August 14, 1947 and Not October 26, 1947 is the Black/Curse Day for Indian Sub Continent: Lalit K Kaul

August 14, 1947 and Not October 26, 1947 is the Black/Curse Day for Indian Sub Continent

                                                                                                                        Lalit K Kaul

Creation of Pakistan to serve the geo-political interests of the US and UK in the region – in regard to West Asia and the erstwhile USSR – has, indeed, turned out to be the curse for the Indian Sub Continent. The Pakistanis and their supporters elsewhere should know that despite Jinnah’s and Muslim League’s efforts to articulate for a separate state for Muslims, Pakistan wouldn’t have been born but for the geo-political interests of Western powers in the region. If undivided India was to be granted freedom from British colonialism, the leaders in US argued that as large a country as India would be beyond such manipulations that would serve their interests in the region. Pakistan was not created out of love for Muslims in the Indian Sub Continent.

History of Pakistan is the evidence for how the US used and manipulated Pakistan to serve their interests in the region and for such facilitation the Pakistani rulers were showered with American Dollars. Even today the US is using Pakistan to meet with their requirements while the latter is a helpless onlooker. With a sinking economy at hand, Pakistan is struggling to get promised loans from IMF etc and has been put in grey list by FATF and for loans to be released the Americans are bargaining with Pakistan to allow the US forces to use her air corridor for operations in Afghanistan. Pakistan is not only a failed State, but is/has been a handmaiden of the US.  

Always Excel in violating Agreements:  

Right from the day Pakistan was born and even in the period during 1940 – 47, the Pakistani leadership has excelled in violating agreements and dishonouring their own words. Baluchistan is a classic example of how Pakistan occupied and colonized it.

Jinnah, Qaid e Azam of Pakistan, led by example when it came to going back on one’s words and written statements; some illustrations are in order:

1.  1.         Response to Sri M K Gandhi’s query: At one point in their correspondence during 1944, for example, Gandhi had asked Jinnah why Pakistan was not specified in the Lahore Resolution calling for a separate state: “Does it bear the original meaning—Punjab, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Sind, and Baluchistan—out of which the name was neumonically formed? If not what is it?”He also asked how the resolution proposed to dispose of “Muslims under the Princes.”

Jinnah replied: “Yes, the word Pakistan is not mentioned in the resolution and it does not bear the original meaning. The word has now become synonymous with the Lahore resolution. . . . The Lahore resolution is only confined to British India. This question [of Muslims in princely states] does not arise out of the clarification of the resolution”.

 The above assertion by Jinnah was not ambiguous as it clearly points out Muslims in the princely states were not covered under the resolution. Therefore Pak was to have no claim on erstwhile princely state J&K.

 2.       Violation of Standstill Agreement: To stall for time, Maharaja Hari Singh sought Standstill Agreements with both India and Pakistan, specifying that “all agreements and administrative arrangements as to matters of common concern now existing between the Crown and any Indian States” should continue unless “new arrangements in this behalf are made.” In other words, for the time being the central government of each dominion would have no authority over Kashmir’s affairs. Pakistan signed. India did not.

 

The Standstill Agreement implied that the Maharaja would be free to decide upon the political future of the princely state of J&K. Pakistan violated the agreement by invading the princely state on 26^th October, 1947.

The Maharaja’s response to this attack by the Pak forces in the guise of tribals was to seek assistance from India; even while his forces were gallantly fighting the marauding criminals. Indian government communicated to him that since the state was not a part of India there was no requirement for Indian intervention. This led to the Maharaja signing the Instrument of Accession with India under the Government of India Act, 1935. Thereafter Indian forces intervened to fight back the Pak army/criminals.

 

On November 1, 1947, India’s first governor-general, Louis Mountbatten, met with the Muslim League’s Mohammad Ali Jinnah at Lahore to propose that a plebiscite be held in all three remaining princely states: Hyderabad, Junagadh, and Kashmir. Jinnah refused.

While the Indian forces were continuously pushing back the invaders, Nehru ji wanted a full scale war against the invaders including military strikes on their bases and lines of communications in the Frontier Province and West Punjab in Pakistan. This stand of Nehru ji worried Louis Mountbatten because he feared Indian army capturing Lahore and by his persuasiveness he convinced Nehru ji that since India’s case was very strong the UN would rule in favour of India and ask Pakistan to vacate the occupied territories. Nehru ji agreed to his proposal and that’s how the matter went to the UN.

 3.       Non Compliance with the UN Resolutions:

 The UN resolution for Plebiscite in J&K:

 “Recommends to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following measures as those which in the opinion of the Council are appropriate to bring about a cessation of the fighting and to create proper conditions for a free and impartial plebiscite to decide whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir is to accede to India or Pakistan:

 

A.      Restoration of peace and order

1.       The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours:

(a)    To ensure 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, and to prevent any intrusion in to the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State;

(b)   To make known to all concerned that the measures indicated in this and the following paragraphs provide full freedom to all subjects of the State, regardless of creed, caste, or party to express their views and to vote on the question of the accession of the State, and that therefore they should co-operate in the maintenance of peace and order.

 

2.       The Government of India should:

(a)    When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council’s resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that  arrangements for cessation of fighting have become effective, put in to operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order; “

 

Following 2(a) there are many administrative measures that are to be undertaken for facilitating plebiscite in the J&K state. The moot point to be observed here is that India is to comply with the UN directives only after Pakistan has complied with 1.(a) & (b). Pakistan never fulfilled her role to enable people to vote for their choice and yet noises are made by her leaders in all international forums for implementation of the UN resolutions. This is the farce of Pakistan. Nothing better could have been expected of a Nation founded on the basis of irrationality feeding hatred for Hindus.

Pakistan even moved an amendment to the domain of plebiscite wherein it was proposed to delete the option of an independent J&K Nation; India readily agreed to it and thus Pakistan limited the choice of the people of J&K to either India or Pakistan. The JKLF who were the first ones to be the pawns in the hands of Pak should have known it; but realization dawned upon them only when they were dumped by Pak in favour of the Hizb.

While the UN has washed its hands off the Kashmir issue, in view of the Shimla Agreement, the irrational minds in Pak still cry hoarse about UN resolution; having allowed China to undertake CPEC in the disputed regions! Incongruity personifying Pak minds seems to be limitless.

 On the verge of Implosion in South Asia:

 Pakistan leadership’s policies towards non Punjabis that demonstrated contemptuous disregard for them led to creation of Bangladesh. The Two Nation Theory fell flat on its face as it was bound to because of its irrationality.

Pakistan waged four wars against India and engaged herself in promoting terror in the J&K since 1990. The net result is that it is economically very weak and stands isolated in the comity of nations. Wherever there is a terror attack, anywhere in the world, its links get traced to Pakistan. Within its boundaries it promotes divisive politics like, Sunni Vs Shia, Muslims Vs non Muslims and shelters UN designated terrorists.

In Afghanistan Pakistan all along played a double game and ensured return of Taliban only to be snubbed by the latter after capturing political power. The Pak government has showed lack of will and capability to deal with organizations like TTP and TLP.

There has developed a kind of rift between the Establishment and the PM signalling failure of the Hybrid governance and the people including the opposition parties are agitated about uncontrolled price and debt rise. TLP is in no mood to oblige the government on the issues dear to them.

If irrationality and falsehoods have no legs to stand upon; it remains to be seen how long Pakistan, which is irrationality and falsehoods personified, remains an independent sovereign State else, breaks in to several parts.