Skip to main content

Scanning The Dixon Plan

Sir Owen Dixon was a judge from the Australian High Court, whose meticulous report drafted to UN in 1950 received a commendation for the obstinacy of his analysis of the Kashmir resolution from the Security Council. He is regarded as an Australian scholar of impeccable credentials. 

Infact Major William Alan Reid, who was an observer with the U.N Military Observers Group in  Kashmir (UNMOGIP) got inspired by his work for his B.A Honours thesis titled “Sir Owen Dixons Mediation of the Kashmir Dispute” (July 2000) for which the writer is greatly indebted.  Reid is currently working on the doctoral thesis for the same subject. He has even consulted his notes, some of his fifty interviews, his diary and personal correspondence as well as the Australian archives, besides other published works.  To add more facts, there has been a tradition of Australian scholarship on India represented by Professors like Robin J Moore, Ian Coplan and B. Millar to name a few. 

Academia studying Kashmir conflict will also be familiar with Richard Snedden’s  thesis ‘ Paramountcy Patrimonialism and the Peoples of Jammu and Kashmir, 1947-1991 (May 2001).’

Dixon Plan has a certain incisive analysis about the dispute. It assigned Ladakh to India, the Northern Areas and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) to Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, split Jammu between the two, and had suggested a plebiscite for the Kashmir dispute. When Dixon had met Nehru in June 1, 1953, he had told Dixon that “he was the only person to have grips for the Kashmir question.”  But Nehru was reluctant to accept all the conditions of the plebiscite on which United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan had arranged a ceasefire.

When Secretary for Kashmir Affairs in the Ministry of External Affairs, Sahay, had informed the Australian High Commission (AHC), in New Delhi before Dixon’s arrival in New Delhi as a mediator, Nehru, at that time, had developed second thoughts about the partition cum plebiscite plan,  irrespective of the fact that he had told the British High Commission Archibald Nye on September 9th that a proposal for a plebiscite had been taken for the valley excluding the Gilgit areas.

Patel and Nehru however had later agreed that the plebiscite was unreal. They had feared that many non-Muslims would have been faced by an exodus to other parts of India.  Nixon was also going to try for a demilitarisation plan. Nehru had pointed out some borderline on the map during the meeting, in May 1950, presumably an offer to Pakistan in which Bajpai and Sahay were also involved.

In Nehru Liaquat talks on April 8, 1950, the issue of East Pakistan refugees was raised and there was a consensus raised by Bajpai at MEA meeting with US ambassador Loy Henderson that Kashmir issue be resolved before the arrival of mediator. However, Dixon had a fair prospect of success a month after but the legal interpretations had become complicated.  Reid discloses that in 1949, the UK government too questioned the legality of Kashmir ‘s accession to India. The issue was circulated to US, Australia and Canada as well. Dixon too had been given a copy in 1950.

The British State Department’s Legal Advisor as well as the British Foreign Office held that the accession was ‘invalid’ in terms, and it could not establish a relationship with either of the dominions, and that the resolution of Kashmir was vouchsafed under stable conditions. All these developments and previous analysis by political analysts form an important component of the Kashmir’s resolution problem, as drafted in the journals of the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS).

The Indian white paper on Jammu and Kashmir also suggests that the accession was purely provisional. Mountabatten’s letter to the Maharaja in October 27, 1947 also stated that the dispute be settled according to the wishes of the people. That’s why UNCIP had installed a Plebiscite Administrator for the sole purpose.

Nehru infact reiterated to Dixon that Kashmir’s accession to India should be done through the Constituent Assembly in May 1950. It was elected in 1951. Then Dixon melancholically added:  “ The valley of Kashmir lost all its beauty for me. The lakes became nothing but stagnant swamps, the green fields became quagmires of exhausted earth and water in which primitive man and his oxen continued to wallow, and the picturesque house boats, insanitary repositories of furniture and other junk by which infections and contagions were passed from one lessee to another , season after season, I saw it all through bacteriological haze and wondered what either side wanted.”

Dixon regarded Pakistani Army in occupied Kashmir as instruments of coercion in various conversations with Maulana Azad.  Dixon then tried to meet with Sheikh Abdullah, who ruled like a fiefdom in a police like state, and had  even prepared papers on major issues related to demilitarization, and forms of partition by staying at taverns in Srinagar and even met Liaquat and Nehru for drafting of the plebiscite from July 20 to 24, but was only assured of semantics and reservations.

© Naveed Qazi, Insights: Kashmir

Popular posts from this blog

Kashmir's Geo-Strategic Position

Also published on viewpoint, Rising Kashmir

Kashmir is gifted with strategic leverages for emerging nations. That’s why, it’s is a vale of caged aspirations. The current geo strategic position for Kashmir is dictated by three emerging nations, which are bred with Secular, Islamic and Communist ideologies.
Kashmir is a mountainous valley and is surrounded by a hilly and mountainous terrain. The land of Jammu, Muzafarabad, Gilgit, Baltistan and Ladakh constitute an area of highlands. They border Pakistan, Afghanistan, Xinjiang, and some parts of Chinese administered Tibet. Kashmir also has proximity to Central Asian Republics. With the nature of increased arm strengths developed by India, Pakistan and China, the geo strategic position of Jammu and Kashmir continues to get importance.
Throughout history, all the political changes that have occurred outside of Kashmir, have had a direct strategic impact on the territorial integrity. The wars of foreigners throughout centuries intensified th…

Calling Off Kashmir Dispute

There has been no transparency in discussions arising from bilateral talks on Kashmir. From the last few years, calling off the Kashmir dispute has been the favourite argument arising out of Indian media commentators and political leaders. It is because of existing narration of implanting fervent Indian nationalism inside Kashmir valley.
Economic development, financial incentives and being part of India’s GDP growth have been other reasons given to call off Kashmir dispute. But is it fair? Why did India and Pakistan make attempts to reconcile through international agreements in the past at the first place, despite several wars fought on the borders?
British research has also deemed instrument of accession controversial. Importantly, what makes India run away from its moral responsibility when thousands of innocent civilians have been killed in the conflict? When were economic grants more sacrosanct than human lives? Maybe, when it comes to Kashmir, all humanist ideals, which Indian poli…