26 August 2016
The Jammu & Kashmir Constituent Assembly, set up through a democratic election witnessed by international observers, had voted for Kashmir's accession to India. No plebiscite was needed as the people's representatives had spoken
In a strange melange of violent and hot-headed adrenaline rush, the only immutable strategy in Kashmir presently is the coming together of the rival factions of the separatist hawks — Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Mirwaiz Farooq and Yasin Malik. For they believe that the pellet gun is the strongest visual reference of ‘damning violence’ against Kashmiris. Kashmir’s recent history will tell you that the germ is passed onto a new carrier every time a new wave of violence has been unleashed, be it 2008, 2010 or 2016. This confluence of minds is dangerous for the simple reason that Indian intelligence agencies had managed to break and divide the Hurriyat to keep them apart.
With the soft separatism of Mehbooba Mufti being marginalised, violent separatism is once again the flavour of the season. Kashmir sadly has become an echo chamber of the clarion call for self determination/azadi till this day and at the vanguard now are these same Sunni separatists. After over a month and half of a shut down in the Valley, it is good to see the Prime Minister coming forward and taking stock of what is now a frightening situation.
As one uncoils history, what is thrown into stark relief is that once the people demanded a Constitution, created not by a Maharaja (as was done through the J&K Constitution Act, 1939), but by the people, of the people and for the people, and since Clause 7 of the Instrument of Accession of 1947 did not commit J&K to adhere to the Indian Constitution then being debated in Delhi, a J&K Constituent Assembly was set up through democratic elections that were witnessed by international observers and were conducted on the basis of universal adult franchise — never mind that Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference party was the only in the fray with its insignificant rival, the Praja Parishad, deciding to stay away.
This was taken to the next level when the Kashmir Assembly on February 15, 1954 under Bakshi’s leadership voted Kashmir’s accession to India, Nehru concluded that no plebiscite was needed as the people’s representatives had spoken.
But Kashmir being Kashmir is like an onion which when peeled layer by layer only provides more tears and increased pungence. It has always remained open ended for the simple reason that Pakistan cannot treat it as a closed chapter, calling it the unfinished business of Partition. So, Kashmir re-emerged on the Security Council’s front burner in February 21, 1957 when the Soviet Union vetoed in the Security Council the four-Power resolution on Kashmir proposing that Gunnar Jarring of Sweden be sent to India and Pakistan to discuss the question of demilitarisation of Kashmir and suggesting that the Pakistani proposal of sending a temporary UN force to Kashmir be examined.
Britain, the US, Australia and Cuba, which had proposed the mission, made another bid in a new resolution introduced immediately after the resolution was defeated. Arkady Sobolev, the Russian delegate, declared that the new resolution was only a repetition of the previous one which was unacceptable to India and he would be obliged to vote against it.
These dramatic developments followed two marathon interventions in the debate by VK Krishna Menon, India’s representative, who had come to the Council from his sick bed. He told the Council that India would regard an attack on Kashmir as an attack on India and would take action accordingly. Reiterating that Kashmir was an integral part of India against which aggression had taken place, he said, “It is our duty, under the Charter, to resist the invasion if our territory is invaded, and I am directed to repeat that any invasion of any part of India is an invasion of the whole country.” It was a stunning reversal of events.
What was this Resolution? After taking note of Pakistan’s proposal for a UN supervisory force for the demilitarisation programme, the Resolution asked for its president, the representative from Sweden, to proceed to the sub-continent and talk to the two Governments to examine proposals for progress towards the settlement. With Russia vetoing, the colour and text of the Resolution changed and all references to the UN supervisory force was jettisoned. India had won the round.
Around the same time, a letter purportedly written by Sheikh Abdullah from Kud jail was smuggled to Pakistan via Gulmarg and handed over to Meraj-ul-Hassan, SP heading Kashmir intelligence and passed onto Security Council members and its President. The letter saw the usual Sheikh, voluble and angry — In March 1956, the Indian Prime Minister made a public declaration ruling plebiscite in Kashmir.
It shocked the world conscience and stunned the people of Kashmir to whom innumerable assurances had been held out that they will shape their own destiny through a fair and impartial plebiscite. Reasons advanced for this volte face are that Pakistan has joined SEATO, received arms from the US and signed the Baghdad Pact. The absurdity of this argument is patent. Kashmir is at present ruled by monstrous laws which have crippled all political and social life and paralysed all progress.
The Sheikh who stood for nationalism and shared Nehru’s vision of secularism, the Sheikh who engaged UN Mediator and US Senator Dr Frank Graham in a wordy duel and battled the Maharaja Hari Singh for years for freedom and fundamental rights, why did he begin thinking of a middle path of autonomy and distancing himself from the Indian Union?
Abdullah’s biggest concern had been the growing chasm between Hindu Jammu and Muslim Kashmir, and he could never get his head to wrap around the problem. Equally his psyche was undergoing a change as he began to distrust Nehru and Delhi. His demand for an autonomous Kashmir, even if it was truncated always stopped short highlighting practical difficulties with regard to its landlocked geographical location.
Encouragement from Anglo-American interests, however, seemed to convince him that he should examine the option of independence. In May 1949, Abdullah said: “Accession to either side cannot bring peace. We want to live in friendship with both the Dominions. Perhaps a middle path between them and economic cooperation with each will be the only way to do it. However, an independent Kashmir must be guaranteed not only by India and Pakistan, but also by Great Britain, the US and the UN.”
Were these mere trial balloons, which when Sheikh Abdullah discovered did not find any takers evolved into a fully autonomous Kashmir carved out from the State on religious lines including the Azad Kashmir area? Speaking to the Constituent Assembly on March 25, 1952 and referring to independence as an alternative solution, Abdullah said, “Suppose for the sake of argument that the people don’t ratify this accession, the position that will follow would not be that as a matter of course, Kashmir becomes part of Pakistan. No, that would not happen. That cannot happen legally or constitutionally. What would happen in such an eventuality would be that the State would regain the status that it enjoyed immediately preceding the accession, let us be clear about it.”
Validation did come from the Constituent Assembly as we know, one can rest the case now M/s Geelani, Mirwaiz and Malik!
No comments:
Post a Comment