We have been celebrating 50 years of India's Independence as if India simply did not exist before 15th of August 1947. On a smaller scale we have now celebrated 50 years of Jammu & Kashmir's accession to India as if this state was not a part of our nation before October 26, 1947, the day Maharaja Hari Singh signed the accession document, as decreed by the British. Both these propositions are equally absurd, if not downright mischievous. Just as India is a hoary nation, its civilisation itself several millennia old, despite its changing names and borders, the state of Jammu & Kashmir has been a part of this nation throughout these millennia despite its changing rulers and their loyalties and affiliations.A long and virtually interminable debate is raging on the date of the actual signing of the Kashmir's accession document ever since British historian Alistair Lamb sought to prove that this document simply could not have been signed on October 26, as it would have been physically impossible for the Maharaja to do so, and that once the Indian troops had landed in Srinagar without accession, he may not have felt the need to do so at all.Indian scholars have responded with a series of articles and books defending the Indian claim. Some of them have further confounded the confusion. Prem Shankar Jha, for instance, claims in his book Kashmir 1947, that the document was signed on October 25th itself, virtually confirming Lamb's allegation. His claim is based on the testimony of Field Marshal Manekshaw. But Manekshaw himself repudiates his own claim to authenticity by saying in an interview to the author, ``I can't tell you the dates.'' Jha defends him by ascribing this to the fading memory of the old age. True enough. But then why drag the old man into this controversy at all if his memory can't be relied upon and how can you expect the world to believe your claims?The roots of the Kashmir problem lie in the inability of the Congress leaders to tackle the question of princely states in a sensible manner. The entire principle of British paramountcy over these princely states numbering more than 560 (even their precise number is difficult to find out) was a ludicrous proposition. In theory, these states were free to join either of the two dominions or remain independent. Why was India or for that matter Pakistan supposed to deal with hundreds of these states separately? The whole idea of Paramountcy was nothing but a fantasy. This was just a self-serving British arrangement. The moment the British left, all these areas should have become free, thus saving the sub-continent many of the problems that have bedevilled us since. But, of course, the Congress was in such a hurry to rule then, as it is now, that it couldn't care less about the future of the country.While immensely absorbing and rewarding to our mandarins, these debates leave the average Indian cold. For him or her, Kashmir has been a part of the Indian nation for ever. Empires do not a nation make. And yet the valley of Kashmir became a part of the very first Indian empire to take shape - Ashoka's empire which extended up to Afghanistan. According to traditions, the capital city of Kashmir, Srinagar, was built in the reign of Ashoka. Thus over two thousand years ago the Kashmir administration was run from Patliputra, the present-day Patna. Its political and administrative relationship with India has continued intermittently since, whether during Mughal, British, Sikh or Dogra rule.Kashmir's deepest connection with the Indian nation is, of course, in the spiritual realm. Kashmir has been a permanent part of our mindscape. Where else but in Kashmir would you find Muslims prepared, not so openly perhaps in the present milieu, to claim their Vedic and Buddhist heritage.Kashmir is important for our mandarins as real estate, as a debating point. But Kashmir is important for us common Indians because Kashmiriyat is a prototype for Hindustaniyat. A unique blend of unity in ideological diversity, Kashmiriyat has survived both the Jagmohans and the George Fernandeses of India. If you know present-day Kashmir, you would have no hesitation in believing that it would survive the Syed Gilanis and Yasin Maliks as well.
