The nationhood that defines BHARAT is a unique phenomenon in world affairs. Western nations and Indians who learn about India through western authors often remain illiterate about the Indian stance on Kashmir. The soul of this issue has such exceptional dimensions peculiar to itself that it simply cannot be analyzed in any terms other than its very own.

We all recognize that the present situation in the country is a turning point in India’s evolution. This is a crucial stage as history unfolds itself by the day. As India became free on August 15, 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru said: "Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially." Indeed, a part of India - Jammu and Kashmir - remained to be assimilated in free India on that day. We are very troubled that even today this assimilation is not in full measure even if the State of Jammu and Kashmir has wholly and irrevocably acceded to India soon after, which was on October 26, 1947.

It is important to know that the foundations of India’s claim to Jammu and Kashmir are solidly entrenched in hard facts from the history of the region going back to over five thousand years. In the modern context, democratic principles and international tenets of contemporary world order dictate it. The constitutional elements that dictated the vexatious partition of the sub-continent in August 1947 provide firm evidence pertaining to the integral status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the union of India.

Pakistan continues to internationalize the issue of Jammu and Kashmir through its counterfeit technique of fanning religious fundamentalism, enabled by a dormant Indian media, which has failed to expose the hypocrisy of this rogue state. Despite assaulting fellow-Muslims in erstwhile East-Pakistan and the continual exploitations of all other regions of Pakistan by the Punjabi Muslims who wield local power through corrupt means, it is only due to sustained propaganda that Pakistan can still proclaim itself as a champion of Muslims.

WHY ANYONE INTERESTED IN WORLD PEACE MUST STUDY THE STORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR ?

The nuclear arsenal in Pakistan's possession today threatens to be used against India, and also against Israel and the USA through international terrorist organizations, that Pakistan colludes with. Anybody interested in world peace must understand the ‘Jammu and Kashmir imbroglio’ and assess the real motives behind Pakistan’s savage designs against humanity.

Often, the western media and their Indian clones discuss the drama and the controversies, which took place before the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India, rather than the completeness and irrevocability of the accession itself. The pre-accession confusion was fuelled more by the Maharaja's hopes of retaining ‘post-independence’ control as he did under the British, than by anything else. When the accession took place however, it was through the same instrument through which hundreds of other princely states acceded to India - complete and irrevocable in every respect!

I shall now narrate the facts pertaining to the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India. We pick up the threads from the events after the "Quit India" movement, i.e. after August 1942. By 1944, the Muslim League had become quite weak. Jinnah faced considerable opposition even within the Muslim League. The Sind leader, Allah Baksh was a formidable rival to Jinnah, for whose public speeches only a few hundred would turn up now, as opposed to a hundred thousand in previous years. Jinnah retired from politics, a second time, and this was just three years before August 15, 1947!

On February 19, 1946, when the Labor party was in power in Britain, Prime Minister Atlee sent a delegation comprising of Pethick-Lawrence, Secretary of State for India, Stafford Cripps, then President of the Board of Trade, and A.V.Alexander, the first Lord of Admiralty. On May 16, 1946, the British Cabinet Mission published its plan that had for its parts, a long-term plan toward India’s independence, and a short-term plan for governance of the region till the British completely surrendered power.

Both the Congress and the Muslim League accepted the long- term plan, but had differences over the short-term plan. The long-term plan rejected the division of India into two separate sovereign states. Further, it did not provide for the princely states to secede from the union of India. The cabinet mission returned to England on June 29, 1946, happy that both the Congress and the Muslim League had accepted the long-term plan.

We now narrate one of the most tragic instances in Indian history and see how ostensibly very minor events can change course of history.

In May 1946, the Congress held elections for its next president, at the end of Moulana Azad’s term and Jawaharlal Nehru became the new President. Nehru addressed a press conference on July 10, 1946, in Mumbai, following a meeting of the Congress. Right until that day, the amputation of India was not on the cards. The unity of India was not threatened. To satisfy some congressmen over some of their concerns regarding the cabinet mission’s long term plan, Nehru announced at the press conference that certain aspects of the long-term plan were not resolved. This gave Jinnah the opportunity to claim that the Congress was "pettifogging and haggling ... and could not be trusted". Jinnah called upon the Muslim League to demand for Pakistan, rejected the cabinet mission plan, and called for a civil war against the British and against the Congress on August 16, 1946, which he declared as the ‘Direct Action Day’. A large number of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs were killed in the violence following Jinnah’s call for ‘direct action’.

Viceroy Wavell was left with no choice, with the Muslim League having declared defiance, but to invite the Congress alone to form the interim government that would govern till the ‘already approved’ long-term plan of India’s independence could be implemented. Realizing however that an interim Government without the Muslim League would cause only more bloodshed, and out of sheer exasperation, Nehru invited Jinnah and some other Muslim League members to join the short-term interim Government. The Muslim League members would not cooperate with the Congress on the simplest of things, and both Patel and Nehru helplessly out of frustration reconciled with the eventual formation of Pakistan.

