he was unaware of the fact that the tribesmen invadersin Baramula had blocked the Azad Kashmir Army’s march towards Srinagar. SheikhMohammed Abdullah, the head of the National Conference also fled from Srinagar on26 th October 1947 having afraid of imminent threat of ‘goats’ ruling ‘lions’ and he took the refuge in guest room of the Pundit Nehru’s house on York Road in Delhi. The term‘goats’ is, popularly, attributed to the Muslim Conferences and ‘lions’ to the NationalConferences.

On 27 th October 1947, Bharati army invaded Kashmir under the command of Britisharmy-generals on the pretext that Maharaja Hari Singh had requested for military helpagainst the Pakistani tribesmen invaders and signed an accession document. Manyresearchers have established beyond any doubt that the illegal, deposed and fugitiveMaharaja Hari Singh did not sign any accession document before the Bharati militaryinvasion of Kashmir took place. “In contrast to what Mountbatton had originallyadvised,” Alastair Lamb (1994) claims, “the actual Indian (Bharati) intervention inSrinagar took place before the Maharaja had signed anything indicating his intention toaccede to India (Bharat).” This means that the claim that Maharaja requested Bharat for military help against the tribesmen invaders and signed the accession document wasfalse. Therefore, the rulers of Bharat, lead by Mountbatton, committed a crime against anindependent and sovereign Kashmiri state by launching an illegal invasion against it.

Azad Kashmir: the base camp of Azad Kashmir Movement.The events that followed the Bharati military invasion of Kashmir show that thetribesmen invaders accomplished the objectives of their incursion and fled from Kashmir

14



killing, looting and plundering Kashmiri women on their way home while Kashmiri menwere fighting against Bharati invasion and occupation. The Azad Kashmir Governmentconfronted the Bharati invasion and re-established its sovereignty, which was undermined

by the tribesmen incursion. The Azad Kashmir Movement was further strengthenedwhen the people of northern Kashmir (Gilgit-Baltistan) set up a Local Revolutionary

Council on 31st

October 1947 and accepted the leadership of the Azad Kashmir Government.

It was the Azad Kashmir Army and the people of Kashmir who liberated one third of Kashmir from the rule of Maharaja Hari Singh and the Bharati military invasion. Thisliberated one third area of Kashmir was called Azad Kashmir because it became the basecamp for the Azad Kashmir Movement. The Azad Kashmir Army not only defendedAzad Kashmir successfully for a very long time against the Bharati invasion andoccupation, but it also made the defeat of the Bharati occupying army in Kashmir certain.

From the very beginning, the British ruler of “free Bharat”, Mountbatton knew very well

that it was not possible for Bharati army alone to crush Azad Kashmir Movement.Because the Azad Kashmir Army, the vanguard of Azad Kashmir Movement, became a popular army in Kashmir and poor peasants were feeding and supporting it. Therefore,Mountbatton had to revise his original plan of annexing Kashmir for Bharat to divide it

between Bharat and Pakistan.

For this purpose, Mountbatton offered the share of the Kashmir cake to the ruling classesof Pakistan during his visit to Lahore on 1 st November 1947 provided Pakistan helpedBharat in its war against Azad Kashmir Army. During his visit to Lahore, “Mountbattonopened his discussion,” according to Alastair Lamb (1994), “…by explaining the Indian(Bharati) plebiscite proposal which was now on the table, essentially the holding of thevote following the withdrawal of the Azad Kashmir Forces”. Here, it is important to notethat Mountbatton did not use any terminology of ‘raiders’, ‘invaders’, ‘tribesmeninvaders’, or ‘Pakistani invaders’. The term ‘withdrawal of the Azad Kashmir Forces’used by Mountbatton must be understood as a euphemism for the ‘defeat of the AzadKashmir Army’. Hence, with the willingness of the Pakistani ruling classes, a military

plan was prepared for the Pakistan army to occupy Azad Kashmir, the base camp of theAzad Kashmir Movement.

