Empire, Accession and Jammu & Kashmir: Reading Krishan Dev Sethi in 1953

Krishen Dev Sethi

Krishen Dev Sethi 

Krishan Dev Sethi was born to a Brahmin family in Mirpur in 1928. Sethi was not only a well known leader in Jammu, where he resided but also very popular across the LOC in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. He was an ardent supporter of an independent Kashmir and fought for independence since the 1950s.

Sethi was the general secretary of the Democratic Conference in Jammu & Kashmir.

He was the last surviving member of the Jammu & Kashmir Constituent Assembly the body that drafted J&K’s constitution.

He died in 2021 and his death marked an end of an era.

In a speech was given by him after arrest of Sheikh Abdullah in 1953 and the formation of Bakshi government. Sethi attempted to explain why Kashmir had become the focus of so much international attention.

The speech starts with Sethi warning for if the change in govt had not taken place J&K would have become another Korea(he was referring to korean war as how it ended with ceasefire and not with a peace treaty, so for present context and better understanding compare new politics of separate Jammu state/Kashmir State)

According to Sethi, the story did not begin in 1947.

He argued that Jammu & Kashmir became strategically important during the 19th-century "Great Game" between the British Empire and Tsarist Russia.

Prince of Wales at Jammu, Cashmere 1876

He tells How J&K became a playground for two superpower of that time, especially the British Empire and the Tzar of Russia, british wanted to control Kashmir as for how Tzar was increasing its presence in Central asia, it was was for that purpose british intervened with the Kings Court of HRH Maharaja Pratap Singh in 1890.

He then tells about the freedom movement in J&K state that was highly influenced by Indian national movement after the british intervention. The then Kashmir Govt used Hindu-Muslim division like they used in India to supress the freedom movement in the state using young educated men, Later Gilgit was annexed by British, The imperialist govt was gaining more power in state despite the movements.

By the time Hari Singh became King India was partitioned, The members(British) wanted Kashmir to remain independent so that they could get a foot-hold in it for some military purpose(why? bcuz british still was not ready to leave a strategic region like J&K b/w Republic of China and growing tzar just think of it like they wanted a landlock colony or more or like buffer region in 20th century).

Sethi claimed that British intervention in the affairs of the princely state, including increasing involvement during the reign of Maharaja Pratap Singh and later developments in Gilgit, was driven primarily by imperial security concerns rather than the interests of the people of the State

Then came the Tribal invasion of 1947, british generals and officer were behind the scene of this invasion, He tells how the leaders had proof about many british officers behind this. But the peoples movement in Kashmir forced the officers to admit defeat in their design. He further tells that we wanted to make our own choice regard to accesion but Pakistan left us with no time to think. When the state decided to accede to India, through the Goveror General created uncertainity implied to be delaying the matter. National Conference rejected the Dixon plan, later such movements were launched in the state to pave the way for the plan. After setting up of Praja Parished in Jammu it had the support of communal organizations in India.

Pt. Prem Nath Dogra with Executive Member of 
Praja Parishad 

He tells that Members are well aware of the statement of Syama Prasad Mookerrjee in which he declares Jammu and Ladakh should be merged with India and Kashmir should choose its own way. The party influenced by this statement went on declaring that the praja parishad movement was the movement of the State, but thats far from truth, people in Jammu had some problems of language, services, unemployment, rehabilitation and resettlement of ex-soldiers, which the government failed to tackle.

He tells how the reactionery parties raised cetain slogans in order to fufil their own designs.

Efforts were being made to create an atmosphere in which certain proposals, particularly those associated with the Dixon Plan, could gain acceptance among the people.

These developments were viewed not as isolated events but as part of a larger chain of political activities that had been unfolding over several years by the support of Dr. Mookerjee.

The speaker points to a series of incidents that, in his view demonstrated a gradual rise in support for the concept of an independent Kashmir.

He recalls that as early as 1949, Sheikh Sahib(Sheikh Abdullah) had reportedly stated that it would be in the best interests of Kashmir Valley to remain independent.