Terms of Declaration of the Independence of India

Prime Minister Atlee declared, on February 20, 1947, that Britain would transfer power by June 1948, by which time the Congress and the Muslim League were supposed to resolve their differences and accept some plan. Atlee declared that if no comprehensive plan were put forth, then power would be transferred to one or more governments in different regions (as per their ‘divide and quit’ policy). Churchill, who had always remained contemptuous of India and Indian people, and had never agreed to surrender power to India, condemned the Atlee government for its resolution "to transfer power to India’s politicians who were men of straw, of whom in a few years no trace would remain".

The same day, the British Government recalled Wavell, s ince he was committed to surrendering power to a united India, and replaced him by Mountbatten as India’s last Viceroy. Wavell has reported in his diary that Churchill wanted him to divide India "Between Hindustan, Pakistan and Princestan"; hence Churchill’s brief to Mountbatten: If the British could not hold India, it was best to divide her.

Communal riots broke out in February-March, 1947, and the Congress demanded the partition of Punjab and Bengal on communal lines in the hope that this would stop violence. Patel and Nehru were advised by V.P.Menon, the Reforms Commissioner and Constitutional Advisor to the last three viceroys (Linlithgow, Wavell, Mountbatten), that the Cabinet Mission plan would not work and that it would therefore be better to concede to the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan.

The ‘Menon - Mountbatten - Nehru - Kripalani - Baldeo Singh - Jinnah' Agreement of June 2, 1947

It had now become clear that India would be disintegrated and that the British would withdraw soon. Several small regions sought sovereignty. It was decided that Atlee’s deadline of June 1948 be advanced to August 15, 1947. V.P. Menon proposed the TWO- DOMINION of INDIA and PAKISTAN plan that was accepted by Mountbatten and by Nehru on May 11, 1947. On June 2, 1947, the Menon-Mountbatten plan was accepted by Nehru, Kripalani and Patel on behalf of the Congress, by Baldeo Singh on behalf of the Sikhs, and by Jinnah (with a nod!) on behalf of the Muslim League.

The Status of the Princely States

The British had divided what makes up for the present Bangladesh, India and Pakistan into several segments. About 40% of this territory came under 'British India' over which alone the British Parliament could legislate. The British Parliament did NOT legislate for the remaining 60% of the territory that was ruled by the princes, the maharajas, and the nizams, and they reported to the Viceroy. There were nearly six hundred of these princely states.

The Indian princely states were left free to decide if they would stay independent or join one of the two countries. The British Government’s ruling, contained in His Majesty’s Government’s statement of June 3, 1947 was clear: " ... the decision announced about the partition relates only to British India (seven provinces) and that their policy towards the Indian (princely) states ... remains unchanged". There was no provision to influence the destiny of the princely states with regard to any communal factor, which was the governing factor for the partition only of ‘British India’ over which alone did the British Parliament legislate. The future of the nearly six hundred princely states was thus completely, exclusively and irrevocably to be determined by their monarchs.

Sardar Patel led a marathon and magnificent campaign that can be compared perhaps only with the unification of India by the Mouryas or the Guptas and got most of the princely states to take suitable decisions. These princely states were encouraged to accede to either Pakistan or to India as per the wishes of their rulers. It was expected, naturally, that the rulers would keep in mind the interests of their subjects. Given the treatment handed to the Muslims from India who went to Pakistan, any Government of Jammu and Kashmir, it was obvious, would opt only for accession with India. Pakistan was conceived and formed as a Muslim state. India was not, by default, formed as a Hindu state. Most of the princely states acceded to one or the other country in a very dignified way, governed by simple logistics. However, there were some exceptions.

The Jammu and Kashmir Maharaja dwelt deeply on the possibility that his monarchial control over Jammu and Kashmir would continue as it did under the British, with India instead of the British at whose mercy he would rule. He therefore sought a ‘standstill’ agreement with both Pakistan and India. The Khan of Kalat, now in Pakistan, wanted to accede to India, but India refused Kalat’s proposal. Likewise, India rejected the overtures of Bahawalpur, since they were not fully in accordance with the guidelines laid down for the principle of accession. (The Khan of Kalat later revolted against its accession to Paksitan and was arrested by the Government of Pakistan in 1958).

Sardar Patel sent a message to Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir, through no less a person than Mountbatton himself, that if he were to accede to Pakistan, India would not take it amiss. It is clear that had the Maharaja wanted to betray his subjects and accede to India, he would have done so when he had an opportunity in August 1947 itself. Similarly, if there was any reason to suspect that his subjects’ interests would be best served by acceding to Pakistan, this too could have been done in August 1947.

The public opinion in Jammu and Kashmir at that time provided no reason for the latter, while the Maharaja was not interested in the former, in his fond hope being to keep power with himself.

The Instrument of Jammu and Kashmir's accession to India

Foreseeing that a referendum in Jammu and Kashmir would not guarantee a majority view in favor of accession to Pakistan, Pakistan resorted to the medieval ways of the Moguls, whose victims were their own ancestors. On October 22, 1947, Pakistan launched a full- scale invasion of Jammu and Kashmir, though intrusions had begun almost immediately following the partition of India on August 15th. "All Sikhs killed. All women raped." was the military signal transmitted by the Pakistani commander who attacked Skardu on September 6th to his headquarters.

Ample evidence based on the diaries of Pakistani army officers and political leaders, in addition to incriminating reports in a news-paper none other than ‘Dawn’, proves that the money, food, arms, petrol, ammunition, uniforms, trained personnel, soldiers and military officers of the army, were provided by Pakistan for this invasion.

