Chapter 24
Islamic Fanaticism of Self-determination
Self-determination is irrational after full accession
The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, signed the accession papers and sent them to the Government of India on October 26, 1947; "Now, therefore,' I, Shriman Rajrajeshwar Maharajadhiraj Shri Hari Singh Ji, Jammu Kashmir Naresh Tatha Tibbet adi Deshadhipathi Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir state, in the exercise of my sovereignty in and over my said state do hereby execute this my instrument of Accession". This way the Maharaja submitted his accession papers which were accepted by the then Governor General, Mountbatten, on October 27, 1947.
After this accession, even India had no right to talk with short-sightedness. Such a purposeless talk had not only insulted the accession proposal of Maharaja Hari Singh but also violated the Independence Act. Under this Act the rulers of the State had been given the right for accession. Nothing had been said about the right of self-determination for the people of the State. In fact Mountbatten was desirous of keeping the fate of Kashmir hanging and he performed this act through Pt. Nehru and R.C. Kak. The Constitution of India was adopted on January 26, 1950 and there was no provision kept for self-determination in the Constitution. Therefore, the Government of India too had no right to talk about this plan. When the Constitution of India has not given the right to Government of India to review the questions of self-determination and accession, it is unconstitutional and illegal for any international organisation to talk anything in the context of India.
The entire dispute should have ended with the ratification of the accession by the Constituent Assembly on November 17, 1956. Both Pakistan and the Security Council have lost any right to talk anything about Kashmir or do anything about it.
The people to whom was connected the question of self-determination were the same people who had elected the Constituent Assembly which had accepted the accession. This Assembly adopted the Constitution of the State. The clause three of this Constitution makes it clear "Jammu and Kashmir is and will remain inseparable part of India."
The clause four of the Constitution is: The entire area, which was under the control of the ruler of the State till August 15, 1947, will remain withir. the territory of the State.
On August 15, 1947 the Pakistan held Kashmir was also under the control of the ruler of the State. Therefore, it is evident that the entire Jammu and Kashmir State is an inseparable part of India. The Maharaja had acceeded this undivided state to India. As such occupation of even an inch of the territory of Kashmir by Pakistan will be treated as aggression on India. This clause of the Constitution is further strengthened and shielded by clause 147. According to this clause, clause four cannot be nullified. And the Security Council too loses its right to give guidance and direction to India on matters connected with Kashmir. The Security Council can only advise Pakistan to vacate the Indian territory. And if Pakistan does not accept the suggestion ofthe Security Council, it can adopt a resolution against it and ask other countries to snap ties with Pakistan. But the Security Council has become a wrestling arena for political groups and as such it will not be wisdom to have any expectations from this powerless and lifeless international body.
Hide and seek of the Security Council
When India wrote to the Security Council about Pakistani aggression, it could do nothing except behaving like a spectator. It kept on adopting one resolution after the other but it could not prevail upon Pakistan to vacate the Indian state after declaring it an aggressor. Had not India unilaterally ordered cease-fire, it would have not only regained its two-third area of Kashmir but the Indian troops could have entered into the Pakistani territory ? At that time the Indian Prime Minister was neither any strong-willed Sarvarkar, nor any Subash or Dr. Hedgewar. Had Sardar Patel been appointed as the Prime Minister he would have finished the artificial line of partition by directing the Indian Army to march forward. The British had left India and the entire Army was under our control and this way the Congress would have washed away the blot of partition on its forehead. But the Oxford graduate, Nehru, lacked diplomacy and political wisdom.
The settlement of Kashmir became an object for the Security Council for playing hide and seek. On July 4, 1948 the Security Council sent a commission to have an on the spot assessment of the situation. On reaching Karachi, the Commission was told by one Pakistani officer, Sir Zaffarullah Khan, that three brigades of Pakistani Army had been deployed on the Kashmir border. But he called it part of self-defence plan thereby trying to prove that India was an aggressor.
After two years, in September 15,1950, a similar Commission, headed by an expert on international law, Owen Dixon, came to the following conclusion as a representative of the United Nations.
"When the rebel elements entered into the borders of Jammu and Kashmir, it was violation of the international law. When in May 1947 Pakistani Army entered into this state, it too was a violation of the international law".
This Dixon had charged Pakistan with the open violation of the international law. In reality the Security Council too has accepted Kashmir's accession to India. One American representative of the Security Council had given a statement on February 4, 1948.
