In the northernmost reaches of the Indian subcontinent lies a land shrouded in mystique, marred by conflict, and central to one of the world’s longest-running geopolitical disputes. Jammu and Kashmir, often referred to as the "Crown of India," has long captured the imagination of poets, emperors, and strategists alike. But its contemporary history is one of contested narratives, ideological battles, and cross-border aggression. Understanding how Kashmir became an integral part of India requires delving into the historical, political, and strategic developments that have shaped this region since 1947.

Kashmir was a princely state under the British Raj, ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh of the Dogra dynasty. A unique confluence of geography, religion, and demography, the state comprised multiple regions: the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley, the Hindu-majority Jammu, the Buddhist-dominated Ladakh, and the sparsely populated Gilgit-Baltistan area. Despite being a Muslim-majority state, its ruler was Hindu, which later became a critical factor in its post-independence trajectory.

When the British decided to leave India, they offered princely states three options: join India, join Pakistan, or remain independent. Hari Singh opted for independence, signing standstill agreements with both India and Pakistan. India respected this agreement, but Pakistan did not.

On October 22, 1947, Pakistan launched a covert invasion using tribal militias and soldiers in civilian guise, under what came to be known as Operation Gulmarg. These raiders stormed into the Kashmir Valley, pillaging, looting, and committing heinous atrocities, particularly against non-Muslims. The plan was to instigate rebellion and seize control before India could react.

Maharaja Hari Singh, unable to fend off the invasion with his limited forces, appealed to India for military assistance. The Indian leadership, led by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Governor-General Lord Mountbatten, agreed to send troops only after a legal accession. On October 26, 1947, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, formally integrating Jammu and Kashmir into the Indian Union. Indian forces landed in Srinagar the next day, pushing back the invaders and securing key territories.

The Instrument of Accession was a legal document sanctioned under the Government of India Act, 1935, and was identical to those signed by over 560 other princely states. It granted India authority over defense, foreign affairs, and communications, while internal autonomy remained with the state. This legal act was further endorsed by the Indian Constituent Assembly and later reflected in Article 370 of the Indian Constitution.

Pakistan, however, refused to recognize the accession, leading to the first Indo-Pak war. A UN-mediated ceasefire in January 1949 established the Line of Control (LoC), dividing the region into Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistani-occupied territories including Gilgit-Baltistan and so-called "Azad" Kashmir.

Pakistan’s claim over Kashmir is rooted in the two-nation theory, which postulated that Muslims and Hindus constituted separate nations. Since Kashmir had a Muslim-majority population, Pakistan believed it should naturally accede to it. However, this claim is deeply flawed:

Accession was the prerogative of the ruler, not the population.

Many Muslim-majority regions chose India (e.g., Junagadh and Hyderabad).

Kashmir was a multi-religious, multi-ethnic state, with significant Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist populations.

Furthermore, Pakistan’s obsession with Kashmir is also driven by military, strategic, and hydrological concerns:

Water Security: The Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers originate in Kashmir. Control over these rivers is vital for Pakistan’s agrarian economy.

Strategic Positioning: Kashmir borders China, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, making it a key buffer zone in regional geopolitics.

Ideological Leverage: The Kashmir cause has been used by the Pakistani military establishment to perpetuate its dominance over civilian institutions and deflect attention from internal issues.

Since the 1980s, Pakistan has pursued a strategy of proxy warfare in Kashmir. Following the Afghan Jihad, Pakistan's intelligence agency, ISI, redirected Islamist militants into Kashmir, arming and training them under the guise of supporting an indigenous "freedom struggle."

Militant outfits like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hizbul Mujahideen, and Jaish-e-Mohammed, all backed by the Pakistani state, have carried out countless attacks in Jammu and Kashmir and across India. The insurgency in the 1990s, the 1999 Kargil War, the 2001 Indian Parliament attack, and the 2019 Pulwama bombing all bear the hallmarks of Pakistani sponsorship.

India has taken a multi-pronged approach: military containment of insurgency, international diplomacy to expose Pakistan’s duplicity, and efforts to mainstream the region economically and politically. The revocation of Article 370 and Article 35A in August 2019 was a landmark decision. It removed the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, integrating it more fully with the Indian Union. The state was reorganized into two Union Territories: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.

This move was aimed at:

Promoting uniform governance and development.

Ending the cycle of separatist appeasement.

Bringing investment and infrastructure to the region.

Despite criticism from some quarters, the abrogation marked a turning point in India’s Kashmir policy. Infrastructure projects, better connectivity, educational reforms, and a decline in terror incidents have been observed since then.

Kashmir’s future lies not in war but in peace, prosperity, and participation. India must focus on:

Empowering local governance.

Creating jobs and educational opportunities.

Promoting tourism and cultural revival.

Ensuring justice for victims of militancy and promoting reconciliation.

The international community must also stop enabling Pakistan’s duplicity. The narrative of Pakistan as a victim must be replaced by one that recognizes its role as a state sponsor of terrorism.

The accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India was legal, just, and irreversible. Pakistan’s obsession with Kashmir is not about the rights of Kashmiris but about strategic depth, religious dogma, and internal politics. For India, Kashmir is not just a region; it is a living embodiment of its civilizational ethos, secular fabric, and democratic integrity.

It is time to turn the page from insurgency to integration, from radicalism to reform, and from fear to freedom. The people of Kashmir deserve no less.