The invaders were driven by a lust for loot, murder and rape, much as Pakistan did later to East Pakistan before it broke out into independent Bangladesh. The victims were Hindus, Sikhs and also Muslims, again, much like what happened later in East Pakistan.

In fact, since the majority of the population was Muslim, it was the Muslim community that suffered the most. There was public outcry against Pakistan’s atrocious misconduct. Muslim scholars expressed disgust and shame about Pakistan’s inhuman conduct against fellow Muslims in the name of religion. The shameful atrocities cannot, of course, be imagined in a civilized society, but can, of course be repeated by the perpetrators of the genocide, as they have done several times since.

Eminent Muslim leaders, who witnessed those unfortunate events, spoke of the aggression by Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir in the following words: "It is a strange commentary on political beliefs that the same Muslims of Pakistan who want the Muslims of Kashmir to join them invaded the state, in October 1947, killing and plundering Muslims in the state and dishonouring Muslim women, all in the name of what they described as the liberation of Muslims of the State."

On October 26th 1947, vested by the authority in him as the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh abandoned his ‘standstill policy’ and acceded to India. Repeated scrutiny by the UN demonstrated that the accession was legal and complete.

The Government of India sent its troops under Lt.Col.D.R.Rai to Kashmir on October 27, 1947 to save Kashmir from Pakistan’s invasion, and there was widespread jubilation among the citizens of Shrinagar and the inhabitants of neighboring towns and villages ... their morale was high ... they organized bands of volunteers to maintain law and order ... they collected all motor vehicles (for use by the Indian army...local drivers were at the wheels ready to risk their lives in defending their motherland.

Reacting sharply to the Pakistan’s invasion, Sheikh Abdullah said: "The invasion of Kashmir is meant to coerce and compel the Kashmiris to act in a particular way, namely, to accede to Pakistan. Every Kashmiri resents this compulsion on his will" (Times of India, Oct.28th, 1947).

Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference was anti-British, and also anti-Maharaja. On behalf of the National Conference, Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq was deputed to explain to Paksitan the right of Kashmiris to ‘self- determination’.

Sadiq made two visits to Pakistan for this purpose, but Pakistan would not support a referendum in Jammu and Kashmir unless the National Conference guaranteed that the verdict would be in favor of accession to Pakistan. In fact, Jinnah told Sadiq: "Sheikh Abdullah and his party must close their shop as they have no role".

These are telling events of history which lets loose Pakistan’s continued ill designs on Jammu and Kashmir and exposes its bogus support to Kashmiris’ right to self-determination. The National Conference rejected Pakistan’s expectations (Dawn, Karachi, Nov.17, 1947).

Yet, the National Conference recently suggested Pakistan’s involvement in resolving the Jammu and Kashmir situation (The Deccan Chronicle, November 12, 2000). Obviously, current politicians seem ignorant of historical developments!

The United Nations Scurity Council & the continued obstructions by Pakistan to the plebiscite

On Jan. 1, 1948, India, an infant country facing armed aggression, complained to the UN Security Council under the provision of Article 35 of the UN Charter. The UN, regarded as the guardian of world order was itself a fledgling organization, and took eight months to have the United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolution tabled on August 13, 1948. The issue before UN under Article 35 was Pakistan’s aggression against India, and not the legality of the Instrument of Accession. The latter has never been questioned by anybody, including UN legal experts, yet the world is made to believe that it is the accession that is under dispute!

The UNCIP resolution of AUGUST 13, 1948

Part I - provided for a cease-fire.

Part II - provided for a truce agreement under which Pakistan would accept unconditional withdrawal of its troops, tribesmen, and all unlawful Pakistan nationals from Jammu and Kashmir. Further, this part recognized the necessity of India to maintain an army in Jammu and Kashmir to maintain law and order in the state.

Part III - "The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people, and to that end, upon acceptance of the truce agreement (of Part II), both Governments agree to enter consultations with the Commission (UNCIP) to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured".

India sought a series of clarifications from the UNCIP. After the UNCIP received final communication from the Governments of India and of Pakistan dated respectively December 23 and 25, 1948, the UNCIP passed another resolution on Jan. 5th, 1949, declaring certain provisions supplementary to the UNCIP resolution of Aug. 13th, 1948.

The UNCIP resolution of January 5, 1949

Amongst these supplements was a provision for a Plebiscite Administrator to be nominated by the Secretary General of the UN in consultation with the UNCIP. More importantly, also unambiguous was the fact that the ‘consideration of the plebiscite’ would come into effect ONLY AFTER the UNCIP would find that "the cease fire and truce arrangements set forth in Parts I and II of the Commission’s resolution of August 13, 1948, have been carried out". The UN resolution further required that "all persons who on or since August 15, 1947, have entered the state (of Jammu and Kashmir) for other than lawful purposes, shall be required to leave the state".

Furthermore, it should be noted that the UNCIP resolution of August 13th, 1948 provided for the "future status of the State of Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people", and thereby included the possibility of Jammu and Kashmir becoming independent of both India and Pakistan. Pakistan had this provision reduced, in the UNCIP resolution of January 5, 1949 to "the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan", thereby excluding the possibility of an independent Jammu and Kashmir. Yet, the Indian media has allowed the Pakistan to carry on the propaganda that Pakistan champions the cause of freedom of the people of J&K!

