- A tale of two accessions
Each year, on 19 July the Kashmiri on both sides of Line of Control and across the world observe the Accession to Pakistan Day. On this day, they renew their pledge to continue the struggle for freedom from Indian occupation.
On this day in 1947, All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference passed a resolution for Kashmir’s Accession to Pakistan at the residence of Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan in Srinagar.
The historic resolution recalled that the Kashmiri’s future was inextricably linked with Pakistan because of geographical, cultural and economic relation with Pakistan. The resolution epitomized ethos of millions of Kashmiri Muslims whose hearts throbbed with people of Pakistan. This is the first unequivocal resolution by the Kashmiris aligning their future with Pakistan. It is enshrined in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Constitution also.
The second `accession’ is touted by India was in a mythical `instrument of accession’ signed by the maharajah of Kashmir with India on 26 October 1947.
By scrapping the disputed state’s special status, India itself torn the `instrument’ to shreds. The cartographic annexation of the state (August 5) not only violates the terms of ‘accession’ in the so-called ‘instrument’, but also violates United Nations resolutions and the Simla Accord.
The ‘Instrument of Accession’ was signed before Article 370 came into being. As such, it is the foundation of the state’s special status.
Former chief minister of the state, Omar Abdullah, called revocation of the special status “a total betrayal of the trust that the people of Jammu and Kashmir had reposed in India when the State `acceded’ to it in 1947”.
The removal of special status without consulting the people of the disputed state amounts to compromising the State’s autonomy that was fundamental to the ‘accession’.
The Instrument of Accession does not exist. The ‘accession’ of the disputed state, through a resolution of the puppet assembly, is null and void. This ‘resolution’ violates the Security Council’s directive, forbidding India from taking any unilateral action. Pakistan should amend its history textbooks to incorporate the Muslim Conference resolution
Faizan Mustafa, vice chancellor of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad, India, pointed out, “This is a unilateral withdrawal of a promise that was fundamental to Jammu and Kashmir’s relation to India”.
Equivocal accession: The‘Instrument’ of Accession is void for several reasons. The Independence Act required intention of accession to be absolute and crystal-clear. But, a stray glance at the ‘Instrument’ would make it clear that it is equivocal. The ‘Instrument’ expresses ‘intention to set up an interim government and to ask Sheikh Abdullah to carry the responsibilities’ with the Maharajah’s prime minister. The last sentence in the ‘Instrument’ is ‘In haste and with kind regards’. Handwritten corrections on the text of the ‘Instrument’ speak volubly about the wavering state of the maharajah’s mind. The instrument, extracted under coercion and duress, is untenable under law.
UN’s admonition on `accession’ farce: The subsequent accession resolution, passed by occupied Kashmir’s ‘constituent assembly’, is also void. This resolution violates the Security Council’s resolutions forbidding India from going ahead with the accession farce.
Aware of India’s intention to get the ‘Instrument of Accession’ rubber-stamped by the puppet assembly, the Security Council passed two resolutions. Security Council Resolution 9 of 30 March 1951 and affirmative Resolution 122 of 24 March 1957 outlaw accession or any other action to change status of the Jammu and Kashmir state.
Renowned journalist Alastair Lamb also regards the Instrument of Accession, ‘signed’ by the maharajah of Kashmir on October 26, 1947, as fraudulent. He argues that the maharajah was travelling by road to Jammu (a distance of over 350 km). How could he sign the instrument while running for his life? There is no evidence of any contact between him and the Indian emissaries on 26 October 1947.
Actually, it was on October 27, that the Maharajah as informed by M.C. Mahajan and V.P. Menon (who had flown into Srinagar) that an Instrument of Accession is being fabricated in New Delhi. Obviously, the maharajah could not have signed the instrument earlier than October 27.
The instrument remains null and void, even if the Maharajah did sign it. The reason, as pointed out by Lamb is that the ‘signature’ was obtained under coercion. He points out Indian troops had already arrived at and secured Srinagar airfield during the middle of October 1947. On October 26, a further airlift took place. India never showed the original ‘Instrument’ at any international forum. In 1995, the Indian authorities reported the original document as lost or stolen. This further clouds the docment’s authenticity.
India took Kashmir issue to the UN in 1948 under Article 35 of Chapter VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes), not under Chapter VII which relates to acts of aggression. Obviously, it knew Kashmir was a disputed state, with the issue of its accession to India or Pakistan still unresolved.
By amending its maps, India has included not only Azad Kashmir but also Gilgit Baltistan within Indian Territory. Pakistan’s Parliament should enact maps to re-stress that Jammu and Kashmir State is disputed. These maps should be widely available and distributed.
This Indian aggression to include disputed territories within Indian Union is puerile. AG Noorani rightly points out; ‘Maps are not documents of title. They are of evidentiary value, depending on the circumstances. Published over time as a matter of course and with consistency, they provide good evidence. If they conflict with the state’s claims, they can constitute an admission. Published to create evidence, they are worthless. You cannot claim Mexico by showing it as Indian territory on our maps. The value of foreign maps depends on their provenance, whether in a work of learning or otherwise. Maps in periodicals or books published after a dispute has arisen do not affect either side’s case; only the mental balance of some Indian officials, which is precarious even at the best of times. It is puerile to stamp warnings on issues of foreign magazines. Readers abroad do not enjoy the benefit of the warning, any way.’
Abrogation of Articles 370 and 35-A was not Narendra Modi’s overnight exploit. It is rooted in India’s perfidious lip-service to the plebiscite promise.
Barkha Dutt recalls (This Unquiet Land, p. 154) `In a 1948 speech to the United Nations, Sheikh Abdullah… made a blistering defence of the accession to India…: “I had thought all along that the world had got rid of Hitlers…but what is happening in my poor country I am convinced that they have transmigrated their souls into Pakistan…I refuse to accept Pakistan as a party in the affairs of Jammu and Kashmir”.
Dutt says he “began to talk about the possibility of independent Kashmir….Soon after he changed his stance he was jailed and dismissed from office and was not able to lead the state for another twenty years’.
‘Accession’ was a myth. Actually, India marched its troops into Kashmir without Maharajah’s permission _ an act of aggression. Historian Alastair Lamb says Mountbatten wanted India not to intervene militarily without first getting an ‘instrument of accession’ from Maharajah Hari Singh. Not doing so would amount to intervening in the internal affairs of what was to all intents and purposes an independent State in the throes of civil conflict. But, India did not heed his advice. Lamb says ‘timing of the alleged Instrument of Accession undoubtedly affected its legitimacy’. He adds ‘If in fact it took place after the Indian intervention, then it could well be argued that it was either done under Indian duress or to regularise an Indian fait accompli’.
The Instrument of Accession does not exist. The ‘accession’ of the disputed state, through a resolution of the puppet assembly, is null and void. This ‘resolution’ violates the Security Council’s directive, forbidding India from taking any unilateral action. Pakistan should amend its history textbooks to incorporate the Muslim Conference resolution.
