A historian once remarked that historical facts are like pieces of fish and the function of a historian is to connect them to make a meaningful whole. However, the events of the past are invariably subject to various interpretations, and sometimes the conclusions drawn by a multitude of interpreters may turn out to be contradictory.
There are also certain historical occurrences wherein the leader of the day is blamed for what went wrong later on. Such is the case of Kashmir after India got Independence in 1947. If we go by the sequence of events, then it becomes clear that immediately after becoming independent, the leaders of the government began to make sure that all the princely states joined the Indian Union.
However, a problem emerged with two princely states, which stood in contrast to each other. The first was Junagadh, ruled by a Muslim Nawab with a Hindu-majority population, and the second was Kashmir, ruled by a Hindu Maharaja with a Muslim-majority population.
We all know that the Partition of India occurred on the basis of religion. Despite the fact that the Nawab of Junagadh decided to join Pakistan, the final decision took place after a plebiscite in early 1948 (in which over 99 per cent of those who voted chose to join India). The case of Kashmir, however, turned out to be quite different and became the basis of India-Pakistan conflict from 1947 onwards.
Pakistan showed its intent immediately after Independence and Partition, when its soldiers, disguised as tribesmen, entered Kashmir on October 22, 1947. The Maharaja of Kashmir had already made it clear that he wanted to remain independent of both countries, but immediately after the attack he signed the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947, as a result of which the Indian Army entered Kashmir to push the invaders back to the point where the present Line of Control (LoC) exists.
In his autobiography titled Beyond the Lines, published in 2012, the acclaimed journalist and author Kuldip Nayyar offers certain interesting facts. He refers to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the then Home Minister, who was of the view that the logic applied in the case of Junagarh should be applied to Kashmir, but feared that Jawaharlal Nehru’s ancestral ties would come in the way. Nayyar is critical of Nehru for preventing the Indian Army from winning back the whole of Kashmir.
After the first battle with Pakistan over Kashmir and the UN recommending a plebiscite to decide Kashmir’s fate, which India rejected on account of the fact that it was a case of accession, the two post-colonial states entered into a a permanent state of conflict.
It should also be remembered that during that time, India’s leaders were busy drafting the Constitution of the newly liberated country. Kashmir came up as an issue for discussion in the Constituent Assembly on May 27, 1949. Prof. K.T. Shah was the only one to raise the issue of a referendum to permanently settle the issue, but it was strongly opposed by none other than Nehru himself.
We now see Nehru frequently being mentioned not for initiating the modernisation of India but for other reasons, often unverified. One may say that politics is all about demolishing the existing myths depending upon the ideology of the party in power at the time. However, if we look back from the present perspective, we can say that at the time of Independence, India’s leaders were not concerned with geopolitics and long-term strategy to ensure the safety of the country.
It is quite possible that both Nehru and Patel did not understand the strategic geopolitical significance of Kashmir for India. The subsequent discussion on Kashmir has remained confined to whether a Muslim-majority state should have gone to Pakistan, and why Nehru stopped the war without taking back the whole of Kashmir.
With the passage of time, the only issue that has remained for critics of Nehru is that he intentionally stepped in and approached the UN, a decision that permanently made Kashmir an apple of discord. Unfortunately, it is quite difficult to fully examine why the Indian Army did not occupy the rest of Kashmir and left it for Pakistan to govern. It is quite difficult to think that Nehru was naive enough to leave the issue unresolved.
Subsequent events have proved Nehru both wrong and right. Let us see where Nehru went wrong if we assume that he did not want to occupy the rest of Kashmir and left it for Pakistan. Kuldip Nayyar is of the view that Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is a Punjabi-speaking region. Whatever may be the case, it is important to understand that leaving a part of Kashmir to Pakistan proved to be a strategic mistake, because India lost a land connection with Afghanistan and it provided Pakistan with a more-than-500-km-long border with China.
At the same time, it should be recalled that the Chinese communist revolution had not yet occurred. Now, China has constructed a road connecting it with Pakistan for trade purposes. In a situation of recurring conflicts with Pakistan and the still-pending resolution of differences regarding the Line of Actual Control with China, Pakistan has found a natural ally in the form of China, making it even more difficult and challenging for India.
A view of Salal Dam on the Chenab river, in Jammu & Kashmir’s Reasi district, on May 5, 2025. All gates of Salal Dam were closed following suspension of the IWT in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack.
| Photo Credit:
PTI
A treaty to share waters
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) was signed on September 19, 1960, by Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan’s President Ayub Khan as a result of mediation by the World Bank. As a part of the broad plan during the Cold War period, the US was actively engaged at various levels to prevent and discourage the possibility of communist uprisings in developing nations.
In this context, the Indian subcontinent occupied a special place. The World Bank was quite active in promoting its community development programme and other such projects. Interestingly, the World Bank also sent its specialists to examine the various transformative efforts of the Indian government. One such expert was Wolf Ladejinsky, who later wrote Agrarian Reforms as unfinished business. However, the World Bank did not have any authority to enforce the IWT or ensure its adherence in future.
According to the treaty, the waters of six rivers of Punjab would be divided between the two countries, by virtue of which the waters of Satluj, Beas, and Ravi belonged to India, whereas Chenab, Jhelum, and Indus waters came under the control of Pakistan.
When the treaty was signed, India’s development process had just begun. The importance of water, which was then available in abundance in Punjab, began to be felt only after the Green Revolution in 1966-1967. All the crops that were introduced in Punjab under the new technology regime were water-intensive. Within a decade, when a new canal, namely the Satluj-Yamuna Link Canal, was planned by the government, the people of Punjab protested against it because the need for water in Punjab had increased. Inter-State water contestations have been going on ever since.
Interestingly, Pakistan was already aware of the crucial significance of river water because towards the end of the 19th century, the British had carried out extensive work to create canal colonies covering the Chenab and Jhelum rivers. These hitherto unproductive areas turned out to be among the most developed agriculturally, irrigated under canal irrigation, in western Punjab.
From the time of Partition, Pakistan was keen to ensure uninterrupted supply of water from its three rivers. Not only that, the Lower Bari Doab Canal (Ravi river) was also irrigating an imx₹portant area of Pakistan’s Punjab.
On April 22, 2025, a terrorist attack in Pahalgam in Kashmir killed 26 people. In response, India suspended the IWT the next day.
Colonial powers and post-colonial states
It seems logical to argue that had Patel’s viewpoint prevailed, the Kashmir issue would not have led to conflicts with Pakistan, which have more or less become a permanent feature of India-Pakistan relations. But the issue is not so simple, for it requires a global assessment of post-colonial countries in South Asia, West Asia, and Africa.
The colonial powers, which include most west European countries, destroyed the natural boundaries of most countries. In the late 19th century, the irrational ways in which African countries were demarcated led to divisions among the many tribes. At present, most of these countries are unnatural creations because they were either partitioned for the purpose of rule or before they got independence. The only thing missing is peaceful coexistence or mergers that would return the natural boundaries. Similarly, India and Pakistan are permanently engaged in conflict owing to conditions created by the colonial ruler at the time of departure.
In the end, one may argue that the conflict over water in the subcontinent is going to occur at two levels. The first is within India itself, where inter-State contestations over river waters have been ongoing, and the second would be between India and Pakistan. To find Nehru at fault in this matter is based on the fallacy of ad hominem, the purpose of which is to find faults with the person without objectively evaluating the conditions of the time.
Paramjit S. Judge is a former professor of sociology, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar.
Also Read | The Indus Treaty’s suspension deepens regional faultlines amid climate crisis
Also Read | The Indus Waters Treaty and the options ahead
