Saquib Salim

“It is a remarkable fact that, while the Security Council and its various agencies have devoted so much time to the study of the Kashmir dispute and made various suggestions for its resolution, none of them has tried to ascertain the views of Indian Muslims nor the possible effect of any hasty step in Kashmir, however well intentioned, on the interests and well-being of the Indian Muslims. We are convinced that no lasting solution for the problem can be found unless the position of Muslims in Indian society is clearly understood.”

This is from a memorandum submitted by prominent Indian Muslim leaders to the UN Security Council-appointed mediator, Dr Frank Graham, on 14 August 1951.

The signatories included Dr. Zakir Husain, Sir Mohammed Usman, Sir Mohammed Ahmad Said Khan (Nawab of Chhattari) and Colonel B. H. Zaidi (administrator), Sir Sultan Ahmed and Sir Iqbal Ahmad (jurists), Sir Fazal Rahimtoola and Hashim Premji (businessmen), Maulana Hafiz-ur Rehman and H. Quamar Faruqi (leaders of Jamiat-i-Ulama), Nawab Zain Yar Jung (administrator), A. K. Khwaja ( Muslim Majlis, T. M. Zarif (leader of Bohra Muslims), and Syed M. A. Kazmi (Politician).

What is intriguing here is the fact that the issue raised by these Muslim leaders still holds good after 75 years. While debating the issue of Kashmir, nobody takes into consideration the point of view of the Indian Muslims. No book on Kashmir of that era mentions what the Muslims of India thought about Pakistan's claim on Kashmir. It’s interesting given that Pakistan invokes Islam while claiming the territory of Kashmir.

In such a situation, it becomes even more pertinent to tell the world the viewpoint of Indian Muslims on Kashmir.

In 1951, the UN Security Council decided that a UN Representative, under the terms of this resolution, would be responsible for effecting demilitarisation of Kashmir, preliminary to a plebiscite, or of obtaining the parties’ agreement to a demilitarisation plan, within three months from the date of his arrival in the subcontinent. Dr Frank Graham, an educator from the University of North Carolina, who had already worked in settling disputes related to Jews in Palestine and Indonesian problems in the 1940s, was appointed as the UN point person.

On 14 August 1951, a delegation of Muslim leaders from India submitted a memorandum to him saying, “It is a strange commentary on political beliefs that the same Muslims of Pakistan who would like the Muslims of Kashmir to join them invaded the state, in October 1947, killing and plundering Muslims in the state and dishonouring Muslim women, all in the interests of what they described as the liberation of Muslims of the state. In its oft-proclaimed anxiety to rescue the three million Muslims from what it describes as the tyranny of a handful of Hindus in the state, Pakistan evidently is prepared to sacrifice the interests of forty million Muslims in India's strange exhibition of concern for the welfare of fellow Muslims. Our misguided brothers in Pakistan do not realise that if Muslims in Pakistan can wage a war against Hindus in Kashmir, why should not Hindus, sooner or later, retaliate against Muslims in India?”

Frank P Graham with Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru

These leaders blamed the Pakistan government’s treatment of its Hindus as a major cause of anti-Muslim feeling in India. They said, “Pakistan had made our position weaker by driving out Hindus from West Pakistan in utter disregard of the consequences of such a policy to us and our welfare. A similar process is in operation in Eastern Pakistan, from where Hindus are coming over to India in larger numbers. If Hindus are not welcome in Pakistan, how can we, in all fairness, expect Muslims to be welcomed in India? Such a policy must inevitably, as the past has already shown, result in the uprooting of Muslims in this country and their migration to Pakistan, where, as it became clear last year, they are no longer welcome, lest their influx should destroy Pakistan's economy.”

These leaders rejected Pakistan’s allegations about Muslims being suppressed by Hindus in India. They asserted that Indian leadership and culture ensured that Muslims lived with dignity and rights.

The memorandum reads, “If we are living honourably in India today, it is, therefore, certainly not due to Pakistan, which, if anything, has by her policy and action weakened our position. The credit goes to the broad-minded leadership of India, to Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, to the traditions of tolerance in this country, and to the Constitution which ensures equal rights to all citizens of India, irrespective of their religion, caste, creed, colour, or sex.

"We, therefore, feel that, tragically as Muslims were misled by the Muslim League and subsequently by Pakistan and the unnecessary suffering which we and our Hindu brethren have had to go through in Pakistan and in India since partition, we must be allowed to settle down to a life of tolerance and understanding to the mutual benefit of Hindus and Muslims in our country - if only Pakistan would let us do it. To us, it is a matter of no small consequence. Despite continuous provocation, first from the Muslim League and since then from Pakistan, the Hindu majority in India has not thrown us, or members of other minorities, out of civil services, armed forces, the judiciary, trade, commerce, business, and industry.”

They did not paint a rosy picture of India. They did raise a point that Muslims had their own problems in India, but still, they did not need any external, say Pakistani, intervention. The Indian constitution and its people were not structurally anti-Muslim as Pakistan would like the world to believe.

They stated, “Not that our lot is entirely happy. We wish some of the state governments showed a little greater sympathy for us in the field of education and employment. Nevertheless, we feel we have an honourable place in India. Under the law of the land, our religious and cultural life is protected, and we shall share in the opportunities open to all citizens to ensure progress for the people of this country.”

They told Graham that Pakistan’s foreign policy was intended to hurt the security of Muslims in India. They said, “Persistent propaganda about jehad is intended, among other things, to inflame religious passions in this country. For it would, of course, be in Pakistan's interests to promote communal rioting in India to show the Kashmiri Muslims how they can find security only in Pakistan. Such a policy, however, can only bring untold misery and suffering to India and Pakistan generally and to Indian Muslims particularly……. Pakistan's policy in general and its attitude towards Kashmir in particular thus tend to create conditions in this country which, in the long run, can only bring to us Muslims widespread suffering and destruction.

"Its policy prevents us from settling down, from being honourable citizens of a state, free from the suspicion of our fellow countrymen and adapting ourselves to changing conditions to promote the interests and welfare of India….. It expects us to be loyal to it despite its inability to give us any protection, believing at the same time that we can still claim all the rights of citizenship in a secular democracy. In the event of a war, it is extremely doubtful whether it will be able to protect the Muslims of East Bengal, who are completely cut off from West Pakistan. Are the Muslims of India and East Pakistan to sacrifice themselves completely to enable the twenty-five million Muslims in West Pakistan to embark upon mad, self-destructive adventures?”

These prominent Muslim leaders who represented the opinions of the largest body of Islamic scholars, Jamiat-i-Ulama, Aligarh Muslim University, Bohras, Muslim business class, feudal lords, jurists and politicians vehemently opposed any intervention of Pakistan in Kashmir.

ALSO READ: Vande Mataram was sung during Khilafat movement, till Jinnah politicised it

They told Graham, “We should, therefore, like to impress upon you with all the emphasis at our command that Pakistan's policy towards Kashmir is fraught with the gravest peril to the forty million Muslims of India. If the Security Council is really interested in peace, human brotherhood, and international understanding, it should heed this warning while there is still time.”