Pakistani Military Invasion of Azad Kashmir(An act of stabbing Azad Kashmir from the back)In order to defeat Azad Kashmir Army, General Gracey, the British Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan army mapped out the division of Kashmir with a Line-of-Military-Occupation (LoMO) as Naushera, Poonch and Uri. On 20 th April 1948, according toMajor General (R) Akbar Khan (1973), General Gracey submitted his military plan to theGovernment of Pakistan to occupy Azad Kashmir implying Azad Kashmir Movement,Azad Kashmir Government and Azad Kashmir Army as terrorist forces. Accordingly, thePakistan army invaded Azad Kashmir in May 1948 and gradually turned Azad Kashmir into two occupied parts of Pakistani Occupied Kashmir: Pakistani Occupied NorthernKashmir and Pakistani Occupied Southern Kashmir.

15



It took about nine months of back door or track-two diplomacy and misusing of theUnited Nations to stage an imperialist directed war drama over so called the Kashmir’saccession dispute between Bharat and Pakistan. On 13 th August 1948, Bharati andPakistani rulers agreed to make a “cease-fire” and hold plebiscite in Kashmir under thesupervision of the Untied Nations. This agreement is also known as United Nations’

resolution on Kashmir. Supplemented by another resolution of 5th

January 1949, itmisleads people to believe that the Kashmir dispute is an accession dispute betweenBharat and Pakistan. If these United Nations resolutions on Kashmir are put into practicethey accomplish the total annexation of Kashmir in the name of accession – an imperialistagenda against the Azad Kashmir Movement.

Bharati rulers signed and Mountbatton supported the United Nations’ resolution onKashmir with two conditions attaching to it. First, Pakistan will not recognize AzadKashmir Government as a legal and representative government of the Kashmiri people.And second, Pakistan will disband the Azad Kashmir Army. Instead of recognizing AzadKashmir Government as a gesture of goodwill towards the people of Kashmir against the

common enemy: modern Brahminism, the Pakistani rulers turned Azad Kashmir Government into a puppet government of their own.

The Pakistani rulers also disbanded Azad Kashmir Army to comply with the conditions put forward by Pundit Nehru and Mountbatton. The writing of Mohammad Ayub Khan(1967:31) shows that the Azad Kashmir Army was disbanded against the consent or approval of the Azad Kashmir Government. The writings of Sardar Mohammed IbrahimKhan (1966), Mohammad Ayub Khan (1967) and Major General (R) Akbar Khan (1973)indicate that the Pakistani rulers disbanded Azad Kashmir Army with the help of aPakistani officer, Major General Akbar Khan. Major General Akbar Khan had disguisedhimself as a Pakistani volunteer helping his Kashmiri brothers who were fighting Bharatioccupation and infiltrated into Azad Kashmir Army. Sardar Mohammed Ibrahim Khan, agallant Kashmiri at the time but a naïve and inexperienced 2 nd president of the AzadKashmir Government, placed Major General Akbar Khan as a commander of the AzadArmy by the name of general Tariq only to walk into a trap laid by the BritishCommander-in-Chief of the Pakistan army.

Azad Kashmir Movement and the United NationsBy a close analysis of the United Nations resolutions on Kashmir, it appears that theUnited Nations was used as an instrument to legitimize the illegitimate Pakistani andBharati occupation of Kashmir. It means that the United Nations was used to clean the

gandagi (filth), the British imperialism produced in Kashmir during its acts of crushingthe Azad Kashmir Movement.

On 1 st January 1949, the Line-of-Military-Occupation, in the name of ‘cease-fire-line’,was finally imposed on the people of Kashmir. The ‘cease-fire’ in Kashmir came aboutunder the so-called ‘Truce-agreement’ of the United Nations Resolution of 13 th August1948. Two British generals leading Bharati and Pakistani armies against each other in‘the Kashmir war’ signed the ‘cease-fire’. General Gracey on the behalf of the Pakistan

16



army and General Roy Bucher on the behalf of the Bharati army put the paradise of Kashmir on fire by signing and imposing the Line-of-Military Occupation of Kashmir.

Under the imperialist designed external aggression, the Azad Kashmir Movement wasdefeated and ‘democratic, secular and nationalist forces’ lead by Pundit Nehru in Bharat

and by Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah in Kashmir prevailed under the direction, guidanceand leadership of Mountbatton, the representative of British imperialism and jointcommander of the Pakistani and Bharati armies. The doors for the opportunist MuslimConferences to buy official employment in exchange for patriotism in Pakistani OccupiedKashmir were also opened wide.

