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.
