rewind.
When assessing the many indelible scars left upon the Indian subcontinent by British colonial rule, Kashmir often stands out as one of the most painful aspects of British failure. This wound remains visible in modern life as a result of the Line of Control, an enabling structure of militarised control and frequent border skirmishes, and part of the legacy of Cyril Radcliffe, a stark contrast to his subsequent public life as our inaugural Chancellor at Warwick until his untimely death in 1978.
The division of Kashmir demands understanding of its history and driving factors. Most notably, the Treaty of Amritsar, which sold the disparate territories of Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh to Raja Gulab Singh, made him a direct tributary of a suddenly heterogeneous state formed to act as a border state due to Russophobic fears among British leaders. Furthermore, the structure of the state set forward a high expectation of communal harmony, because of the Hindu minority rule of a predominantly Muslim state, with Muslims making up 77% of the state by 1941.
Thus, declining communal relations throughout the twentieth century shattered the idea of a unified sub-continent across India. By the end of the Khilafat movement in 1924, it was unlikely; after the 1937 elections, it was improbable, and by 1947, it was unavoidable.
In his campaign for Prime Minister, Clement Atlee ran on the promise of granting India her independence. Mounting economic and international pressures, alongside the ongoing chaos and disorder within the Raj, had finally made the British position untenable. Consequently, British plans for withdrawal were rapidly extended. In February 1947, Atlee would commit to independence by June 1948. Only six months later, British withdrawal was finalised as independence was granted on the 15th of August 1947.
Radcliffe estimated the issue of partition would take years; in reality, he was only given five weeks. While Radcliffe did defend his actions within the time frame he was granted, and denied the salary he was offered, the damage was done. Millions were displaced across the entire subcontinent and violence ensued with an estimated one million deaths.
When understanding the implications of partition, it is important to understand one of the ways in which Radcliffe cut down on what he had to do. The British Raj was not a singular homogenous entity, nor was it a unified federalised structure of states. Large swathes of the Raj were made up of land directly ruled by the British crown. However, large portions of the Raj were also made up of princely states, semi-autonomous sections of the Raj which operated with control over internal affairs but with British control on defence, foreign relations, communications and often on internal matters as well. While Radcliffe’s partition line divided British India itself, the 500-plus princely states were left to their own devices and were told to join either India or Pakistan. A catastrophic oversimplification of the complex web of diverse states across the subcontinent, such as Kashmir which consisted of a 77% Muslim population with Hindu minority rule.
Kashmir entered a state of chaos in the months after independence, the leader of the state at this point, Maharaja Hari Singh delayed his decision on who to accede to, even contemplating the idea of independence. However, by October 1947, his hand was forced as Pashtun tribesmen from Pakistan invaded.
As a result of this, Maharaja promptly signed the Instrument of Accession to India requesting military protection. War ensued from this point between the Pakistani backed forces and Indian troops airlifted in to defend its new territory. The resulting conflict was localised. Remaining British civil servants, who remained working in their respective governments, were noted to have made efforts on both sides to prevent the war escalating from beyond a local regional conflict, though in many regards, to protect British interests. The main result of this war was the ceasefire line agreed upon after UN mediation. From the ceasefire line reached in 1949, little has changed. Indian success in the war saw it gain around two thirds of the region after the signing of the Karachi agreement in 1949. Two further wars in 1965 and 1971 resulted in minor changes in regard to the border. After the latter war, the Simla Agreement was reached in 1972 officially establishing the Line of Control, respecting the ceasefire line as a de facto border after two wars in a matter of years had resulted in little change to the border.
The Line of Control has remained a scar from this point to the present day. The ‘border’ created under the Simla agreement was intended to reduce the degree of conflict in the region, after the violence seen in the 25 years from partition to the Simla agreement. In reality, however, the Line of Control now remains one of the most militarised zones on Earth, with conflict a constant threat. The military presence in the Kashmir region has remained a constant feature of governance. Ultimately, the Line of Control has not remained a peaceful boundary; instead, it is an active military front. The tensions are not abstract; they frequently develop into international crises. In 2019, the Pulwama attack killed 40 of the Central Reserve Police Force alongside the suicide bomber himself. The Indian response to this involved crossing the Line of Control to bomb a reported terrorist camp, killing a reported 350-400 accused terrorists. The total death toll since 1989, with regard to the Kashmiri uprising and Indian suppression, has been 70,000. The immediate reaction to this bombing led to a dogfight between Indian and Pakistani jets.