The Line-of-Military-Occupation imposed on the people of Kashmir is almost the sameline that General Gracey had planned out and had submitted to the Government of Pakistan on 20 th April 1948. This is how; Kashmir was divided, occupied and annexed bythe ruling classes of Bharat and Pakistan under a plan hatched by the British imperialism.The ruling classes of Bharat and Pakistan usurped Kashmir’s independence and

sovereignty by means of fraud, deception and aggression. In the process of thisimperialist staged war drama between Bharat and Pakistan and setting both countriesagainst each other over Kashmir, the role of the ruling classes of Bharat and Pakistanappears to be no more than tools of imperialism. They have, in the name of secularismand Islam respectively, followed and acted upon the directions and guidance of their imperialist masters.

The defeat of Azad Kashmir Movement resulted into three occupied parts of Kashmir:Bharati Occupied Kashmir, Pakistani Occupied Northern Kashmir and PakistaniOccupied Southern Kashmir. The current label of Azad Kashmir attached to PakistaniOccupied Southern Kashmir is only a remnant of the first phase of the Azad Kashmir Movement.

This is a brief description of the first phase of the Azad Kashmir Movement catapulted bythe events of the peasants’ revolt of 1931 and launched by the Kisan Mazdoor Conferenceon 12 th May 1946. The leaders of the Muslim Conference hijacked the Azad Kashmir Movement on 4 th October 1947 by setting up the Azad Kashmir Government. In order tocrush the Azad Kashmir Movement, the British military and civil bureaucracy rulingPakistan and Bharat divided Kashmir and imposed Bharati and Pakistani occupation onthe people of Kashmir.

These accounts of the Azad Kashmir Movement reflect the fate of many other states,which suffered in States India in the hands of Bharati and Pakistani rulers and Britishimperialism. These accounts give an insight into the fact that there was no unified or homogeneous Indian Independent movement in India for a unified or homogeneouscountry, nation, or people. The Kashmir case shows clearly that there were two differentIndian Independent movements in two different Indias. There was an Indian Independentmovement in British India that recognized the rights of Indian nations having ancienthomelands; and there was also another Indian Independent movement in States India thatstood for sovereign rights of States in States India. The Kashmir case also helps us in our

17



understanding of why Indian Independent Movement in States India was crushed anddestroyed under the direct guidance of the British imperialism.

Azad Kashmir Movement and Imperialism in IndiaHaving Kashmir case studied as an example, some basic questions arise in relation to theIndian Independent Movement in States India and the interest of imperialism in India.Why did British imperialism design an aggression against the Azad Kashmir Movement?Why British imperialism had to destroy States India from the map of India? What wasthe imperialist interest involved in the destruction of States India? All these questionscan be answered in Mountbatton’s own words, which he wrote in his letter of 8 th Augustto Earl of Listowel. It reads:

The Indian (Bharati) Dominion, consisting nearly of three-quarters of India, and with its immense resources and its important strategic

position in the Indian Ocean, is a Dominion, which we cannot afford toestrange for the fate of the so-called independence of the States.(Schofield, 2000:39)

This self-explanatory statement helps us in our understanding of the imperialist interestinvolved in the Bharati and Pakistani wars for the annexation of Kashmir. This statementalso helps us to understand why the European Union and the United States regard Bharattoday as their strategic partner . Bharat is, as visualized by Mountbatton, a vast marketwith immense resources to be exploited by the big imperialist powers. Bharat is also, as asuccessor of the British Raj, playing an imperialist role in India and in the Indian Oceanand this makes her strategic partner of other imperialist powers. Therefore, the role of Bharati State in India is no less than role of a colonialist power that preserves the chainsof imperialist domination in which the Indian nations were bound by the Britishimperialism. Pakistan is, currently, a front-line state in imperialist war against ‘terrorism’and it had, previously, been a front-line state in U.S. war against Soviet Union. Thisshows that the forced division and forced occupation of Kashmir by Bharat and Pakistancontinues to serve the interest of colonialism and imperialism in India.

However, many Bharatis and Kashmiris are misled by Bharati state cultural industry to believe that it was a Bharati war in Kashmir for the defense of ‘democratic, secular andnationalist’ forces against the Pakistani communal invaders. Many Pakistanis andKashmiris are also misled by the Pakistani media to believe that Pakistan is a legitimate

party to the Kashmir dispute on the bases of two-nation theory. These arguments have nohistorically justifiable base and they appear to be in a total denial of the Azad Kashmir Movement and they meant to cover up the Bharati and Pakistani wars for the annexationof Kashmir.

