Intellectual Property Rights: Practice and Drafting by Adv Gautam Matani. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Raj Kumar Makkad (Adv P & H High Court Chandigarh)     15 December 2010


It's absurd to suggest that Kashmir was never a part of India or that India had no links with Kashmir through centuries of its political, cultural and civilisational history. Kashmir has always been integral to India as it existed before it became a modern nation state. Those who question this are ill-informed and poor students of history 

The 'debate' on whether or not Kashmir was ever a part of India, which is periodically instigated by callous statements of separatists and their supports in the intelligentsia, is really spurious and needless. Those who claim that Kashmir was never a part of India are clearly ignorant of history. 

Rakhahari Chatterjee of Kolkata has brought to notice what Alberuni has recorded. Alberuni, while accompanying Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni to India in the beginning of the 11th century, had this to say on Kashmir: "Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country and performed wonderful exploits, by which Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions. This is the reason, too, why Hindus have retired far away from those parts of the country conquered by us and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benares, and other places." 

We could, however, begin with a look at the broader issue: What was, or is, India? India, as we know it today, finds a descripttion in the epics and the puranas:

"Uttaram yat samudrasya

Himadreschaiva dakshinam,

Varsham tad Bharatam nama

Bharati yatra santatih". (Vishnu Purana)

"The country that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharata; there dwell the descendants of Bharata."

Thus India has existed since time immemorial as a political entity if not a nation state. Hence, as luck (or bad luck) would have it, there was no single political entity before August 15, 1947, notwithstanding the existence of a huge landmass of India or Bharatvarsha with a cultural continuity and history. Thus, Kashmir or Kamrup, Pundravardhanabhukti or Takshila, Khyber or Kutch, all existed within the geographical territory of India. 

In this connection, one may ask those who insist that Kashmir was never a part of India: Is the present-day Pakistan, which was born in August 1947, ever a part of India? Else, how do historians write the pre-1947 history of Pakistan, if any? Can self-declared 'historians' like Arundhati Roy bare their thoughts on an accurate and balanced interpretation based on an 'authentic' version of the history of South Asia?

It would, therefore, be useful to have a look at a brief summary of Kashmir's history as it was through the ages vis-à-vis India. The dominions of Ashoka included the secluded vales of Kashmir. The chronicles of Kashmir mention Jalauka as the son and successor of Ashoka in the Kashmir Valley in the 3rd century BC. Historian Kalhana hints at Kashmir's attempted secession during the rule of later Mauryas. Towards the close of the 3rd century BC, the Kabul Valley (the immediate neighbour of Kashmir) was ruled by Subhagasena whose title was 'King of the Indians'. Hence, two things clearly stand out. First, Kashmir showed signs of secession even in the 4th and 3rd century BC and the Kabul Valley constituted a part of Indian geography and the fractured polity thereof. 

In the 1st century AD, the Kushan king Kanishka's empire (whose capital was Purushapura or Peshawar) included Kashmir, as testified by Kalhana in his Rajatarangini. In the 7th century AD, however, "Kashmir grew into a first-rate power under a local dynasty, styled as Karkota, founded by Durlabhavardhana." And the man who took the power of Kashmir to its zenith was Lalitaditya, the grandson of Durlabhavardhana, leading his troops to distant countries, including Tibet and the land inhabited by Turks along Indus and in Gaud (modern northern Bengal).

According to noted historian RC Majumdar, "The province of Kashmir in the far north of India produced in the 9th and succeeding centuries a number of teachers who are reckoned among the greatest exponents of the Saiva doctrine and philosophy". If we fast forward to 14th century, we will find that Shah Mirza, a Muslim adventurer from Swat, "entered the service" of the Hindu Prince of Kashmir in 1315 AD. After the death of the Prince, Shah Mirza usurped the throne of Kashmir in 1339 and assumed the title of Shams-ud-din Shah and issued fresh currency embossed with his emblem. 

Shah Mirza's dynasty continued till 1540 when Mirza Haidar, a relative of Humayun, annexed Kashmir. The liberal rule in Kashmir, meanwhile, had badly suffered owing to some of Shah Mirza's insensitive successors who were extremely intolerant of non-Muslims and imposed jizya on Hindus. There was a brief period of benevolent and enlightened rule when Zain-ul-Abidin (described as the 'Akbar of Kashmir') was in power. Kashmir was ultimately absorbed into the Mughal Empire by Akbar in 1586, thereby becoming another subah under Delhi's direct rule. 