As of today, Parts I and II of the UNCIP resolution of August 13th 1948 have never been put into operation. Instead, Pakistan consolidated its aggression. India, instead of evicting the intruders on the spot, kept protesting to the Security Council, (who an Indian diplomat for obvious reasons refers to as an "impotent international body"), that Pakistan "vacate its aggression".

So far as the cease-fire agreements have been concerned, as is well known, notwithstanding Part I of the said Aug.13, 1948 UNCIP resolution, Pakistan has signed some, and broken them all, subsequent to several military defeats (most notably in 1965, 1968, 1971 and the latest in 1999).

The plebiscite: How and Why Pakistan avoided it ?

Termination of UN framework

Pakistan NEVER was in favor of ‘self-determination’ of the Kashmiris. Pakistan’s claim to have supported Kashmiris’ self- rule is manifestly refuted by the stand it has taken. All evidence is essentially to the contrary. Pakistan wanted, following the outdated tactics of the Moguls, to coerce the Kashmiris to accede to it. Every time the UN came close to organizing a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan raised difficulties and actually avoided the plebiscite.

Pakistan had to avoid the plebiscite because it realized that Kashmiris, had suffered an enormous loss of human dignity at the hands of Pakistan, and would not vote to accede to it. Pakistan hoped that it could put off the plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir till there was sufficient illegal Pakistani infiltration, which would offset the popular choice in the state. Pakistan’s policy was manifestly simple and malicious: First and foremost - disregard democracy. Further, coerce people into saying what it wants to be stated as ‘popular people’s mandate’. Pakistan employed the strategy of accepting and consolidating what they get, and go on to ask for more and more - much on the lines of Jinnah.

The instrument of accession of Jammu and Kashmir accepted by the Government of India was the very same as for all other princely states. The accession was thus complete in law and in fact, and made the State of Jammu and Kashmir an integral part of India. There was simply no popular support to Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir: how could the very same people against whom Pakistan committed atrocities actually want to join it? Philip Talbott wrote in ‘World Politics, No.3, April 1949, of ‘the tenacious resistance against Jinnah and Pakistan by Kashmir’s largest political party, the Kashmir National Conference, which was Muslim led (by Sheikh Abdullah) and largely Muslim supported.’

Pakistan’s strategy was therefore to avoid plebiscite till it manipulated the demography of the region. This would be done over ten, twenty, thirty, fifty, years - as many as it would take, till the demography of the region is maneuvered by forcing Indians out of the state, through terror and malice, and replace them by illegal infiltration. This would be done till the result of a plebiscite would be in Pakistan’s favor. Pakistan repeatedly raised problems regarding demilitarization of the region required as a pre-condition to the plebiscite by the UN resolution, so that it could actually stall the plebiscite even as it kept demanding it! Pakistan is still continuing to play this very game plan, and India and world leaders let it!

In May 1951, Yuvraj Karan Singh issued a proclamation convoking a CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY on the basis of free adult franchise, elections to which were held in October 1951. Correspondents and observers who came personally to witness the elections reported upon these elections across the world.

On April 30, 1951 the UN appointed Dr. Frank D. Graham as an arbitrator. Pakistan was claiming Jammu and Kashmir on the grounds that it was predominantly Muslim, but it failed to assess the strength of secularism that has been at the very heart of the Indian tradition. Several Muslim leaders supported Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India. In a Memorandum submitted on August 14, 1951, by fourteen prominent Indian Muslim leaders to the UN, the petitioners clearly spelt out how Pakistan did not consider the well being of the Muslim community at large (as later atrocities on East Pakistan, for example, clearly proved).

This memorandum deplored Pakistan’s attitude toward the Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir and expressed confidence in India’s will and ability to safeguard Muslim interests. This memorandum is one of the countless expressions of solidarity of the Muslim community to the interests of India, and has been in consonance with the rich secular traditions of modern India. Sheikh Abdullah and Maulana Azad were not the only Muslims who understood the fact that India was not automatically a ‘Hindu state in imbalance’ just because Jinnah declared Pakistan to be a Muslim State.

Disgusted with Pakistan’s continued evasion and non-cooperation on the plebiscite, Dr. Graham asked for extra time on Oct.15th, 1951, and then on January 17th, 1952, he admitted failure!

On August 7th, 1952, Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, declared in the parliament of India: " ... (Jammu and Kashmir’s) accession was complete in law and in fact ... It is patent and no argument is required because the accession of every (princely) state in India was complete on these very terms. When the United Nations Commission accompanied by legal advisors and others came here, it was open to them to challenge it. But they did not ... "

On Feb.6th 1954, the constituent assembly unanimously confirmed the ‘Instrument of Accession’. The will of the people was ascertained in the highest of democratic traditions. What more is required to establish popular mandate?