This statement was regarded as significant because it suggested a political direction different from the alternatives then under consideration. 

The speaker notes that those who opposed such a line of thinking immediately recognized what they considered to be the dangers inherent in this idea and therefore raised the issue on the floor of the Assembly. In their view, the proposal of an independent Kashmir was not merely a theoretical suggestion but a matter with far-reaching political consequences.

Aneš Bebler

The matter gained further attention when Sheikh Sahib travelled to attend meetings of the Security Council.

During this visit, he is said to have held a conference with the representative of Yugoslavia, Mr. Bebler. According to the speaker Mr. Bebler informed Sheikh Sahib that his idea of an "independent" Kashmir was entirely correct.

Sethi emphasises that reports regarding this conversation were subsequently published in newspapers, thereby bringing the discussion into the public domain and increasing interest in the subject.

The narrative then moves to the years 1950–51, when Chester Bowles visited Kashmir. During his stay, Bowles reportedly held several meetings and discussions with Sheikh Sahib.

The speaker attaches great importance to what followed immediately afterwards. A report appeared in "Avanti" identified as a premier Italian daily newspaper.

According to that report, Chester Bowles had made efforts in Kashmir aimed at securing for the Valley an "independent" status.

The publication of such a report in an international newspaper was presented as further evidence that the idea of independence was receiving attention beyond Kashmir itself.

Sethi continues by referring to another international publication, the "Christian Science Monitor." 

A representative of the newspaper had interviewed Sheikh Abdullah, and, according to the account presented here, also favoured the plan for an "independent" Kashmir. 

The mention of this interview is intended to show that support for the proposal was being voiced in influential journalistic circles and was reaching audiences outside the region.

Attention is then drawn to developments in July 1953. 

Sheikh Abdullah(left) with DP Dhar(centre)
at UN 1948

 
On 5 July 1953, the New York Times published the Dixon Proposal. The following day, 6 July, the newspaper reportedly came out in support of that proposal. 

By linking these events together, the speaker seeks to demonstrate a continuing pattern in which the idea of an independent Kashmir, or proposals associated with it, received endorsement and publicity through various international channels.

Taken together, these incidents are presented as a connected chain of events. 

Beginning with Sheikh Sahib's statement in 1949, continuing through discussions with international representatives, reports in newspapers such as Avanti, commentary associated with the Christian Science Monitor, the visit of Chester Bowles, and finally the publication and support of the Dixon Proposal in the New York Times in July 1953, the speaker argues that a discernible tendency favouring an "independent Kashmir" had steadily grown and attracted attention both within political circles and in the international press.

Adlai Stevenson

Sethi tells that the post-Delhi Agreement period reflects a strongly political and emotional moment in the Kashmir debate. He begins by referring to the visit of American diplomat Adlai Stevenson to Kashmir and his meetings with Sheikh Abdullah. According to Sethi, most members of the Cabinet were not even informed about these discussions, yet Stevenson later claimed that Sheikh Abdullah had presented a vision of an "independent Kashmir."

Sethi then shifts focus to international influence in Kashmir’s political situation. He argues that the Dixon Plan is being pushed upon the State by imperialist powers and claims that United Nations observers were actively present across the region, allegedly distributing resources in a way that supported the "independence" movement. In his view, these activities were not neutral but were shaping political outcomes.

He further links the Kashmir situation to global geopolitics, arguing that Western powers, especially America interferance in different countries. He cites examples such as Iran under Dr. Mussadiq, the Korean conflict, and China under Chiang Kai-shek, to suggest a pattern of anti-democratic intervention. Britain and America, he claims, stand together against democratic movements.

Sethi firmly states that such foreign intervention will not be allowed to succeed in the State and emphasises the need for democratic traditions to become deeply rooted within Kashmir itself.

He then refers to the situation after the Delhi Agreement, stating that two political tendencies were emerging within the region: one favoring complete merger with India, and another favoring "independence." The text ends abruptly after this point, leaving his concluding thought incomplete in the source.