Kashmir:as an annexed colony of Bharat and PakistanThe historical events mentioned above indicate that the Kashmir dispute is not a dispute

between Bharat and Pakistan. Both the occupiers have not any justifiable claim over

18



Kashmir or any part of it. The Kashmir dispute, it appears, is a dispute between the people of Kashmir and the ruling classes of Bharat because the ruling classes of Bharatare occupying Bharati Occupied Kashmir without having any legal, constitutional, or democratic right. The Kashmir dispute is also a dispute between the people of Kashmir and the ruling classes of Pakistan because the ruling classes of Pakistan are occupying

both parts of Pakistani Occupied Kashmir: Pakistani Occupied Northern Kashmir andPakistani Occupied Southern Kashmir without having any legal or democratic ground.Therefore, it is completely wrong and misleading to call Kashmir as a “disputed state”and the term must be refuted vehemently. Kashmir is not a disputed state, but a dividedand occupied state.

The historical events leading to the forced division of Kashmir between Bharat andPakistan, and the subsequent treatment of all its divided parts by both the states are clear indication that Kashmir is an annexed colony of Bharat and Pakistan. Undoubtedly, thereare some Kashmiri political parties in all three occupied parts of Kashmir, which for theinterests of the Kashmiri ruling classes are serving foreign occupation and imperialism by

singing their masters’ voices. Many political parties of Bharat and Pakistan are alsoencouraging occupying forces by setting up their branches in Kashmir and by recruitingKashmiri activists by the means of bribery and corruption as members of their political

parties.

There are branches of Bharati political parties in Bharati Occupied Kashmir, the productof Bharati occupation of Kashmir, growing like mushroom. There are also branches of Pakistani political parties in Pakistani Occupied Northern Kashmir and PakistaniOccupied Southern Kashmir, the product of Pakistani occupation of Kashmir. The basicobjectives of these branches of the Bharati and Pakistani political parties in Kashmir areto confuse the divided and occupied status of Kashmir, mislead the Kashmiri people, andlegitimize the illegitimate occupation of Kashmir by their respective countries.

Despite all these atrocities committed and being committed against the people of Kashmir, there is a discontent and a struggle in Pakistani Occupied Northern Kashmir and Pakistani Occupied Southern Kashmir against the Pakistani occupation. There is alsoa big discontent and a big struggle in Bharati Occupied Kashmir against the Bharatioccupation.

The Second Phase of the Azad Kashmir MovementThere is a 60 years old struggle of the Kashmiri people for their independence,sovereignty and reunification of the Kashmir State – in search of the lost track of theAzad Kashmir Movement. Khawaja Ghulam Nabi Gilkar Anwar, the founder presidentof the Azad Kashmir Government, consistently fought to defend the cause of AzadRepublic of Kashmir till his death. Maqbool Butt Shaheed , the leader of the Kashmir national liberation movement, was hanged by the Bharati state in 1984, a job thatPakistani state had intended to accomplish in early 1970s.

There is a history of great sacrifices the people of each occupied part of Kashmir havemade during the last 60 years in their struggle against Bharati and Pakistani occupation of

19



Kashmir. There is a long list of revolts in Pakistani Occupied Northern Kashmir andPakistani Occupied Southern Kashmir against the Pakistani occupation. More than80,000 Kashmiris have laid down their lives in Bharati Occupied Kashmir since themartyrdom of Maqbool Butt Shaheed in 1984. There are more than half a dozen political

parties in each part of occupied Kashmir struggling for a free, united and independent

Kashmir without having any connection with the Azad Kashmir Movement. They lost thetrack of the Azad Kashmir Movement. In these conditions, the struggle of the Kashmirirevolutionaries like Khawaja Ghulam Nabi Gilkar Anwar, Maqbool Butt Shaheed, andthe Kashmiri Workers Association ‘Britain’ for tracking the path of Azad Kashmir Movement constitutes the second phase of the Azad Kashmir Movement.

The Azad Kashmir Movement contains historical, political and ideological bases for thedevelopment of a revolutionary movement in Kashmir initiated by the Kashmir KisanMazdoor Conference in 1946. The Azad Kashmir Movement has to be re-organized bythe working classes of Kashmir against all forms of colonialism and imperialism. Since1982, the Kashmiri Workers Association ‘Britain’ has been struggling to persuade various

political parties inside Kashmir to launch the third phase of the Azad Kashmir Movementwithout having any success. Therefore, the Kashmiri Workers Association ‘Britain’ hasnow decided to launch a third phase of the Azad Kashmir Movement from a position of Kashmiri workers in Britain.