He had said: "The external ruler of Kashmir is not now under the control of the Maharaja. With the accession of Jammu and Kashmir with India this right has been vested in the hands of India and on the basis of that right India has placed this question here".
The Security Council deployed UN observers on both sides of the cease-fire line. After that it adopted a resolution calling upon Pakistan to withdraw its troops, citizens and tribals from Kashmir. This way the United Nations accepted the defence aspect of India. But Pakistan, till date, has been violating this direction and resolution. Even after this, Pakistan has turned down the parleys between India and Pakistan. In August 1953 talks between the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan took place where it was agreed to withdraw their troops from Kashmir. But again Pakistan adopted obstinate attitude.
The United Nations has always failed to control such attitude of Pakistan. Pakistan declared open war on India twice and the United Nations succeeded in halting the war but it remained incapable of resolving this dispute. The Security Council did not concentrate on the basic complaint of India which it had submitted to the Council in January, 1948.
Pakistan gained under Simla Agreement
When Pakistan launched an attack on India in 1971, it was defeated by the Indian Army. Its one part got separated to become Bangladesh. It broke the backbone of Pakistan. But the Indian rulers did not think it proper to take advantage of the weakness of Pakistan. There is, now, no importance for such liberal and broadminded attitude in the current international situation. Such liberalism at the cost of country's integrity and security is totally foolish. Had Pakistan emerged victorious and had occupied the Indian territory, no international organisation would have forced it to vacate the territory. The United Nations would have remained helpless. It is being borne out by the attitude adopted so far by Pakistan. The entire world has accepted that Pakistan illegally occupied one-third of Kashmir but Pakistan has not withdrawn from even an inch of the territory. It gained something from the two wars. Only the history of Mohd. Gouri and Prithviraj is being repeated. Prithviraj defeated Mohd. Gouri 16 times but he forgave him all the time. But when on the 17th occasion Mohd. Gouri defeated Prithviraj, he took him to Gazni as a prisoner where his eyes were gouged out and was killed mercilessly.
To what extent is it wisdom to show repeated liberalism towards a country of ethnic character and keep on surrendering all the gains secured by the Army with one stroke of the pen on a negotiating table ? During the talks between the Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India in Simla, after the 1971 war, Pakistan could have been asked to give an account of its activities. Pakistan had lost its face in both the wars but on both the occasions India bartered away its battle gains on the diplomatic level.
Neither the policy of liberation of occupied Kashmir was adopted during the two wars nor, after it, a policy was adopted to have cantrol on this side of Kashmir during the talks with Pakistan. When the Simla talks were going on, after the 1971 war, there were 93,000 Pakistani war prisoners with India and 5,000 sq. kms of Pakistani territory with us and besides this Z.A. Bhutto was in our pocket. It was not a political wisdom to leave one-third area of Kashmir which had been occupied by Pakistan and return 93,000 war prisoners. But we accepted, through the Simla Agreement, Pakistan a party to the Kashmir issue.
Prior to this Agreement, there was a cease-fire line between Kashmir and the occupied Kashmir which, by itself, indicated that a war had taken place between the two sides and the enemy had grabbed the Indian territory and a cease-fire had been agreed upon. But under the Simla Agreement this cease-fire line was converted to the Line of Actual Control. This was another victory for Pakistan which it achieved free of cost.
The only gain from this Agreement was that now the Kashmir problem came out of the arena of the United Nations and became a bilateral matter between India and Pakistan.
Now Pakistan has smashed even this "bilateral" term in the dust. It was agreed upon in the Agreement that the two countries will maintain peaceful co-existence on the basis of equality and mutual interest, respect, for mutual regional solidarity and sovereignty and desist from interferring in the internal matters of each other. The two countries will remain committed to maintain cordial neighbourly relations by resolving bilateral disputes through negotiations in order to establish durable peace.
Pakistan rejects this agreement
It is a relevant question as to what extent Pakistan remained committed to maintaining good relations with India. Has it not interfered in the internal matters of India ? Has it not treated India's liberalism, shown during the Simla Agreement, as an obligation ? The reply to these questions is in the negative.
The matter of self-determination has nowhere been repeated in the Shimla Agreement. That is why the UN Security Council resolution, providing for the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir, has lost its importance. As a matter of routine, old agreements lose their relevance after new agreements and accords are forged. But still Pakistan continues to rake up the old issues. It is a reality that the right of self-determination is being given a religious base. Behind it, is a dangerous but clear principle. Since Kashmir has a Muslim majority, it needs the right for self-determination. It is a powerful challenge to the accepted way of life in India. Self-Determination is a test for secularism, socialism and democracy in India. It should not surprise anyone if in India the Cangressites and those who have left the Congress surrender before this challenge. But the painful and important question is that if it happens, who will face the consequences ? As per their approach, the ruling congressites will remain on the sidelines.
