PLEBISCITE! THE MYTH

It has been long since I turned to this page penning down something on K – Yes! My beloved chaotic Kashmir! Wonder why all beloveds create chaos, confusion and agony. I must confess most of my write ups are instinctive and today my instinct was incited by none other than a school time friend who like me has suffered the pangs of exile and displacement, yet carrying the same syndrome of Stockholm keeping him captive and prostrated at the mercy of our adversary like many amongst us. However, intriguingly, he has moved a notch ahead of general masses in league sounding like mouth piece of Azadi mongers. What is more amusing here connects to his benighted and ignorant attitude towards the issue. In absence of even the rudimentary knowledge of contemporary geo political scenario evolved over last 80 years, my friend presumably entangled and confused by the concocted and farce discourse of adversary lost the narrative of his own state of existence. In an effort to post some sense of truth and logic in him and all those who find themselves in similar precarious situations, I am compelled to bust the myth of PLEBISCITE.

While debating today he came up with a Wikipedia article on Instrument of Accession forming it as the basis of his argument of the so called Freedom/Azadi demand by the Majority section of Kashmir Valley. The article mentions the condition of Plebiscite or Referendum in Kashmir and quotes Lord Mountbatten,  “it is my Government's wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Jammu and Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people.” Considering that this argument has been prevalent in Kashmiri separatist society ever since and it has solidified as the bed rock of the narrative based on which azadi mongers claim a separate territory, I promised my friend that he will get a logical and legal scientific argument as rebuttal to this farcical claim. This argument can be blown to smithereens with more than one counter argument considering it sans any legal validity.

UN RESOLUTION ON J&K

To begin with, I would first like to draw the attention of the readers towards the most important UN Resolution, On January 5, 1949, the Security Council came up with a new resolution on J&K focusing on the holding of plebiscite. The resolution goes ahead and says,

PART II: TRUCE AGREEMENT

A.1. As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council; the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

2. The Government of Pakistan will use its best Endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

3. Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.

B.1.When the commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2, hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

Thus, it is evidently clear who has betrayed the UN resolution on Kashmir considering Pakistan never adhered to the Truce Agreement for the referendum to take place. Also noteworthy to mention here is Kashmir question was profiled at the UN as a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan and not a struggle of the people of J&K for full freedom and Independence.

UN GENERAL SECRETARY STATEMENT IN PAKISTAN

Drawing our understanding straight, we must know that over past 60 years since UN resolution, enough water has flown down Vitasta / Jehlum. In light of contemporary understanding and pragmatic approach to issues internationally, the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan’s statement during his official visit to Pakistan rests all notions connected to plebiscite. He publicly said that these resolutions were un-implementable and obsolete. Annan’s comment was carried by the reputed Pakistani newspaper Dawn on the next day. Kofi Annan on Pakistani soil stopped short of saying that the debacle of most important UN resolution on Kashmir laid upon the shoulders of Pakistan, considering the onus of acting on it first and primarily laid upon Pakistan.

PARTITION, LEGAL ASPECTS OF ACCESSION AND BRITISH INTRIGUES

After understanding the above facts let us try to understand the legal validity of the clause of Plebiscite laid down as a condition by Lord Mountbatten. Though Mountbatten made a categorical mention “it is my Government's wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Jammu and Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader...." the possibility of Plebiscite can be explored. The argument of Plebiscite does not arise considering the state of Jammu and Kashmir has always been in conflict since Pakistan sent its tribal raiders and regular army men to attack and capture the pricely State of Jammu and Kashmir. In addition to this Pakistan has not cleared the territory of tribals and various settlers from neighboring Punjab. However we will still try and understand how   the issue of Plebiscite does not hold and water on legal aspects. 

We know that the partition of British India was done purely under India Independence Act 1947 and roughly around 534 Princely states which did not form the part of British India merged in Indian Dominion or the dominion of Pakistan through Instrument Of Accession which finds its roots to Government of India Act 1935. Independence or Sovereign rule was never an option assigned to any Princely State. Noteworthy to mention that neither of the two Acts talk about plebiscite or peoples consent in event of Accession of Princely States The Government of India Act 1935 vividly mentions in Part II (6)– The Federation of India that “ A state shall be deemed to have acceded to the Federation if His Majesty has signed his acceptance of the Instrument of Accession executed by the ruler thereof….” Noteworthy is the mention of word “Ruler”. 

Thus legally the IOA signed by the princely states vindicates that the suzerainty of these states lied with the Ruler and not the Subjects/People. When the governor general Lord Mountbatten made the insertion of reference to people, he deliberately wish to keep the cauldron boiling at least in one Indian state to keep the sub continent involved in chaos and conflict at the behest of his mentors for reasons better known to all. British unleashed a very vicious and deceitful campaign right since 1930 to destabilize the ruler of state of Jammu and Kashmir exploiting the sentiments of religious sentiments of Muslims against a Hindu Monarch. 

Here one needs to understand a very pertinent point which connects us to 534 princely states in fray for acceding to either of the dominions.  All the princely states signed the same format Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh of J&K. The only thing which differed was the name of the Ruler and the date of accession. While the rumble rousers today claim only four powers rested with the Indian Dominion must know these four powers root to the SCHEDULE OF INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION and were A)Defense B) External Affairs C) Communications D) Ancillary, and were connected with all the IOA documents signed by Princely states. So, Jammu and Kashmir didn’t not assign any specific condition with its IOA.

RELIGIOUS BIASES AND REGIONAL DISCONNECT

Never wish to sound biased and prejudiced in something which I claim as an analytical piece of write up based upon logic and reason, let us now try to give due credence to the argument of Plebiscite and consider it from the angle of separatist leadership. Over years the separatist leadership of Kashmir are crying hoax about Indian domination and subjugation of a territory called Jammu and Kashmir cornering their argument on the promise of Plebiscite and blaming India for all the ills of Kashmir without even giving a thought to the hara-kiri and blatant disregard to International laws by Pakistan, the separatist leadership has unleashed mayhem and turbulence in valley. It is both ironic and unfortunate that the bogey in utmost disregard of truthful understanding claims Pakistan as a friend in this struggle when it is the Islamic state of Pakistan which is squarely responsible for trampling their sentiments. This vindicates the argument of India that the so called freedom struggle in Kashmir is merely an camouflage to the larger ulterior motives of creating an Islamic dispensation along theo-fascist and religious lines. The Indian argument further receives fuel with the often repeated discourse of separatist regime upholding religious ties as the prime reason of connect with Pakistan. Had the separatist bogey been fair and just in its approach and understanding, they would have trained their guns upon Pakistan and not India.

The separatist bogey nurturing the sentiment of freedom and self determination is acting in isolation and disconnect with the other two major regions of State. Jammu and Ladakh which comprises a major stake holder in the state of Jammu and Kashmir have unequivocally and repeatedly defeated the designs of Kashmiri separatists in their demand for self determination or plebiscite. In light of this drift in state polity the separatist class of Kashmir based on a totalitarian and religious mind set needs to do a soul searching of the whole movement and their argument of Plebiscite.

Readers of this write up need to understand that the points mentioned above are strictly in coherence of the Plebiscite demand of separatist bogey and they have been dealt with detail purely on legal aspects of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India, UN Resolution on Kashmir, India Independence Act 1947 and Accession of Indian states under Government of India Act 1935. I will soon come up with the facts which narrate treachery and back stabbing of consequent ruling dispensations in state, deliberately keeping the state of Jammu and Kashmir under tender hooks with sole motive to preserve the Muslim domination and theo fascit character of state for larger ulterior motives.