The Azad Kashmir Movement also forms a part of anti-colonial and anti-imperialistmovements in India and the world over. As it has been established above that Kashmir isa divided, occupied and slave country; “a slave nation,” according to Bhagat Sing,“cannot establish a classless society, abolish exploitation and bring about equality amongmen (people). For such a nation, the first and foremost task is to break the chains of imperialist domination that bind it. In other words, revolution in a slave country has to beanti-imperialist and anti-colonial”. The Azad Kashmir Movement stands for a Kashmirirevolution, which will break Bharati and Pakistani occupation of Kashmir as a first andforemost task.

Maqbool Butt Shaheed Pioneer of National Liberation Movement

However, it seems necessary to assert that it is the U.S. imperialism, which has cultivatedthe poisonous Kashmir dispute between Bharat and Pakistan with the blood of the peopleof Bharat and Pakistan. The supervisory role of the U.S. imperialism on so-called present“peace process” between Bharat and Pakistan is very obvious. This “peace-process” isdesigned to fulfill the strategic needs of global-colonialism by sanctifying the “Line-of-Military-Occupation” in Kashmir, and legitimize the forced and illegal occupation of Kashmir by Bharat and Pakistan. This is a new imperialist clamp of global-colonialism

20



being tightened not only against the divided and occupied people of Kashmir but alsoagainst the people of every enslaved nation in India.

ConclusionIn conclusion, there has never nor there is an India in the sense of one country, onenation, or one people. As John Keay (2000:7) writes, “[d]espite the pick-and-preachapproach of many nationalist historians ( one-nation theorists ), geographical India is notnow, and never has been, a single politico-cultural entity.” Before the imperialistdomination of India, there were “indigenous regimes” many of them destroyed by theBritish imperialism. British imperialism manufactured, during the first one hundredyears of its colonial expansionism, the unity of different people in India under the power of the imperialist sword. This was called British India.

The First War of Indian Independence-1857 forced British imperialism to suspend its

policy of annexing indigenous regimes and this caused the emergence of two India:British India and States India. British imperialism introduced colonial Indian nationalismin British India to maintain the forced unity of Indian nations and to dilute anti-colonialIndian nationalism. The colonial Indian nationalism gave birth to the ideologies of Bharat and Pakistan based on religion- the fascist methods of preserving forced unity of Indian nations.

In 1947, the creation of Bharati and Pakistani states in British India meant the transfer of prison houses of Indian nations to Indian capitalist, service and feudal classes, the loyal products and servants of the British imperialism. Since 1947, we have witnessed the brutal and barbarous corollaries of Bharati and Pakistani ideologies resulting in theannexation of States India by both the ruling classes of Bharat and Pakistan, and inmaintaining and preserving the forced Indian nations’ unity, inherited from the Britishimperialism.

A study of Kashmir case has shown us how an independent and sovereign state in StatesIndia was changed into an annexed colony of Bharat and Pakistan to serve the interest of imperialism in India. We have witnessed Bangladeshi war against the Punjabiestablishment in Pakistan for the liberation of East Bengal. We have witnessed that thenational liberation movements in all occupied parts of Kashmir, Sindh, Baluchistan,

Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Rajputana, Taripura etcetera are being developed. Thesedevelopments taking place in Bharat and Pakistan suggest that the national question inIndia remains unresolved and the goal of Indian Independent Movement also remainsunaccomplished.

In the context of anti imperialist struggle in India, the Indian Independent Movement,therefore, represents the aspirations of the every Indian nation for real independence fromimperialist domination, colonialism and all forms of subjugation. It means theindependence of every Indian nation to join the Indian Union or divorce it. It signifiesthe independence of every Indian nation to form a separate sovereign state or to join

21



another Indian Union. This is not a new interpretation of the Indian IndependentMovement being put forward by the Kashmiri Workers Association ‘Britain’.

