Compiled By Khalid Umar (uk) & Jitaindra Makhieja
Rajyasabha voted 125 in favour of this decision
Rajyasabha voted 125 in favour of this decision
The Huge End of National Terrorism, Fake Politics, including Carrier of Kashmiri Politicians
Jammu Kashmir 370-35a Effect
Declare End Today, Victorious decision Taken BY PM Narendra Modi and Amit Shah
HM
A glorious day!!
J&K to be integrated into the Indian Union. Article 370 Revoked which gave
the State of Jammu & Kashmir special status. It allowed the state to have
its own constitution, a separate flag and independence over all matters except
foreign affairs, defence and communications.
It was a ‘temporary clause’ in the constitution since 14
May 1954. So the J&K residents lived under a separate set of laws,
including those related to citizenship, ownership of property, and fundamental rights. Indian citizens from other
states were not allowed to purchase land or property in Jammu and Kashmir.
Historically it’s the
Pakistani Army who using their old tactics of jihadi insurgents in 1947 used
the Pashtun tribals to attack Jammu and Kashmir. The Ruler Maharaja Hari Singh
sought military assistance from the Indian government. The Indian Governor
General Lord Mountbatten signed an agreement on 26 October 1947 in which three
subjects Defense, Foreign Affairs and Communications were handed over to India.
Then the power went to Sheikh Abdullah and in 1954 these ongoing arrangements
were made part of the constitution. That’s over today. Pakistani establishment
options are limited expect to accept and limit themselves within their borders
to give peace a chance. Kashmir game is over for the Pakistani Army and its
jihadi wing.
How kasmir belongs to India Legally ……….
The division of Sub-continent is part of a great game which was being played between the capitalism and communism. After the WW2 was over, the West's strategic interest lay in halting the Russian advance southwards to oil wells of the Middle East. Retaining a slice of the north-western part of India (NWFP) as a friendly State (buffer zone) served their strategic, political and defence interests well.
NWFP being predominantly Muslim, the
British handpicked Jinnah to champion the two nation theory to create an
Islamic Pakistan. NWFP was ruled by the Congress party then. The Indian
leadership was outwitted by the British to let the Congress-ruled NWFP go to
Pakistan. At the same time, a coup was engineered in the strategically located
Gilgit to hand it over to Pakistan after J&K had acceded to India.
The British were ruthless in this dangerous
game of religious frenzy viewing the dead as incidental damage. Mountbatten
said ‘what is 200,000 (dead Indians) out of 400 million? That is one person in
2,000, isn’t it? It is a fractional percentage.’ Congress was out of
depth to understand British designs as its naive leaders whom people trusted
with statesmanship, acumen and far-sightedness were left blinking their eyes.
The British headed both the Indian and Pakistani armies even after Partition as
India remained a British dominion till 1950. Mountbatten as head of the
Emergency Committee and the Defence Committee of the Indian Cabinet, formulated
India’s entire Kashmir policy right up to 1948. Remember, India and Pakistan
are creations of British statutes enacted to give effect to the political
agreement crafted by the British and the Muslim League, and eventually accepted
by the Congress, to partition the sub-continent. These British statutes,
accepted by India and Pakistan, provided for the partition of British provinces
according to the two nation theory. All the princely states were to regain full
sovereignty with the ruler being the only authority to offer accession
regardless of the religious composition of the people of that state.
Pakistan correctly understood the legal
position that as of August 15, 1947 princely states were sovereign in the full
sense of the term. As a sovereign state, J&K acceded to sovereign India in
October 1947. Pakistan had no locus standii. But the Indian national Congress
became defensive after the controversial accession of the princely states of
Junagadh and Hyderabad, and formulated a policy to seek the wishes of the
people for future accession. This was contrary to the constitutional law (the
British statutes– namely, the Indian Independence Act, 1947 and the modified
Government of India Act, 1935) then in force and accepted by both India and
Pakistan which clearly stipulated that only the ruler was competent to decide
the accession of his princely state. The Instrument of Accession by the
princely states was unconditional and not subject to the wishes of the people.
Once the political decision between British, Muslim League and Congress had
been crystallized into such law (statutes), Nehru as the executive had no legal
authority to change that. So his promise to seek people’s opinion was ultra
vires. Yet Nehru informed Liaquat Ali Khan and world leaders that the accession
of J&K to India was subject to the reference of the people and reflected it
in White Paper on J&K. New Delhi thus acted beyond its powers promising
self-determination and plebiscite in J&K. Mountbatten while signing the
Instrument of Accession as the Governor-General of the Dominion of India made
it a condition that Nehru must agree to hold a plebiscite in J&K. He
outwitted Nehru by persuading him to commit plebiscite before the UN Security
Council thus deviously internationalising Kashmir problem. The Security Council
called for a cease-fire, without requiring Pakistan to first vacate the occupied
areas. The blunder allowed Pakistan to retain POK (Pakistani Kashmir) which the
British precisely needed for the Great Game. Though under the British statutes
the accession of J&K to India was unconditional, final and complete, the
British put contrary arguments before the Security Council. While accepting
India as a member State, UN had accepted its territorial integrity including
the entire territory of J&K but Security Council unfortunately overlooked
this important fact. Furthermore, Kashmir has never been a part of Pakistan
under its constitution. After lopsided Security Council ruling, India
became defensive to just seek territorial status quo and convert the LoC into
the international border. India gave up the territory of J&K occupied by
Pakistan and China. The misconceived policy of status quo is also implicit in
the Simla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration wherein India handed over
further territory — Haji Pir won in the 1965 War, and territory won in Kargil
conflict —to Pakistan.
In 1973, the Supreme Court of India
formulated the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution to include unity
of the country. The Indian Parliament no more has the power to tinker with the
basic structure and cannot give away Indian territory. Accordingly, India is entitled
to the entire state of J&K and cannot legally part with its part. Congress
and BJP blindly pursue the traditional policy, not bothering to apply mind to
the legal position and India continue to part with the territory. China is
seeking legal documents for the Northern Areas from Pakistan to safeguard its
economic investments in those areas. But Pakistan has no legal right to any
part of J&K.
As India created doubts about the
unconditional nature of the accession of J&K to India, internationalized the
Kashmir issue and conferred a disputed territory status on J&K, India needs
to reaffirm its title deeds to assert clearly that the whole of J&K belongs
to it. International Court of Justice being binding on both India and Pakistan
and also to all other members of the UN, could be the right forum. Once the
court gives a verdict in India’s favour, Pakistan and China can be asked to
vacate the territory of J&K under their occupation. No nation can brand the
conflict as a freedom struggle
.
The correct legal position could help alter
the current political discourse and swing political opinion in India’s favour.
Otherwise, India falls back on existing stand of status quo and loses nothing.
In the next step, India must reclaim moral
authority in J&K, undo past mistakes on Article 370, roll back the AFSPA
and adopt new methods for conflict resolution to win over the hearts of the
people. Nehru’s statement that the Kashmiris had the right to
self-determination spawned terrorist movements in the guise of a freedom struggle.
The Kashmiris feel backstabbed; Pakistan believes Kashmir is theirs while
Indian pseudo seculars concede that India is an occupying army. Subjecting
Kashmir issue to a legal analysis and depoliticizing it will change the current
political discourse, both nationally and internationally.
Compiled By Khalid Umar (uk) & Jitaindra Makhieja