Dangerous consequences of self-determination
In order to understand it, there is need for reading the letter which was written by a former Indian President, Dr. Zakir Hussain, and 13 other Indian Muslim intellectuals on August 14, 1951 to the representative of the United Nations, Dr. F.P. Graham. The excerpts of letter are:
It is a strange fact that when the Security Council and its other agencies took up the Kashmir dispute for finding a solution, nobody tried to know the opinion of the Indian Muslims or the possible good or bad impact on the Indian Muslims of the hasty steps taken in Kashmir. We are sure that no durable solution can be found without understanding the condition of Muslims in the Indian society....When the partition took place, the Muslim League and its leaders left the Indian Muslims to the care of God...If we live honourably in India, it is not because of Pakistan which has weakened our position by its policies and deeds...Under the Constitution of the country our religious and cultural life is secure. We too, like others, will be able to progress through equal opportunities....Our misguided brothers in Pakistan do not realise this that if Pakistan can wage a war against Hindus in Muslim Kashmir, Hindus in India too can avenge it from Muslims, later or sooner...This type of policy can lead to difficulties and miseries for India and Pakistan in general and the Indian Muslims in particular. Pakistan's policies in general and its attitude towards Kashmir in particular can create such conditions in this country which, in the long run, can cause limitless difficulties and destruction for we Muslims...Therefore, we want to tell you firmly that Pakistan's Kashmir policy is loaded with danger for the four crore Indian Muslims. If the Security Council is desirous of peace, brotherhood and international goodwill, it should take cognisance of this warning.
The above letter to the international body like the Security Council has not been written by a leader of Hindu Mahasabha, Shiv Sena, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Arya Samaj or Sanatan Dharam but by 14 top Muslim intellectuals including Nawabs, ministers, office bearers of several Muslim organisations and judges.
Pakistan and terrorists should learn a lesson from history. The right of self-determination can result in upheavel in India and Pakistan. If Pakistan clamours, at the international level, in favour of the right of self-determination for Muslims in Kashmir because it is a Muslim majority region, this international pressure can be experienced in its many areas. What shape the "Jai Sindh" movement will assume, Pakistan has to keep it in mind though it is using all the force to crush it. On the same religious base M.A. Jinnah had partitioned the country resulting in the destruction of lakhs of Hindus and their massacre. The two communities were filled with poison. Does Pakistan want to repeat the same history ? Making a separate nationalism the base for settlement of the Kashmir problem will mean that the principle of two-nation theory, which took birth at the time of the partition, had not yet been buried. This will keep on taking rebirths. The borders of India will shrink. Wherever Muslims are in majority, the rule of the right of self-determination be applied and Hindus be thrown out and allow Muslims, in the remaining portion of the country, a chance to lead a happy life and keep on increasing their population. And when they emerge as a majority, again apply the principle of right of self-determination, which will be repetition of history. This is the lesson from Kashmir.
No relation between separatism and unity
Pakistan is mistaken if it always expects the same liberalism from the Indian leadership as it demonstrated at the time of the partition. The wave of national awakening has started in India. The days of hollow idealism of secularism are over and whosoever will try to clash with the wave a national awakening will be swept by it. A well-known journalist, M. V. Kamath has, in his article in Navbharat Times on February 1 l, 1990, given a lovely analysis of the right of self-determination:
'India has been built on the benevolent doctrine of co-existence so that people belonging to different communities will live under one umbrella. On the other side separatism sprouted out of hunger for power on the part of organisations like All India Muslim Conference and many other leaders. The foundation of India rests on the philosophy of unity. The two ideoiogies are, therefore, contradictory. There can be no union between separatism and unity. These two principles clash in Kashmir. Pakistan is talking about self-determination and India about co-existence. If eight crore Muslims can live in amity in India, why cannot 40 lakh Muslims live in Kashmir ? India is struggling to preserve this country as a land of unity where people belonging to different sects and speaking different languages can live. Giving up Kashmir will amount to betrayal of this principle. It is a question of trust and faith for India on which India is alive and without it India is meaningless. India does not want to get destroyed and it is this faith that testifies the real existence of India. Destroy this value and faith and then everything will be meaningless....Jammu and Kashmir, by remaining a part of India, is the base for secularism in India. In 1946-47 India was liberal towards Muslim communalism because at that time the strings were in the hands af a third power, Britain. But the situation is different today. India accepts the existence of Pakistan not because it accepts that principle on which it was born but because today it is a practical policy. After this there is no scope for losing even an inch. Pakistani leaders shall have to take note of it.
