Nefarious Role of Pakistan with regard to Kashmir (Thousands of Kashmiris liquidated and exiled on the altar of Political Prostitution); L K Kaul

 

Nefarious Role of Pakistan with regard to Kashmir

(Thousands of Kashmiris liquidated and exiled on the altar of Political Prostitution)

                                                                                                                                                    Lalit K Kaul            

When seen in historical perspective, it gets unambiguously stated that Pakistan gave birth to what has come to be known as ‘Kashmir Problem’; and thereafter always came in the way of resolving the same. The role of Pakistan is chronicled in the sequel.

 Princely State:

 The Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), was created in 1846 under the Treaty of Amritsar signed between the East India Company and Maharaja Gulab Singh, and remains divided till date. It included Kashmir Valley, Ladakh Wizarat (comprising of Baltistan, Kargil and Leh), Jammu and Gilgit Wizarat (comprising of Gilgit and Pamiri areas).

Partition & Standstill Agreement:

During partition, the State of Jammu and Kashmir was ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh under the paramountcy of British India. Princely States were afforded the right to accede either to India or Pakistan by executing an Instrument of Accession signed by the Ruler and accepted by the Governor General of the Dominion. The decision to accede to either Dominion was an exclusive right of the ruler.

Since Maharaja Hari Singh couldn’t decide in a jiffy he offered to sign Standstill Agreements with both India & Pakistan. The notification to that effect was sent to both India and Pakistan on 12 08 1947. Pakistan immediately signed the Standstill Agreement while India asked for further discussions on its contents. In the end, India did not sign the agreement. The draft of the Standstill Agreement was formulated on 3rd June 1947 by the political department of the British Indian government and stated that all the administrative arrangements that existed between the British Crown and the Princely State would continue unaltered between the signatory dominions (India and Pakistan) and the State, until new arrangements were made.

First Violation: 

Pakistan violated the treaty soon after it was signed by organizing raids and distribution of ammunition to the population near its border with Jammu and Kashmir. The Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir made two formal requests to the Pakistani Government to stop the continuous border raids, but Pakistan paid no heed. Jinnah is known to have accepted the Pakistani army’s role in the raids, indirectly though.

 In Mirpur, Muzaffarabad and Baramullah the raiders plundered the state armoury, set entire markets on fire and looted their goods. In thousands such people were massacred who couldn't recite the Kalima; and in equally large numbers the non-Muslim women were enslaved and raped to be killed later on, while many others jumped in the river to escape capture. The streets littered with signs of mayhem - broken buildings, broken shop furniture, the ashes of burnt goods and dead bodies, including those of tribal fighters, state soldiers and local men and women. There were also bodies floating in the river.

Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah spoke to the UN Security Council on 5 February 1948: "The raiders came to our land, massacred thousands of people — mostly Sikhs, but Hindus and Muslims, too — abducted thousands of girls, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims alike, looted our property and almost reached the gates of our summer capital, Srinagar."

 Instrument of Accession & its Legal Status:

The panic stricken Maharaja appealed to India to come to its rescue and it led to signing of the Instrument of Accession that enabled India to intervene militarily in J&K which resulted in pushing back the raiders and Pak army combine partly; cease fire was unilaterally declared by India and the issue was taken to the UN for its resolution. The Instrument of Accession is a legal document executed by Maharaja Hari Singh on 26th October 1947, thereby agreeing to accede to the Union of India. Pakistan has questioned the legal status of Instrument of Accession at several occasions, but under International Law, a dictated treaty is as valid legally as one freely entered on both sides, corroborating the Maharaja being the competent legal authority to execute the Instrument of Accession.

Non Compliance of the UN Resolution by Pakistan:

On 21st April, 1948, Resolution 47 was adopted. The Security Council called for cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of all Pakistani troops and tribesmen to be followed by withdrawal of bulk of Indian troops (except for a minimal number required for maintaining law and order), allowing return of refugees, release of political prisoners and holding of a UN supervised Plebiscite in the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir under a Plebiscite Administrator to determine the aspirations of the people. Pakistan however ceased to follow this dictum and thus making plebiscite impossible.

Amendment to UN Resolution 47:

On 13th August 1948, after discussions with both the governments, the Commission unanimously adopted a three-part resolution, amending the UN Resolution 47.

