11 May 2011
Zahoor Ahmad Bhat
No doubt Kashmir is one of the most beautiful places on the earth. Its strategic importance and beauty make it a prized possession. The snow-capped peaks, lush green fields, beautiful lakes and flowers made the great emperor Jahangir once say: “If there is paradise anywhere on earth, it is here, it is here, it is here!” But today’s Kashmir has turned different. Its people are struggling for their right to live with honor.
This struggle is not a territorial dispute, it is all about rights. Kashmiri’s are paying a heavy price for their struggle for just rights. Kashmir is a core political issue between India and Pakistan. Pakistan keeps trying to persuade India to resolve the Kashmir issue according to the will of the Kashmiri people and in accordance with the UN resolutions. Unfortunately India has never been comfortable and has always showed Kashmir as its integral part. In fact at the time of the partition of the subcontinent, the wish of 94 percent Muslim majority of Kashmir was ignored.
Despite the UN Security Council resolutions calling for plebiscite, the Kashmir issue is still a bone of contention between India and Pakistan. In three resolutions, the UN Security Council and the United Nations Commission in India and Pakistan recommended that as already agreed by Indian and Pakistani leaders, a plebiscite should be held to determine the future allegiance of the entire state. History is on record that the Kashmiri freedom fighters resisted the Indian occupation of Kashmir and waged struggle against Indian forces through out Kashmir and were able to take possession of territories in Northern Areas and those parts of Kashmir, which are now known as Azad Kashmir. The hostilities between Indian and Pakistani forces also erupted, on the Kashmir front.
India failing to re-capture the parts, which were taken over by the tribals, approached the Security Council of United Nations to intervene in the matter. The Security Council was able to secure ceasefire between the two countries and also passed resolutions for permanent settlement of the dispute on the basis of right of self-determination by the people of Kashmir but the resolutions of the Security Council have not been implemented till today.
While signing the acceptance of the instrument of accession Mountbatten put forth the condition that as soon as peace is restored in Kashmir the people of Kashmir should confirm the accession of the State. On November 1, 1947 Mountbatten held a meeting at Lahore with Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah & Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan. Nehru on the pretext of illness failed to attend meeting. Pakistani leaders made it clear that accession was based on fraud and violence and was not bona-fide. Mountbatten proposed plebiscite through United Nations.
On January 1, 1948 the Security Council of United Nations was called upon by India under article 34 and 35 of Chapter VI of the United Nations. In Indian complaint it has been pledged that once the soil of the State had been cleared of the invaders and normal conditions restored its people would be free to decide their future by the democratic method of plebiscite or referendum which in order to ensure complete impartiality might be held under international auspices. The Security Council met on January 15, 1948.
The Indian delegation also included Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, head of Interim Government under Indian occupied Kashmir. The Indian representative referred to note of Mountbatten on instrument of accession that question of State’s final accession should be settled by reference to the people of Kashmir. Pakistan’s representative protested against Indian forces in Kashmir. He said that in the presence of Indian forces people of Kashmir could not express free will. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister made a forceful speech for five hours and made a history in annals of United Nations. On January 20, 1948 Security Council by resolution No.39, established the United Nations Commission on India & Pakistan (UNCIP). On February 8, 1948 discussions in the UNO broke down on the question of free administration, as India wanted Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah to continue as head of the administration during plebiscite or referendum.
Negotiations again restarted in March 1948 in UNO and on April 21, 1948 a resolution of Security Council was carried by nine votes against none, with Soviet Union and Ukrainian delegations abstaining. The Resolution called Government of Pakistan to withdraw from Jammu & Kashmir all its forces, Tribals & Government of India was asked to reduce her forces to minimum strength after which plebiscite be held on the question of accession of State to India or Pakistan. The resolution asked for U.N delegation to proceed to sub continent at-once. It did not condemn Pakistan as aggressor as desired by India nor it touched upon the legal aspect of Kashmir’s accession to India.
