The Accession of 1947 and the Politics of Identity in Jammu and Kashmir 

GNS ONLINE NEWS PORTAL

BY MANZOOR AHMED NAIK

PIRPUNJAL AUGUST 19:-The politics of Jammu and Kashmir has always been inseparable from its history. At the heart of this history lies one defining moment—the Instrument of Accession signed on 26 October 1947 by Maharaja Hari Singh, bringing the erstwhile princely state of Jammu & Kashmir into the Union of India. This decision, taken under the shadow of Pakistan’s tribal invasion, not only determined the state’s political destiny but also shaped the complex questions of identity and representation that continue to dominate its politics to this day.

Before 1947, Jammu & Kashmir was a princely state ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh, a Dogra Maharaja presiding over a diverse population—Paharis, Gujjars, Kashmiris, Dogras, Ladakhis—each with distinct cultural identities. When India gained independence on 15 August 1947, princely states were given the option to accede to India or Pakistan. The Maharaja initially wished to remain independent, signing a “Standstill Agreement” with Pakistan.

But this fragile balance collapsed when, on 22 October 1947, Pakistan sponsored a tribal invasion (“Operation Gulmarg”)—raiders from the North-West Frontier Province marched into Kashmir, committing large-scale atrocities in Muzaffarabad, Baramulla, and Uri. Historical records, including testimonies of survivors, confirm that thousands of men, women, and children were brutally killed. It was in response to this aggression that Maharaja Hari Singh requested military help from India and, in turn, signed the Instrument of Accession on 26 October 1947, accepted by Governor-General Lord Mountbatten the next day.

This accession was legal, final, and unconditional—just like that of other princely states such as Hyderabad and Junagadh. Yet Pakistan chose to dispute it, leading to the first Indo-Pak war of 1947–48, and the birth of the so-called “Kashmir Dispute”.

Following accession, the question of “identity” in J&K politics took on a unique character. Sheikh Abdullah’s rise as the dominant political leader of Kashmir valley gave birth to the National Conference’s narrative of “Kashmiri identity” and special status. In 1952, the Delhi Agreement granted Jammu & Kashmir certain privileges under Article 370, creating an artificial separation between J&K and the rest of India.

While projected as a safeguard for “identity,” these special provisions in reality fostered exclusion and alienation, allowing dynastic politics to thrive. The Gujjars, Paharis, Dogras, and Ladakhis—who together form the majority of J&K’s population—were politically marginalized, as the Valley-centric leadership monopolized power by projecting itself as the sole custodian of Kashmiri identity.

This distorted identity politics also sowed seeds of separatism. Over the decades, Pakistan exploited this narrative to fuel militancy, communalize politics, and question the legitimacy of accession, despite its legal finality under international law.

The Bharatiya Janata Party has consistently maintained that Jammu & Kashmir’s identity is inseparable from Bharat’s civilizational identity. The abrogation of Article 370 and 35A on 5 August 2019 was a historic corrective measure, restoring equality for all citizens of J&K. No longer do discriminatory laws prevent women, Dalits, Paharis, Valmikis, and West Pakistani refugees from enjoying full citizenship rights.

This was not just a constitutional step but a cultural one—asserting that the people of J&K are an integral part of the Indian identity, not defined by artificial separations created for political convenience.

Today, as Jammu & Kashmir moves towards deeper democratization, the challenge is to build an inclusive identity that respects its diversity while firmly anchored in the Indian nation. Recognition of Paharis for reservation benefits, empowerment of Gujjar–Bakarwals, political inclusion of Ladakhis, and development projects in border districts like Rajouri and Poonch, all are steps towards ensuring that no community feels left out.

At the same time, the politics of religious mobilization by certain clerics and dynastic families must be rejected. Jammu & Kashmir’s true identity is plural, national, and democratic—not communal or separatist.

The events of October 1947 remind us that Jammu & Kashmir’s destiny was, is, and will remain with India. Maharaja Hari Singh’s decision was not forced—it was a response to aggression, a conscious choice to align with a secular, democratic India rather than a theocratic Pakistan.

As we mark over seven decades since accession, it is time to move beyond divisive identity politics and embrace a collective identity as proud citizens of Bharat. This is the vision the BJP stands for: a Jammu & Kashmir where every community finds dignity, development, and representation—under the tricolour that Maharaja Hari Singh chose in 1947.