Pakistan continued to take the issue to the UN and kept pressing for a plebiscite even while evading it. Finally in 1964, at the UN Security Council meeting, India's brilliant representative, Mahomadali Currim Chagla declared: "Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of India... You cannot make more complete what is already complete... The two basic UN resolutions of 1948 and 1949 were conditional and contingent on Pakistan vacating its aggression and the condition has not been complied with.... The basis having disappeared, these resolutions are no longer binding on us... The only people who continued to suffer were the people of Kashmir for whom Pakistan felt no care...the resolutions of the UNCIP had lapsed, and under no circumstances would India agree to a plebiscite which Pakistan repeatedly avoided."

Finally, the UN Security Council debate ended, with the President of the Security Council stating, on May 18, 1964, that "the negotiations between India and Pakistan might be complicated by any outside intervention". USA, Great Britain and the Soviet Union asked for a bilateral settlement instead of a UN involvement.

The US representative to the UN, Adlai Stevenson said: "the Kashmir question should be peacefully resolved.... We urged bilateral talks between the parties last year. An agreement cannot be imposed from the outside." This was reported by the President of the USA, while reporting to the U.S. Congress on events in 1964 on ‘Our participation in the UN’ (US State Dept. Publication 7943, released Feb. 1966, pp.63-70).

The legality, completeness and irrevocability of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India was firmly established, but India failed to consolidate Jammu and Kashmir’s integration due to a temporary measure of dubious value and devastating consequences, that was taken then.

THE CONTROVERSY ENDED, BUT THE DISPUTE CONTINUED!

No place becomes a part of India or Pakistan because a Hindu or a Muslim lives there. There are Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, living all over the world. Where people live is simply not a relevant factor in determining which nation the place they live in belongs to. It is the historical and cultural heritage of a place that determines to which nation a place belongs, and most importantly, it is the constitutional propriety regarding the title of that place in accordance with the prevailing interpretation of international law that determines it.

Not one, not two, but on three counts, has the ‘plebiscite issue’ been settled once and for all.

Pakistan’s claim to the state of Jammu and Kashmir has no historical, racial, moral, cultural or constitutional base. Pakistan’s claim to its interest in the Kashmiri people on grounds of the religious affiliation of those people is a bluff. Pakistan has not been responsible towards Muslims at large.

Pakistan has ignored the interests of a larger population of Muslims in India, and has abused the Muslims in East Pakistan, which eventually had to secede from it despite religious affiliation to Pakistan. Muslim scholars have repeatedly lamented at the un-Islamic ways of Jinnah, and later of Pakistan.

Pakistan repeatedly avoided plebiscite by not fulfilling Part I and II of the UN resolution of August 13, 1948. Its strategy has exposed its fear for democratic process in Jammu and Kashmir. It has repeatedly resorted to aggression and coercion to seek a verdict in its favor. Pakistan’s strategy builds on grabbing as much territory as possible by force, then holding on to it to consolidate its gains by demanding a plebiscite - and preventing one, till yet another aggression yields additional territorial gain for the progression of its illicit maneuvers.

Adult franchise, expressing the unambiguous will of the people, was conducted on Feb.6, 1954 in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This franchise elected the Constituent Assembly, which confirmed the accession of Jammu and Kashmir in the Union of India. This was enshrined as a non-amendable part of the Jammu and Kashmir’s State Constitution, which categorically states, "The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India".

It must of course be remembered that an electorate that included the Pakistani infiltration, though at levels far lower than that exists today, cast this franchise. The Jammu and Kashmir electorate has now become completely irrational, with 700,000 native Hindus in exile, an un-estimated number of illegal entrants into the State, and electoral constituencies unfairly chalked. Thus, any further reference to ‘plebiscite’ is completely uncalled for.

Any heed given to a ‘consideration of plebiscite on vacation of Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir’ is also totally irrelevant, mischievous, illegal and malicious. It is detrimental to India’s national and security concern, since Pakistan sponsored force and terror has now immensely altered the demography of Jammu and Kashmir. Any call for plebiscite can now be instigated only by unlawful support to Pakistan’s terrorist activities, and ignorance regarding the historical, cultural, moral and constitutional roots from which stems the judicious, complete and factual integration of the state of Jammu and Kashmir in the Union of India.

‘TEMPORARY PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 370 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA’

Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India had to be incorporated in the constitution of India, and it had a natural basis in the instrument of accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh. Representatives of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, headed by Sheikh Abdullah, were working closely with other constitutional experts on this task. This resulted in what came to be known as the ‘Delhi Declaration’ and was subsequently documented as ‘Temporary Provisions of the Article 370 of the Indian Constitution’.

The scope of Article 370 was empowered by the instrument of accession. A limiting factor, as explained by Jawaharlal Nehru to the parliament, however, was that the provisions of the ‘Delhi Declaration’ had to be such as would strengthen the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir to deal with Pakistan’s invasion, difficulties due to infiltration, espionage and sabotage cases etc. As a result, certain provisions made in the Indian constitution for the rest of the country did not apply to Jammu and Kashmir. The accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India was formally and irrevocably enshrined in India’s constitution even as Pakistan continued to occupy a major part of the state. The restrictions which prevented Jammu and Kashmir’s comprehensive integration in India were due to faulty, temporary and tentative perceptions, which can - and should - be reviewed.