The UN Security Council resolution of April 21, 1948, clearly states that the final status of Jammu & Kashmir should be decided through an impartial plebiscite held under the auspices of the world body. Subsequent UNSC resolutions reiterated the same position. However, despite first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s repeated pledges that the right to self-determination will be given to the people of Kashmir, Indian leaders have held on to their uncompromising stance that Kashmir is an integral part of India.
As the resolution very clearly states that “the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite” and the Indian rulers had promised before the UN to provide Kashmiri’s with their basic right, but later backed away from their commitments. It is unfortunate that India has been putting peace, security and stability of the entire South Asia at stake by not responding positively to the efforts made by the international community to settle the Kashmir dispute.
On November 2, 1947 speaking on all India Radio Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru said, “Fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. The pledge we have given not only to People of Kashmir, but to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it” On November 25, 1947 Nehru informed the Indian Parliament that we have suggested, “When people of Kashmir are given a chance to decide their future, this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as United Nations Organization”.
When the Kashmir dispute erupted in 1947-1948, the United States took the stand that the future status of Kashmir must be ascertained in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of the people of the territory. The U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution on April 21, 1948 which was based on that unchallenged principle. So the idea that ‘Kashmir is an integral part of India’ is in contravention to India’s international obligations. Any such suggestion is an insult to the intelligence of the people of Kashmir. The people revolted against the status quo and status quo cannot be an answer? Also, Kashmiri’s wish to emphasize that their land is not a real estate which can be parceled out between two disputants but the home of a nation with a history far more compact and coherent than India’s and far longer than Pakistan’s.
No settlement of their status will hold unless it is explicitly based on the principles of self-determination and erases the so-called line of control, which is in reality the line of conflict.Facts are facts and can not be twisted. Kashmir is the most militarized territory in the world. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has talked of “zero tolerance” for human rights violations. But when we have innocent, young boys dying such rhetoric sounds absurd. Special laws like the Disturbed Areas Act and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act that allow the security forces to get away with murder, literally, must be withdrawn.
If India is keen to restore peace and order in the region, it must come up with some really courageous and decisive measures and fast, beginning with the immediate withdrawal of security forces. If the generations of Kashmiri’s have grown up hating everything Indian, the credit largely goes to the heavy military presence in the state. Ordinary Kashmiri’s are the ones who suffered. People lose their livelihood and all sections of society are affected. Who is to blame for this? Of course, many would blame the Indian security forces, police, state and central governments.
The time for realization has come. Human rights organizations around the world are condemning the atrocities committed by Indian forces in Kashmir. Their conscience has forced even some of the Indian leaders to speak their mind. “Kashmiri women were being treated in the most inhumane way all over Kashmir.” (Dr. Mohini Giri, the chairperson of the Indian Commission for Women, Aug. 10, 1997).
“There is a growing realization in South Asia that peace is vital for economic prosperity. An amicable solution to Kashmir is key to peace and development in the subcontinent.” (Ajai Sahni, executive director of the Institute for Conflict Management, Delhi). “I believe Kashmir is not an integral part of India. It is a historical fact. By describing the pro-freedom leaders in the Valley as separatists, India in a sense has already acknowledged that secession has taken place.” (Arundhati Roy, Booker Prize winner). These quotes are true reflection of the facts that annexation of Kashmir by India was an unjust deal and the time has come to resolve the dispute in accordance with the aspirations of the people of Kashmir.
However, there is but one fair, just, legal, and moral solution to Kashmir which was provided by the United Nations. The procedures contemplated at early stage of the dispute at the United Nations for its solution may be varied in the light of changed circumstances but its underlying principle must be scrupulously observed if justice and rationality are not be thrown overboard. The setting aside of the UN resolution is one thing; the discarding of the principle they embodies is altogether another. So the settlement has to be in accordance with the wishes of the people; impartially ascertained; in conditions of freedom from intimidation.
(The views expressed in the column are the views of the author)
(Courtesy : www.kashmirdispatch.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment