Clearing the Air on Chitral's Relation with Jammu and Kashmir

Chitral Montage (Source: Wikipedia)

Recently, some right wing people started raising questions on the status of Chitral, Hunza and Nagar with respect to Jammu and Kashmir. Several people, especially Pakistani propagandists, have made a lot of noise about these places having been governed directly by the British government. However, the answer, as is everything, not so straight - an element of disinformation has been made out that needs to be cleared. I will just point out to the fact that some people have over time gone through the archives of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, and have provided some interesting points about the Chitral region in particular, the locus of this post.

I will firstly point out an analysis by Colonel Dr Narendar Singh of the archives of the Jammu and Kashmir princely state. I will just reproduce his words verbatim:

The earliest records available show that since the year 1864, The Mehtar of Chitral, Aman ul-Mulk used to send his Nazrana through his representatives, sometimes his brother, Makhmul Shah, to the Maharaja of Kashmir . In 1876 the Mehtar appears to have approached the Maharaja with a view to seeking his protection against the threatening attitude of the Amir of Afghanistan, who had an eye on this territory.

In fact, he puts out the terms of the Treaty between the state of Chitral and the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which can be seen below:

This agreement is made on behalf of myself and my children. 

(a) I hereby agree that I shall endeavour to obey and comply with orders of the Maharaja and consider his well wishers as my friends and his enemies as my enemies and in recognition of sovereignty, pay the following Nazarana:

3 Horses
5 Hawks
5 Hounds

(b) One Motabir of the Maharaja will always remain at Kashgar and one at Yasin and they will be duly honoured and respected. Similarly, one Motabir of mine will remain in the darbar of Maharaja and another on behalf of the Hamim of Yasin in Gilgit for execution of orders. (c) I hall receive a yearly subsidy of Rupees 12,000/- from the Maharaja in observance of the above conditions and if instead of the Motabir, any of my sons takes up the place, he will receive a separate allowance from the Maharaja.

This of course is not the first time it has been mentioned. The same was mentioned in 1975 by Dilip Kumar Ghose in his assessment of the Pratap Singh rule of Jammu and Kashmir. 

In 1914, a treaty was signed by the Mehtar of Chitral with the British, wherein the British had transferred the areas of Mastuj and Lampur to the state for administration. Two clauses - 1 and 8 - has been reproduced as follows by Narender Singh:

(1) I acknowledge the suzerainty of the Maharaja of Kashmir and Jammu and in token thereof will resume the annual payment following Nazarana:


3 Horses
5 Hawks
5 Tazi Dogs 

(8) In consideration of my acceptance of the above conditions the subsidies now paid to me and certain officials viz. Rs 12,560/- a year by the Government of India and Rs 12,560/- paid by Kashmir darbar which be continued subject to the provision that the payment at present aggregating Rs 4,560/- a year made by the latter to certain officials and headman will gradually close as the present recipients die or are removed from office.


Another interesting source mentioning this treaty is an Ayesha Jalal supervised Masters thesis at Tufts University by Amna Qayyum. In this thesis, Qayyum refers to the treaty between Maharaja Ranbir Singh of Jammu and Kashmir and Aman-ul-Mulk, the Mehtar of Chitral, brokered by the British. This can be seen here, and the true translation as provided by the British Indian government at the time is produced as a picture.