During the war of succession between the sons of Shahjahan in the mid-17th century, Kashmir figured prominently in the scheme of things of the fighting siblings. As Aurangzeb emerged victorious, he soon came in direct confrontation with Tegh Bahadur, the 9th Sikh Guru based at Anandpur, who protested against certain measures of the Emperor and instigated the Brahmans of Kashmir to resist the Mughal Emperor.

Afghan invader Ahmad Shah Abdali conquered Kashmir in 1751 and forced the Mughal monarch Ahmad Shah to cede a huge swath of land up to Sirhind. In 1819, however, Kashmir once again came under an Indian ruler, Maharaja Ranjit Singh. From this point onwards, the trajectory of the history is too well known to be repeated. It would suffice to say that Kashmir has been linked to the history of India for thousands of years.

Hence, when some 21st century non-Kashmiri celebrities betray a lamentable lack of basic knowledge of their own country and its civilisational and cultural history, how can one blame or criticise non-Indians who display lack of judgement and avoid an objective analysis of historical facts? Thus, the statement of Arundhati Roy, in the light of Alberuni's recorded history, along with the journey of Kashmir through the ages, makes her a poor student of history. We need not take her seriously at all. 


 8 Replies



The Great Bodhisatva Samrat Ashok holds the entire BHARATWARSH up to Afganistan

(ofcourse including the pakistan).  It is high time the India should start 

planning to restore the BHARATWARSH by merging Afganistan and Pakistan.


N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     15 December 2010

I am of the view that what India should do is to win the hearts and trust of the people of Kashimiris and not simply by lip service and a shopping talk.

3 Like

Bhartiya No. 1 (Nationalist)     15 December 2010

It is the failure and inefficiency of successive govt./ruler, which has made the situation worse. 

Once when one reporter wanted to discuss with the issue of Kashmir, Then PM of India Rajiv Gandhi replied that Kashmir is not an "ISSUE" and the same is ours. We must keep this attitude up.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     15 December 2010




Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     15 December 2010


Democratic Indian (n/a)     15 December 2010


"and instigated the Brahmans of Kashmir to resist the Mughal Emperor."

Let us not misrepresent the facts of history. Nobody instigated anybody or the Brahmans for that matter. Aurangzeb after capturing power by imprisoning his father and killing all his brothers, in order to shut the mouth of his courtiers, the last refuge to justify his actions was nothing but religious bigotry. Even his sister had protested against his religious bigotry. He had started a compaign to convert the entire Hindustan to Islam. One of his ministers had advised him to bigin the compaign from the "top" of the country. The Kashmiri Brahmans were being forcibly converted to Islam, their religious threads were being collected in large quantities and weighed in order maunds to "reward" the officials. It is at  this point the Kashmiri Brahmins came running to Guru Tegh Bahadur for help to get this stopped. He told them that in order to stop this, a sacrifice of somebody important is need. His son Gobind Rai(later Guru Gobind Singh) told him, who can be better than you. To this Guru Tegh Bahadur told Kashmiri Brahmans to tell Aurangzeb that if he can convert Guru Tegh Bahadur to Islam, all of us will convert along with him. To this Aurangzeb became furious, after trying all allurements and threats, when everything failed, Guru Tegh Bahadur was beheaded on some cooked up charges.

The moments after the beheading took place, their was a furious storm. All Mughal government officials left the scene leaving the head and body there. The head was picked up by his followers and they ran on horsebacks, with Mughal soldiers pursuing them. When they reached a jat village outside Delhi, the people of the village decided that it will not be possible for horses to run father since they would be caught by faster horses of Mughal soldiers(they used to get fresh batch of horses after every Kos). One of the jat villager whose face resumbled that of Guru Tegh Bahadur, offered his head. His head was presented to income Mughal soldiers saying that the head of Guru Tegh Bahadur fell off from the hands of horsemen. Thus Mughal soldiers went back satisfied. This village is still there outside Delhi and its name is BarKhalsa. The name symbolizes the message given by the villagers.

I will cite a neutral witness Baba Bulleh Shah who was a direct descendant of Muhammad through the progeny of Shaikh Abdul Qadir Gillani of Baghdad, and was alive during this time and what he had to say:

"Bulleh Shah also hailed Guru Tegh Bahadur as a ghazi (Islamic term for a religious warrior) and incurred the wrath of the mullas. In one of his poems, he also writes "I don't talk of here and there, I will say the truth only; Had there not been Guru Gobind Singh all the Hindus would have got circumcision" in reference to not what the Sikhs did for the Hindus, but against oppresion and tyranny."

Reference: and


Bhartiya No. 1 (Nationalist)     19 December 2010

We must never allow to part it away. As APJ Abdul Kalam has said and he is also in favour of taking back the heights of Siachene.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Related Threads