Changes to the UN Resolution proposed by Pakistan:

The Pakistani Foreign Office in a letter to the Security Council, signed by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Zafrullah Khan enquired if the words “Future Status” as stated in the resolution of 13th August 1948 could mean an Independent Jammu and Kashmir. The reply was that the Kashmiri people could have an Independent Jammu and Kashmir if that was the majority’s decision.

After receiving this reply, the Pakistani Government decided to suggest an amendment to this resolution and in a letter to General A. G. L. McNaughton, President of the Security Council, dated 28th December 1948, Pakistan wrote to propose a change in this clause for the words, "The future status of State of Jammu and Kashmir" substituting it with, “The question of the accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India and Pakistan”. Pakistan proposed this change to which India did not object and as a result of this request the next resolution which was passed on 5 January 1949, read:

 1) “The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India and Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite”.

The second clause was:

 2) “A plebiscite will be held when it shall be found by the Commission that the cease-fire and truce arrangements set forth in Parts I and II of the Commission's resolution of 13 August 1948 have been carried out and arrangements for the plebiscite have been completed”.

 Part II of the Truce agreement stated:

 1) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council; the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

3) Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.

 This was formally agreed upon by Pakistan on 25th of December 1948, and conveyed to the Security Council. Pakistan has failed to implement its clauses, and as such, the UNCIP was unable to communicate to India ratification of implementation of the Resolution of 13th August 1948 by Pakistan. With that, the question of a Plebiscite fell through and was never revived at the UN level.

 Raid/Kashmir an Afterthought:

 The Indian National Congress had agreed to the partition on the condition that the Muslim League and its leader, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, accept the division as a final settlement. There was no question of partitioning the princely states on communal grounds or of determining their accession by that factor. Jinnah had also reiterated that the Lahore Resolution, enunciating the demand for Pakistan, was “only confined to British India”.

That changed, however, after the British agreed to the establishment of Pakistan. Jinnah then realized that the fruit of all his labour was a “mutilated and moth-eaten” state shorn of eastern Punjab and western Bengal (including Calcutta), which he had rejected out of hand in 1944 and 1946. Having failed to expand Pakistan’s territories within British India, he looked to the two groups that held the key to increasing the size of Pakistan: the princes and the Sikh community; that is how J&K was made a bone of contention between India and Pakistan.

 Even while the Indian leadership was preoccupied with the task of facilitating integration of hundreds of princely states with the Indian Union, it had offered to Pakistan that it was willing to let go of Kashmir in exchange for Hyderabad-Deccan and this offer was rejected by Pakistan. Even Louis Mountbatten is known to have told Liaquat Ali Khan in Lahore that the message from India is “take Kashmir and forget Hyderabad-Deccan”, but Liaquat Ali Khan declined it which made Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan to record ,”Liaquat Ali neither understands history nor geography and hence he rejected it”. 

 The Real Intention:

It becomes abundantly clear from the role of Pakistan that its political aim was not so much to integrate Kashmir with it as it was to keep igniting turmoil within the Indian Union that may one day lead to its disintegration. Had Pakistan been interested in Kashmir it would have accepted the Indian offer and stopped instigating Junagadh, Hyderabad-Deccan and Travancore into joining it even though there was no contiguity between Pakistan and the princely states of Travancore and Hyderabad

The Indian leadership became serious about Kashmir only after Junagadh acceded to Pakistan. However, in the end all the three princely states acceded to Indian Union and the princely state of J&K acceded to the Indian Union through Instrument of Accession and thus the designs of Pakistan were defeated.

While the abrogation of Article 370 and 35 A and formation of the UT of J&K have further strengthened the integration between Indian Union and J&K, there are some sympathisers of Pakistan who are now calling upon China to reinstate the abrogated articles. For the sake of peace and development leading to prosperity in the region such elements need to be politically isolated.

Note:  to dispel the misgiving that Sardar Patel and Pandit Nehru differed in their perceptions about Kashmir; here is a note from Sardar Patel

* “…I do not think that anything which could have been done for Kashmir has been left undone by me; nor am I aware of any difference between you and me on matters of policy relating to Kashmir. Still it is most unfortunate that persons down below should think that there is gulf between us. It is also distressing to me.” (Patel Papers: To Nehru on Dwarkanath Kachru’s letter, October 8, 1947)

References: 

1.       Demystifying Kashmir A book by Navnita Behera 

2.       EFSAS: Jammu and Kashmir in Legal Perspective, April 2017

3.       Free reading articles on Kashmir