Article 370 must be understood in the context of its time and in its status essentially as a ‘TEMPORARY’ provision. Due to the special restrictions of Article 370, there are serious limitations to the administrative powers of the Government of India in affairs of Jammu and Kashmir. Article 370 separates J&K from all other states violently with regard to state-center relations, in the absence of which any discussion on 'autonomy' becomes completely irrational. Also, under the restrictions of the Article 370, Indians other than those whose origin belongs to Jammu and Kashmir, cannot buy property and settle down in J&K, though they can do so in every other Indian state and/or union territory.

Islamic Terrorism, Torture of Hindus: The exodus.

Partial justification for Article 370 came from its legal provisions that would disable Pakistani intruders, not having origin in Jammu and Kashmir, from settling down in that territory. In reality, however, settlements in J&K of Islamic fundamentalists, and Jihadi intruders from Pakistan and Afghanistan continued and created terror, which India failed to contain. As a result, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists, who were no less than 40% of the state's population at the time of independence, were forced to seek refuge in places far and remote.

Article 370 has only fuelled tendencies in the region for secession, has damaged the demographic balance in the region and has weakened India’s integrity and security. The State Government, finding itself empowered by Article 370, has manipulated the State’s resources to selectively benefit only a particular community, at the cost of all others. Gross injustice has been handed to the non-Muslim minorities in land dealings, and job and education opportunities. In the localities in which the minorities live, even water supply is infrequent, and severely limited.

Islamic fundamentalists have sponsored terrorism throughout the state. This would be totally foiled by the brave and courageous men amongst the minority Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists, who have centuries of valiant life behind them, were it not for the advanced weapons supplied to the terrorists by the rogue state Pakistan.

Even the machinery of democracy has been cleverly used against the non-Muslim minorities by constituting as many as 46 assembly constituencies in the small region of the Kashmir valley as opposed to only 41 in the much larger and more populated regions of Jammu and Ladakh.

The forced exodus of the Hindus in 1989 has left only very few non-minority families in Jammu and Kashmir. The community, which held the torch of Indian culture across the ages now faces extinction, unless India stands as one man and overcomes Pakistan's ugly design. It is however a misconception that the proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir has at its root in religious or divine concerns, sponsored by the sons of Allah.

Religious fundamentalism is only a façade for the power greedy. The military budget in Pakistan cannot be audited, and it suits army officials to maintain skyrocketing budgets for the army. The principal reason for this is the greed of a few army officials in Pakistan, who bleed their own nation and ours toward their personal wants. It is a blatant aberration of modern civilization that a weak and collapsing nation like Pakistan has managed to pose such a menace. This anomaly must be corrected.

There are strong centrifugal forces inside Pakistan, which are now on the verge of collapse. The impending break-up of Pakistan is signaled by a very large number of events, which include Pakistan’s material, intellectual and military impoverishment.

Pakistan has occupied the Skurd, Gilgit, Baltistan and the so- called ‘Azad-Kashmir’ regions, which in fact are legal parts of Jammu and Kashmir, which acceded to India. While Pakistan rules and exploits these regions, it has made no attempt to develop them. No wonder that these regions have now openly started talking about to seceding from Pakistan, even if the people of these regions have not yet found an alternate plan for themselves. "Pakistani rule cannot be spread over Gilgit and Baltistan and these areas ought to be treated as a foreign country", the Chairman of the Gilgit-Baltistan Thinkers Forum, Wajahat Hassan has stated (Times of India, September 11, 2000). The most obvious choice of placing that region as an integral part of the Indian Union has neither hit them, nor has it been so suggested by the dormant Indian media nor by Indian statesmen.

The withdrawal of these regions from Pakistan-rule will still not mean a break- up of Pakistan, since these regions belong to Jammu and Kashmir to begin with. But then there are other strong centrifugal forces inside Pakistan’s core. Suffice it to say that some Pakistani Muslim leaders, now hurt severely by the Punjabi dominance in Pakistan at the cost of the Mohajirs, Sindhi, Baluchi, Pakhtoon people, have openly started calling the partition of 1947 a big blunder (Times of India, Sept.19, 2000).

The Punjabi Muslim leaders of Pakistan have obviously not learnt their lessons even after the secession of Bangladesh in 1971 for precisely identical neglect and exploitation. Further secession is unstoppable. Even the Sindh province of Pakistan is now seeking ‘autonomy’ (Times of India’, Sept.20, 2000).

Yet India, which today ranks amongst the technologically, scientifically, militarily advanced nations, has not taken initiatives to even consolidate the integration of Jammu and Kashmir, risking it to the uncertain consequences of the splinters that will be thrown off as Pakistan breaks.

Indeed the region of Jammu and Kashmir is of geopolitical strategic significance, bordering Pakistan, Afghanistan, and China, and it is close enough to Uzbekistan. It is well known that any power that would control the Baltistan, Skardu, Kargil and Ladakh regions will be a major superpower in today’s world. Chinese ambitions in this region have been exposed repeatedly, the latest evidence being provided by the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh showing video footage shot by Arunachalee villagers along the border.

China will thus fully exploit centrifugal activity in Pakistan, and will seek to make further inroads through Ladakh if any weakness in conceding the LoC as International Border is shown in Jammu and Kashmir. India must therefore be very alert, complete the integration of Jammu and Kashmir in the Indian Union, and develop the region rapidly.