The basis for this interpretation of the Indian Independent Movement was laid down inthe First War of Indian Independence and the concrete programme for it was submitted

by the Communist Party of India to the British Cabinet Mission in April 1946. However,a distinction has to be drawn between the role of the Communist Party of India and theCommunist Part of Bharat, in the name of India, which betrayed not only the workingclasses of all Indian nations but also annexed and enslaved Indian nations.

The end-product of the opportunistic role of the Communist Party of Bharat is before our eyes. The rights of nations having natural ancient homelands in India and the voluntary

bases for their unity against imperialism were lost out to the ruling classes of Bharat andPakistan and to their imperialist masters. Moreover, the one-nation theorists hijacked theIndian nations’ common geographical identity, ‘Indian’, to conceal their modernBrahminism.

In view of these findings, it would be a right course of political action to encounter modern Brahminism and liberate the common geographical identity of all Indian nations

by initiating a preliminary claim of three India that exist today, i.e. Bharati India,Pakistani India, and Bangladeshi India. The people of these Indian countries have andcarry the different aspects of the Indian Independent Movement in their histories. Thecontribution and sacrifice they have made in the Indian Independent Movement must berecognized and commended.

The term ‘India’ is not a unified, homogeneous or a natural ancient country that is openedfor partition or division. On the contrary, Kashmir, Punjab, and Bengal are the naturalancient countries, which were partitioned or divided and these countries deserve theattention from the Indian revolutionaries. By blaming two-nation theory for the so-called

partition of India, the opportunist Marxists ignore the one-nation theory or Bharatiideology as a root cause of it and they become, in the name of secularism, the championof modern Brahminism. Consequently, they become tools of oppressing the nationalliberation movements in India including the national liberation movement of Kashmir.The role of the Communist Party of ‘Bharat’ is very clear on opposing the nationalliberation movement of Kashmir.

The prevailing situations in India show that Bharat is playing an imperialist role in Indiawhile Pakistan is a front-line state in India in imperialist global war on ‘terrorism’. At thesame time both the countries are prison houses of annexed and enslaved Indian nations.It is not a question of uneven development of capitalism in India, but the chains of imperialist domination in which powerful Indian nations, backed by imperialist powers,enslave and oppress weak Indian nations.

Therefore, it appears to be a correct course of action for all enslaved Indian nations toreclaim the voluntary basis of their unity in their contemporary struggle againstcolonialism and imperialism. It means that the Indian Independent Movement must be

22



interpreted in the interest of the people of all nations in India. It also means that thehistory of India should not be left at the mercy of one-nation theorists or two nationtheorists to interpret it in the way that suits them and their imperialist masters.

A Way Forward

Four facts are to be recognized for reclaiming of the Indian nations’ voluntary unityagainst colonialism and imperialism. Firstly, there is a “Bharati State” in India: a statethat represents, in the name of democracy, secularism and Indian nationalism, all thecharacters of modern Brahminism. Secondly, Bharati State has its power base inGangetic plain and Maharashtra and oppresses other Indian nations in Bharat. Thirdly,the Bharati State, as a new form of the British Raj, is playing an imperialistic role in Indiaand in Indian Ocean as Mountbatton envisaged it in 1947. And finally, there is aPakistani State in India: a state of “Punjabi Establishment” that serves the interest of imperialism and oppresses other Indian nations in Pakistan in the name of Islam.

A trap can also be seen in raising slogan of “people’s resistance against globalization in

South Asia or Sub-continent”. It is like talking about “people’s globalization” to escapefrom the duty to internationalism. As long as imperialism and its structure of colonialismexist whether this structure is in the form of colonialism, semi-colonialism, or global-colonialism, there can be no escape from the duty to internationalism.

It means that there will be no people’s globalization without the total defeat of colonialism and the total victory of internationalism. Similarly, there will be no wayforward for the people’s globalization in India as long as the imperialist- made chains of colonialism exist in both India: Pakistani India and Bharati India where powerful areassuch as Gangetic plain in Bharat and Punjab in Pakistan dominate and enslave weak nations. Revolutions in slave countries, such as Kashmir, Sindh, Baluchistan, Nagaland,Assam, Manipur, Jharkhand, Rajputana, Taripura have to be anti-occupation, anti-colonial and anti-imperialist.

Azad Kashmir Movement ZindabadAll Indian Nations’ Voluntary Unity against Imperialism Zindabad

Internationalism Zindabad

23

The First War of Indian Independence-1857 by M.Y.taryaby

Documents