The volatility of Kashmir is evident; it remains an active military front between two nuclear powers. Most recently, on the 7th of May this year, India launched missile strikes on Pakistan through Operation Sindoor, targeting Pakistani-based militant groups. Pakistan reported civilian casualties and the Pakistani army responded with mortar shells launched on Poonch in Jammu. By the 10th of May, both India and Pakistan reported their air bases to have been attacked. Escalating further, Pakistan launched Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos targeting even more Indian military bases. Ceasefire would be achieved on the same day after hotline communication between India’s and Pakistan’s respective Directors Generals of Military Operations. Evidently, tensions remain high and international security remains at risk with two nuclear states fighting an informal war just months ago. As a result, British colonial oversight has contributed to countless deaths, with British imperial greed the baseline cause for this.
This constant state of military crisis enabled the breakdown of the legislative environment. The 1942 Armed Forces Special Powers Ordinance, introduced to quell the Quit India movement, was enacted by the Indian Parliament in 1958 and made to grant armed forces special powers to maintain public order in “disturbed” regions. This was initially introduced in 1958 to enact control in the Northeast of India, and, by 1990, this was extended to Jammu and Kashmir. As a result, the sweeping powers granted de facto impunity for security forces. While the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act was repealed in 1995, freedoms have remained limited and human rights under threat; the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is still applicable across 31 districts in India, including the whole state of Jammu and Kashmir. Progress itself is limited as personal freedoms remain a faraway dream for Jammu and Kashmir as it continues to be a state of exceptions when analysing it against the modern expectation of freedom.
The legislative impact of the Line of Control continues to leave a cost on the people of the region and its local economies. The continuous human and economic suffering remains a constant plight for Kashmir. The Line of Control divides families and communities, severing the social fabric, and disrupting trade routes that traditionally supported local economies. These trade routes, which saw Kashmir as a connection between South and Central Asia, have now been severely dismantled and limited. The regional economy has been adversely impacted by the conflict, with tourism and agriculture additionally affected by the constant threat of violence.
This decimated economy itself is a reckoning call of the colonial formations of the Jammu and Kashmir region, engineering the border state as a buffer against Russian influence. This status remains in modern geopolitics: a reflection of British imperial intentions of using the region as a buffer state, though now between the two post-colonial powers of the region. This focus on achieving security traps Kashmir in a relentless cycle, with its infrastructure focussed on the military rather than civilian commerce. Thus, an enduring legacy of British imperial policy remains a price left for Kashmiris to pay, living in a region focused on military support and the strategic value of its location.
For the people of Jammu and Kashmir, the goal of a unified Kashmiri identity is blocked at every turn as the Line of Control erases the agency of the local population in this division. The consequence of the Line of Control prevents any political progress towards a unified Kashmiri identity, which is directly linked to the aforementioned British engagement in the ‘Great Game’. The line itself is not passive in any regard; it remains an active military border and a tool of suppression against a Kashmiri identity.