Article 370 failed to check settlements in J&K of fundamentalist Muslims intruders, while it disabled the Hindu settlements in the state. Every major Indian politician, including Sri Jawaharlal Nehru has sought the abrogation of Article 370, but no Lok Sabha ever attempted to do it, with every opposition party being wary of the thought that doing so would give the Government in power political mileage out of it! The policy of appeasement of 13% Muslim minorities in India made the task more complicated.

Ironically, it was not even ever determined in what way Article 370 favors the Muslims in RoI (Rest of India, i.e., other than in J&K). It was never brought out by the Indian media that the fate of the Muslims in India is linked primarily to India's destiny, and not to blunders in the Indian Constitution. The future of Muslims in India depends on a strong India, a peaceful India, a prosperous India, and towards that goal, the abrogation of Article 370 resulting in comprehensive integration of J&K in the Union of India is a vital and crucial element.

Some politicians and statesmen who were interested in completing the process of abrogation of Article 370, an obvious goal in the best interest of national security and integration, made it a "contentious" issue, which it isn’t, by clubbing it with other contentious, religious issues. This has had devastating consequences. Muslims luminaries like Mahomedali Currim Chagla, Rafiq Zakaria have openly wanted Article 370 to be abrogated. They never considered it as a ‘Hindu-Muslim’ issue, but only as a ‘national issue’. But by bracketing it unwisely with the overtly religious issue, it has been made to appear as if the demand for the removal of the ‘temporary’ Article 370 is against secularism in India.

It is clear that any solution on J&K must include the proposals of the Kashmiri Hindus (KH). Since KH have not had much political leverage, being a small constituency mostly in exile under distressing circumstances, there has never been adequate political pressure on the Government to act! The Indian media and the people of India never made this to be a central issue for themselves. Today, the entire country is reeling under the pressure of the tragedy in J&K and is paying a price for the failure to deal with it effectively.

CAN INDIA WRITE OFF THE ‘AZAD KASHMIR’ and ‘PoK’ REGIONS?

TIME FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS & FULL RECLAIM OF PoK

There is the region of the so-called ‘Azad Kashmir’, the Mirpur- Poonch (Punjabi) region. It even has a puppet ‘President’, ‘Prime Minister’ and ‘Assembly’. And there is the region of Gilgit- Skurd-Baltistan occupied by Pakistan directly, and which are parts of the state of Jammu and Kashmir under the Dogras, which acceded to India. There are Muslims living there who are exploited by Pakistan. Pakistan has a step-motherly relation with the people in this region. Pakistan needs to pretend to the world that this ‘Azad Kashmir’ is a creation of Kashmiris, so it wields power on it but does not develop it.

If Muslims in India are not rebelling loudly against Pakistan on this, it is only because the Indian media has failed to report on the plights of the Muslims in ‘Azad Kashmir’ under Pakistan’s rule. In Pakistan, the Muslims of ‘Azad Kashmir’ are treated with contempt, and are called ‘hataoes’. The region is underdeveloped, there are no hospitals there, no schools, no progress! The same is true in Dardistan and Baltistan, misruled by Pakistan by factoring that region into five divisions: Gilgit, Skardu, Chilas, Gohkoch and Khalpo, drawing a leaf from the British ‘divide and rule’ technique.

The Muslims of these regions remain backward, and have started demanding to secede from Pakistan. Ishtiaq Ali Mehkri, journalist with ‘Dawn’ reports from Karachi, (December 1, 2000) that for the last many years, August 14, the Pakistani Independence Day, has been marked as ‘Deprivation Day’ by the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. Pakistan’s flag has been set on fire at several places.

In May 1999, the Pakistani Supreme Court ruled: "Northern Areas are a disputed territory and the Government of Pakistan has no claim whatsoever over it. Major (retd.) Hussain Shah of the Muttahida Qaumi Party says, "Pakistan can no more exploit our patriotism". Unless Pakistan recognizes their fundamental rights, he says the people will have to "explore new avenues." Malika Baltistani of the ‘Gilgit-Baltistan National Alliance’ says, "My political party is seriously thinking of armed and political assistance from whoever it may be, to get rid of Pakistan’s unjust rule". She openly says that if their demand for autonomy and fundamental rights were denied, the people of the area "would not mind calling it a day with Pakistan." At a recent press conference in Karachi, she went to the extent of saying that they would "go with any nation or country that ensured them their basic rights."

PTI report (Times of India, December 4, 2000) gives us further evidence about Pakistan’s neglect and exploitation of the Muslims in Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir. A senior leader of PoK from the Rawalakote area Mohammed Mumtaz Khan, says about PoK "The area lags by ages behind Jammu and Kashmir, where development had moved at almost the same pace as that of other cities in India." Khan says that even the medical facilities in PoK were "pitiable and god forbid, if an epidemic broke in there, it could prove to be a catastrophe."

Founding father of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, Nazir- ul-Haq, has said that Pakistan has neglected the area and has only used the region for its own vested interests. Nazir-ul-Haq complains about the slow development pace in PoK and said Pakistan has even illegally annexed the northern areas including Gilgit and Baltistan. Disputing the claims of militant groups like Lashker-e-Toiba (LeT) and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Haq Said "These groups are determined neither to allow peace to return to Jammu and Kashmir nor to PoK as they would be jobless... But has anyone asked them why are you spreading terror. Islam religion disapproves of it." He said that in the name of jehad no one could continue to harm the interests of the people since "This is the most heinous crime even as per Islam, whose warriors they claim to be."

