This book examines the topic of an independent ‘Kashmir’ and why this political aspiration to be self-governing and free from coerced subordination to another nation remains unsatisfied. It focuses on how Maharaja Hari Singh, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and Muslim Kashmiris have envisioned or sought independence for Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), or for their particular region within this disputed entity. Hari Singh and Sheikh Abdullah were the two most significant figures in J&K in the twentieth century. They also were political rivals, united briefly in 1947 by not wanting J&K to join Pakistan and by an indecisive desire for an independent J&K. After acceding to India, Singh quickly became redundant. Through a tumultuous political career, Abdullah strove for independence or maximum autonomy for J&K. In 1988, disenchanted Muslim Kashmiris surprisingly began a violent anti-India uprising seeking azadi (independence, freedom) for their region or for it to join Pakistan. Kashmiris remain severely disgruntled and this insurgency continues to pose challenges for India. By concentrating on these two men and this insurgency, the book provides a focused, in-depth history of J&K from the mid-1920s, when Hari Singh became J&K’s ruler, to the present time, when many Kashmiris still crave azadi from India. While an ‘independent Kashmir’ is a long envisioned aspiration, the book concludes that it is likely to remain incomplete while India and Pakistan exist in their current structures, while India is strong and unified, and while Kashmiris are disunified and uncertain about what status they want for their homelands.
outcome of a truce which brought
an end to centuries of revolutionary struggle in Ireland. The agreement provided
for the creation of a new Irish state, which would remain within the British
Commonwealth but would have internalautonomy. Previous to this, Ireland had
been part of the United Kingdom, a position violently resisted by many Irish. In
1916, a revolutionary group within the state had initiated a rising,3 which eventually led to a war of independence which lasted from 1919 until the truce in 1921.
However, the Treaty agreement was a controversial one and was
(Mangas and Liñán, 2004: 516–7; 524–5; Aja 2003: 165; Börzel 2002:
104–6, 60–6, 77; Hrbek 1999: 289).
It is also important to be aware that conceptions of the state as a unitary
actor in international affairs must sit alongside the principle of internalautonomy, which supposes that a state’s system of government and the distribution of power among regional and central authorities is a purely internal
matter (Mangas 1998; Jiménez 1999: 172). Together, these principles mean
that there need not be an obstacle to regional or local authorities playing a
part in the
Landed Estates Abolition Act.
Abdullah and his colleagues may have been acting unilaterally before New Delhi attempted to tie the state closer to India legally, administratively and stiflingly, as later happened. Nevertheless, up until mid-1951, Abdullah had no complaints about any Indian interference in J&K's internalautonomy, as he noted in his first major address to the Constituent Assembly in November 1951.
France to preserve internalautonomy while making the most of its financial, administrative and technical support. He realised the dangers confronting newly independent post-colonial states as well as the threat of continued insurgency. Though hostile to more radical change and elitist in outlook, the King did not dispense with democracy as he navigated the transformation of the monarchy into an era of constitutions, nationalism and popular sovereignty. Sisavang Vong thereby created the modern monarchy of Laos despite serious opposition from several quarters.
Guinea did he risk
expressing disappointment that De Gaulle’s draft constitution did not spell out
the rights of the territories to ‘internalautonomy’ or ‘self-determination’. In a
telegram to Bernard Cornut-Gentille, by now the minister of overseas France,
Touré wrote of the elevation of the (African) leaders of AOF’s territorial assemblies to their respective presidencies that: ‘I consider [it] to be an important
step towards the precise definition of the [respective] powers of the Republic
and of the African states, whose right to independence must unequivocally
of Moroccan independence, 1956 was also the
year in which French overseas territories began developing towards internalautonomy after the adoption of the loi-cadre (see Keese 2003, and in this volume
Chapter 1 by Shipway). This had great significance for the military, as the formation of territorial governments in 1957 meant that the army was obliged to
gradually adapt to a ‘local’ authority on one hand, and to the central authority of
the metropole on the other.
Istiqlal claims over Mauritanian territory led to the deployment of a reinforced military presence in
1911 were the states sorted according to size and scale, the largest and most powerful – Baroda, Gwalior, Hyderabad, Kashmir and Mysore – being given 21-gun salutes, trickling down to the 9-gun salute states of Panna and Dewas. While the states were granted internalautonomy under paramountcy (1858–1947), technological developments such as aviation, roads, telegraphs and railways nibbled away at these boundaries between the Indian princely states and British India, so much so that motorcars belonging to each state had to bear the state’s name on a red number plate. 2
Great white hope of the Edwardian imperial romancers
small peoples to join it. Egypt, Persia and Mesopotamia, if
assured of eventual dominion status, and present internalautonomy, would be delighted to affiliate with us, and would
then cost us no more in men and money than Canada or
In practical terms, leadership of
Britain’s Arab dominion would eventually
Maastricht Treaty redrafted article
146 of the EC Treaty (now article 203) to permit regional ministers authorised by their state to be Council members, although this was not explicit.19
Representatives must act on behalf of their state – rather than their own
region – and each member state must authorise one representative to vote in
its name (Sobrino 1998: 64; Mangas and Liñán 2004: 533–4).
The Treaty does not specify which regions, from which states, should
participate in Council meetings. These were questions which, in accordance
with the principle of internalautonomy