The land on which Pakistan is standing and talking about the right of self-determination, the same land is slipping under its feet. But Pakistani leaders do not learn a lesson from it and it does not look towards the growing rebellious atmosphere in Sindh, Baluchistan and Pakhtoon area. Even being followers of Islam they do not want to live in Pakistan. Why does not Pakistan control the rebellion by giving it a religious dimension? Why does not Pakistan give them the right of self-determination ? Pakistan has not learnt anything from the bitter experience of Bangladesh. Still Pakistani leaders keep on nourishing the hollow and sandy principles of "nation on the basis of religion".
Pakistan may disintegrate
It seems the more Pakistan makes the appeal for religion, the more danger it faces in its disintegration. The concept of religion in the base of the nation gives birth to diversity. Nehru has commented on the principle of "Muslim nation" in his autobiography:
According to Nehru, Muslim nation in India is nation within a nation and it has no solid shape but its form is faint, diverse and uncertain. Politically the idea is fallacious, economically meaningless and is not worth consideration. Why to give thought to it...Therefore, the talk of Muslim nation means that there is nothing like 'nation' but it is merely a religious addition and subtraction. It also means that no opportunity 'be given to any nation of new ideas to grow. It also means that we should divorce the new civilisation and should retreat to the milddle ages. Its meaning also is that either there be a dictatorial Government or a foreign rule. And in the end there be a world of emotion where there is no desire, deliberate or indeliberate, to face the realities especially the economic reality. But the idea of Muslim nation is simply imaginary and incongruous amalgam of different ideas. Had not newspapers played it up, not many people would have known its name. And if many peop]e have faith in it, they will wither away like the touch-me-not while clashing with reality.
The above statement makes it clear that a man like Pt. Nehru who laid the foundation of politics based on appeasement of Muslims, in India, too, did not accept the religious fanaticism.
Pakistan does not touch the Shimla Agreement in its disinformation campaign which it has launched against India in the international field. Violation of this Accord is itself the basis for its proxy war. The Shimla accord between the Government of India and Pakistan is a political agreement. By accepting this Accord Pakistan loses the bud of the right of self-determination and it also harms its policy of interference in the internal matters of India and in encouraging terrorism. Shimla Agreement is again an obstacle in the campaign of terrorism and separatism launched by Pakistan on the international level. That is why Pakistan has started terrorism directly and has been equating militancy with 'peoples' movement".
It is international terrorism and not people's movement
One Professor of International Law in Jammu University Dr. T.N. Shalla, read a paper at an International Conference on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, organised in London on 26-27 October, 1991, in which he termed the Pakistani published people's movement as "international terrorism". He supported his theory with the definition of international terrorism given by famous scholar of law and political science, Nicholas. International terrorism has been defined by Nicholas as:
"The use or threat of use, of anxiety - inducing extranormal violence for political purposes by any individual or group whether acting for or in opposition to estalblished governmental authority, when such action is intended to influence the attitude's and behaviour of a target group wider than the immediate victims and when, through the nationality or foreign ties of its perpetrators, its location, the nature of its institutional or human victims, or the mechanics of its resolution, its ramification transcend national boundaries."
By now it has been well recognised that indiscriminate killing of ordinary citizens, women and children under the shield of liberation struggle falls within the ambit of international terrorism. In fact, the terrorists discredit the very idea of any revolutionary struggle. For the ends never justify the means. Terrorism is undeniably criminal conduct and to grant any political exception to offenders who have perpetrated indiscriminate death and destruction upon innocent third parties is a patent denial of the rule of law.
Under International Law, the States are responsible for the hostile actions of private individuals on its soil against neighbouring friendly countries. This becomes all the more clear, when there are proofs to the open complicity and connivance by the State. There is the duty on a state to prevent within its borders political terrorist activities directed against foreign states. Such a duty was expressed in Art. 4 of the Draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States prepared by the International Law Commission in 1949. The Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the United Nation Charter, adopted by the General Assembly in 1970, proclaims that "no State shall organise, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another state". Again the duty was affirmed on February 2, 1971 in Art. 8 of the convention to Prevent and Punish Acts of Terrorism approved by the General Assembly of the Organisation of American States (OAS) and in S.VI of the Helisinki Declaration adopted on August 1, 1975 by thirty European States, the Holy See, the United States and Canada wherein the declaring states pledged themselves to "refrain from direct or indirect assistance to terrorist activities".