This struggle for identity is further complicated by the indigenous makeup of the region, with a Hindu minority ruling a majority Muslim state for a century before independence. Instead, the Line imposes a rigorous framework erasing this question and replacing it with Indian and Pakistani efforts to assimilate the entire region into each respective nation. In practice, any indigenous Kashmiri movement for improved rights and autonomy is struck down as efforts to destabilise the region. Local demands are repressed through the use of militarised control under the framing of external aggression. Subsequently, through this constant turmoil and violence, the lack of autonomy is spread through the perpetuating idea that no stable solution for Kashmir can be enacted. Local political agency is actively denied on both sides in a vicious and constant cycle with autonomy and freedoms actively worsening. This was epitomised by India revoking Article 370 in 2019, which unilaterally dissolved any remaining autonomy and demonstrated the mirrored military and political tension. This act of concentrating power was not pursued through peaceful means but a major crackdown in security and local arrests. This reflects various British efforts to repress freedoms in India during famines throughout the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, such as the 1919 Amritsar Massacre and the constant repression of Gandhi’s Satyagrahis. Therefore, British colonial efforts have left a clear and dark shadow across the region with rights and freedoms actively stripped to improve ‘security’ while actively concentrating power in New Delhi and Islamabad respectively. Fundamentally, this demonstrates the British legacy of suppression and control in the subcontinent and how its disinterested governance and tactics of divide and rule have directly led to the constant suppression of rights across the Jammu and Kashmir region, a region of an estimated 15 million people.
As narrative shows, when analysing the contemporary events in Kashmir, the failure of British colonialism to provide amicable state-building directly contributes to major modern tensions, repression of rights, constant terrorism, and fear. Looking back, we can date this failure from its starting point after the Treaty of Amritsar (1846), to its end point in the failures of partition. In the post-colonial chaos left by the British, the Indian and Pakistani conflict has remained a persistent source of tension, constant conflict and constant repression. Looking forward, no direct end goal can be seen in Kashmir; the region remains fraught with violence and rights constantly suppressed. Neither India nor Pakistan appear willing to budge on the matter and, for now, Kashmir remains stuck in a battle of tug-of-war between two nuclear nations. Ultimately, when analysing the plight of Kashmir, modern tensions and its implications remain the biggest threat for the region on a global stage.
Therefore, even as we look back on the history of Warwick after our celebrations for its sixtieth anniversary this year, we see a harsh reminder of the extent that British colonialism remains intertwined with modern life, highlighted by the legacy of our own first chancellor, a man with an impossible task of dismantling and dividing the British Raj in five weeks. Ultimately, this is one way in which British colonialism remains omnipresent in daily life for many and in questions of international security for more. British tactics of divide and rule caused such division between Hindus and Muslims leading to this standoff in Kashmir, a constant reminder to us of just how destructive they were, both inside and outside of Kashmir.
Bibliography
Aitchison, C. U., A Collection of Treaties, Engagements, and Sanads, Vol. XII: Relating to Jammu and Kashmir, Sikkim, Assam and Burma (Calcutta: Government Printing, 1931), pp. 20–24, Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206814 [accessed 24 October 2025].
House of Commons Debates, India (Transfer of Power), 3 June 1947, Hansard https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1947-06-03/debates/ad3b5290-8865-4fe2-9bcc-2ad34056c8fb/India(TransferOfPower) [accessed 24 October 2025].
Human Rights Watch, Behind the Kashmir Conflict – Undermining the Judiciary (New York: Human Rights Watch, July 1999) https://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kashmir/judiciary.htm [accessed 28 October 2025].
“India-Pakistan updates: Pakistan airbases targeted as blasts rock north India”, Al Jazeera (10 May 2025) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/5/10/india-pakistan-live-pakistan-airbases-targeted-as-blasts-rock-north-india [accessed 2 November 2025].
“India warns of ‘crushing response’ to Kashmir suicide attack”, ABC News (Australia), 15 February 2019 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-15/india-warns-of-crushing-response-to-kashmir-suicide-attack/10818178 [accessed 2 November 2025].
Rai, Mridu, ‘Kashmir: From Princely State to Insurgency’, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History, ed. by David E. Ludden (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018) https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.184 [accessed 24 October 2025].
Spear, Percival, 'The Pakistan Movement', in A History of India, Volume Two (Penguin, 1990), pp. 221-30.
Talbot, Ian, ‘Partition of India: The Human Dimension’, Cultural and Social History, 6.4 (2009), 403–410 https://doi.org/10.2752/147800409X466254.
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (No. 28 of 1958), Government of India https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1527/1/a1958-28.pdf [accessed 29 October 2025].