Thomas Paine wrote a classic about the Freedom of Man called “The Rights of Man”. It would be interesting to examine Kashmir problem in the light of his sayings especially about various clauses, acts, and treaties. The entire problem of Kashmir is based on a single document, “The Instrument of Accession”. This was executed between the erstwhile Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, and Lord Mountbatten, the Governor General of India. Indians consider this document as the most important basis of relationship between the State of Jammu & Kashmir and the Union of India. A lot has been written about the authenticity of the document, the circumstances of its execution, and above all about its legal validity. Doubts have been cast about the very existence of the document. Let us assume it was signed between the Maharaja and the Governor General. It may also be conceded that the Maharaja did it of his own free will and was not pressurised even though the circumstances of that time described by a number of reputed authors suggest extreme compulsive pressure on the most reluctant ruler of the erstwhile princely State to do the needful. It has been alleged that the Indian leaders of that time including Pandit Nehru had made up their mind to annex Kashmir at all costs even before the troubles started there. A simple glance on the Instrument of Accession displayed in original on the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India website reveals this distinctly. The typed document displayed on the website has the month of signing originally mentioned as August at both places, next to the signature of Maharaja Hari Singh as well as that of Lord Mountbatten which has been corrected with a pen to October. It seems the document had been prepared in August itself when the question of accession had not even come up and in great haste the same document was taken by VPS Menon to obtain the signatures of the Maharaja at Jammu who corrected the date with his own hand. Similarly, Lord Mountbatten must have done the same thing while accepting the document. They did not probably think it necessary to re-type the document in October. Let us concede that the signing of the accession document took place as claimed. However, the important point is about the circumstances prevailing in the State at that time. The majority of Maharaja’s subjects both in Kashmir as well as in Jammu were in total revolt. The valley had the “Quit Kashmir” movement started by Sheikh Abdullah while as in Poonch the Maharaja’s army itself had revolted. In physical terms Maharaja had lost total control on his Princely State and he did not have the power to execute the deed of accession on his own. Even if we totally concede the events of ’47 and take it that the State acceded to India, the actions of that time are not binding on the present generation. If the majority of the people feel that whatever was done in ’47 was wrong and unjust, they have every right to disown it and take a different course. If a minority talks in those terms it would be called insurgency or rebellion but if the majority has that view it is a revolution. Comments of Thomas Paine given in the Chapter I of his classic reproduced below exactly as these appear, are very relevant to the subject.

“There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist, a legislature, or any description of men, in any country, possessed of the right, or the power, of binding and controuling posterity to the END OF TIME: or, of commanding, FOR EVER, How the world shall be governed, or WHO shall govern it: and THEREFORE, all such clauses, acts, or declarations, by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right, nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves NULL AND VOID. Every age, and generation must be as free to act for itself, in all cases, as the ages and generations that preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave, is the most preposterous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in Man- neither has any generation property in the generations that are to follow. A legislature, or the people of any antecedent period, had no more right to dispose of the people of the present day, or to bind, or controul them, in any shape whatsoever, than the legislature, or the people of the present day, have to dispose of, bind, or controul, those who shall live a hundred, or a thousand years hence. Every generation is, and must be competent to all purposes which its occasions require. It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be accommodated. When man ceases to be, his power and wants cease with him; and having no longer any participations in the concerns of this world, he no longer has any authority, in directing who shall be its governors, or how its government shall be organised, or how administered. I contend for the right of the living, and against their being willed away, and controuled, and contracted for, by the manuscript authority of the dead. There was a time when kings disposed of their crowns by will, upon their death-beds, and consigned the people like the beasts of the field, to whatever successor they appointed. This is now so exploded, as scarcely to be remembered, and so monstrous, as hardly to be believed………..Although the laws which are made in one generation, often continue in force through succeeding generations, they continue to derive their force from the consent of the living, and are nor repealed, not because they cannot be repealed, but because they are not, and the non repealing passes of for consent. A former legislature might as well have passed an act to have authorised themselves to live for ever, as to make their authority to live for ever. The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of the men change also; and, as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living that have any right in it. That which may be thought right, and be found convenient in one age, may be thought wrong, and found inconvenient in another. In such cases who is to decide-the living or the dead? It signifies nothing to man what is done to him after he is dead; but it signifies much to the living to have a will in what shall concern him.”

Thus it is evident from the above extract taken from Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man” that one cannot be bound by decisions taken by our preceding generations. We are free to take our own decisions and act as we feel good for us. Taking a piece of paper, authenticity of which is in doubt, as the basis of entire relationship is not tenable legally as well as morally. Relationship has to be between the minds and hearts of the people. It is the present generation which has to accept the relationship with an open heart and in the right frame of mind. If they do not accept it, nothing can force them to do that. A forced marriage does not survive for long. Indian leaders should take a lesson from the history and try to win the hearts of Kashmiris rather than place all their bets on a piece of paper and force people to accept it with the might of the soldiers!.