About the continued opposition to giving peace a chance in the state by Pakistan, another PoK leader, Mumtaz Khan flays Pakistan for gross violation of human rights in PoK and northern areas. Khan has been raising his voice against these violations in the United Nations Human Rights Conference. Khan draws attention to the fact that compared to the rest of Jammu and Kashmir, PoK lags decades behind. Mumtaz Khan laments that "for so many years, Pakistan has not even implemented its own Supreme Court order (referred above) which said northern areas including Gilgit and Baltistan were a part of disputed Jammu and Kashmir and should be restored back...Pakistan had completely spoiled the area by setting up training camps for militants."

Abdul Rouf Ganai, Co-convener of the Jammu-Kashmir Nationalists Front lamented recently (PTI report in ‘The Asian Age’, Nov.27, 2000) that "Gujjars, Bakerwals and Pahari speaking Muslims living in the Poonch, Rajouri and Doda districts are disillusioned with the ideas of ‘Azadi’ and ‘merger with Pakistan’. They feel ‘cheated’ and ‘used’ as cannon fodder in the name of Islam".

It is a gross miscalculation that the Muslims in India will remain insensitive to the sufferings of the people in ‘Azad Kashmir’ and in other parts of Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir. There are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan, and they enjoy a far higher development rate in India than Muslims anywhere else. They have opted to live in India accepting India as their home, and many of them have served the country nobly by giving their life for it. It would be a very big mistake both for Hindus and Muslims in India to write-off the regions of ‘Azad Kashmir’ and ‘Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir’. The Skardu, Baltistan, Kargil, Ladakh region provide a geo-strategic grip on the Indian subcontinent, and it is very important that India secures it.

However, it is very important to realize that abrogation of Article 370 will achieve nothing unless the State is developed, but without the abrogation of Article 370 the State will neither attract human talent nor any investment. The obvious solution then lies in destroying terrorism sponsored by Islamic fundamentalism in the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, and making the entire state accessible for settlements by all Indians. As a FIRST step, Article 370 must be abrogated, and demographic rationalization in J&K must be brought about to restore ‘non-Muslim’-‘Muslim’ ratio to what it was (3:7) at the time of independence. In that ratio, settlements of both Hindus and Muslims, of Kashmiri or non-Kashmiri origin, should be made throughout the state of J&K, and not concentrated in just one region.

Indian Muslims must not only cooperate with the demographic rationalization that is required, but they must actually catalyze and aid it to build a strong homogeneous united India. Article 370 applies to the J&K state as it existed at the time of the instrument of accession, and includes Pakistan-occupied- Kashmir.

CONCLUSION

There are thus strong centrifugal forces inside Pakistan, which is on the verge of collapse. The proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir is not due to religious, spiritual or divine concerns. Religious fundamentalism is only a façade of the power hungry. Military budget in Pakistan cannot be audited, and it suits army officials to maintain skyrocketing budgets for the army. The problem is neither religious (considering the fact that Pakistan has committed enormous atrocities against their fellow religious brethren in erstwhile East-Pakistan) nor ethnic, since no matter what the claims and perceptions are, people involved in the conflict belong to the same ethnic stock. The principal reason for this is the greed of a few army officials in Pakistan, who bleed their own nation and ours toward their personal wants.

India must respond. The constitutional response must begin with abrogation of Article 370 accompanied with restoration of a demographic pattern as of 1947. This is clearly in the nation's interest, and the people of India must make this happen. Sadly, no politician supports this measure, yet this is the only constitutional solution. It can be achieved by a very simple act, which the Indian population has not resorted to so far: Hindus and Muslims must make this demand collectively, together!

Article 370 has now outlived its purpose. Jammu and Kashmir cannot prosper under its special provisions. Kashmiris must now seek full integration in the Union of India by going beyond the restrictions of Article 370, and this calls for constitutional amendments. It is only a question of time when this happens, but the sooner the better it will be for Kashmiris. If Jammu and Kashmir is to develop its infrastructure - roads, communication, schools, colleges, industry, hospitals and commerce - then it is essential that it attracts investment and trained personnel.

Article 370 guarantee’s political integration of Jammu and Kashmir in the Indian Union, but its restrictions do not attract investment in the state. This is a wonderful opportunity for political parties to take up national issues unanimously.

It is certain that Jawaharla Nehru would have taken decisive steps to bring in constitutional amendments to supercede Article 370 in order to integrate Jammu and Kashmir fully. Were it not for his untimely death, Nehru, the brilliant statesman that he was, would have certainly achieved it.

In February 1964, just a few months before he passed away, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru declared in the Lok Sabha: "Article 370 will get eroded in due course and vanish ultimately."

This statement was followed by that of Mahomedali Currim Chagla in the Rajya Sabha:

"The Prime Minister the other day spoke of gradual erosion of Article 370. I hope that this erosion is accelerated and I also hope that very soon that Article will disappear from the Constitution. After all it is transitional and temporary. I think transitional period has been long enough!"

All materials on this website are © 2000-2005

Printer Friendly Format

Search this website

top