The draft definition of "aggression", drawn-up in 1933 by the committee on Security Questions of the League of Nations, included as an act of aggression "provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another state, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded state, to take in its own territory all measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection".
The Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind prepared by the International 1aw Commission is more explicit. The relevant articles read and bracket the following acts as tentamount to aggression.
(4) The a rganisiation, or the encouragement of the organisation, by the authorities of a State of armed bands within its territory or any other territory for incursion into the territory of another state, or the toleration of the organisation of such bands in its own territory, or the toleration of the use by such armed bands of its territory as a base of operations or as a point of departure for incursions into the territory of another state, as well as direct participation in or support of such incursions.
(5) The undertaking or encouragement by the authorities of a State of activities calculated to foment civil strife in another state, or the toleration by the authorities of a state of organised activities calculated to foment civil strife in another state.
(6) The undertaking or encouragement by the authorities of a state of terrorist activities in another state, or the toleration by the authorities of authorities of a state of organized activities calculated to carry out terrorist acts in another staten.
Declare Pakistan a terrorist state
Pakistan is not only encouraging terrorism on the soil of India but is also organising it. This way it is violating both the Shimla Agreement and the international law. Last year L.K. Advani, BJP leader, put up a solid and sound suggestion at a party convention. He laid emphsis on declaring Pakistan a terrorist state. Sh. Advani had requested the Government of India to submit such a proposal before the United Nations and other international organisations in order to try for declaring Pakistan a terrorist state by the world community. The External Affairs Ministry has to play a vital role in this direction. In the context of the changing situation in the world if we slightly give a twist to our foreign policy the suggestion of Advaniji can be given a practical shape in the interest of our country.
Many countries in the world are today affected and tormented by terrorism. Any attempt to face it on the international level can succeed. A political awakening is taking shape in the entire world against Islamic fundamentalism. Many countries have adopted a law for countering this fundamentalism. Therefore, India can increase the number of friendly countries by taking up the question of terrorism, which is the product of fundamentalism, in the world This can gag the mouth of Pakistan's religious disinformation campaign. Getting Pakistan declared a terrorist state is important because of the disintegration of the Soviet Union which alone has sided with India on the question of Kashmir despite the two wars. Whatever India has lost or gained from this disintegration of the Soviet Union is a separate matter, but Pakistan has taken advantage of it and has stepped up its attempts at the formation of the Islamic group. As such, preventing Pakistan from forming such a group will be the touchstone of our foreign policy. India can achieve success in this respect by getting Pakistan declared as a terrorist state. Many countries will like to support India against this fundamentalism. And if the Gavernment of India did not fulfil the need of the hour, the clouds of danger to its integrity may become thicker.
This time terrorists in Kashmir are divided in two camps. One group favours merger of Kashmir with Pakistan and the other is in favour of an independent state. But the two agree to secede from India. Pakistan favours secession but is in a fix over the struggle for independence. By preventing JKLF leader Amanullah Khan from crossing the border and by opening fire on the JKLF demonstrators in occupied Kashmir, Pakistani leaders have given a clear indication of this indecision. But on the second day Pakistan Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, said that the settlement of Kashmir has to be worked out by Kashmiris together which indicates changing policy of Pakistan. Pakistan has changed the definition of self-determination. Initially Pakistan had hoped that a referendum on the basis of the right of self-determination could give an opportunity to the people of Kashmir to decide whether they would remain with India or accede to Pakistan. But now Pakistan has been forced to think of another option of independent Kashmir.
Pakistan cannot organise terrorist activities in Kashmir if terrorist youths in occupied Kashmir rise in revolt against Islamabad. Majority of the training camps for militants are in Occupied Kashmir and the infiltration routes also pass from this region. Therefore, Pakistan has changed its strategy. An independent Kashmir can be as much dangerous as Pakistan is for India. Pakistan, on the basis of independent Kashmir, can organise the organisation of Islamic countries to its advantage and can further encourage terrorism in Kashmir. Therefore, there should be no delay on the part of India in getting Pakistan declared a terrorist state. It is considered sound diplomacy if an armed attack is replied with an armed invasion.
|
|
|
|
© 2001 Kashmir Information Network. All Rights Reserved.