In its concluding session at Islamabad (March 22-23, 2022), the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), renewed “unwavering solidarity with the people of Jammu and Kashmir” and expressed “full support for their inalienable right to self-determination in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council and the OIC, and the wishes of the Kashmiri people” . Besides, it condemned “massive violations of their human rights in the Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir ” (IIOJK).
The participants rejected “India’s illegal and unilateral actions since August 5, 2019 aimed at altering the demographic composition of the occupied territory” and “violation of UN Security Council resolutions, and international law including the 4th Geneva Convention”. The organisation demanded “final settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions”.
The right to self-determination is not only a moral right but also a legal right. In the case of Kashmir, both India and Pakistan agreed to hold a plebiscite to determine future status of the disputed state. By flouting its commitment to the United Nations, India qualifies as a rogue state to be subjected to international sanctions. A jus cogen of international law is pacta sunt servanda, treaties are to be obeyed.
The Indian Independence Act of 1947 (based on the Mountbatten Plan) provided for the lapse of paramountcy of the British Crown over the Indian states. It also gave each of these rulers the option to accede to the newly born dominions India or Pakistan or continue as an independent sovereign state.
Right after becoming independent, India harboured nefarious designs to annex the princely states through cajoling, coaxing, coercing and even through naked aggression. Vallabhai Patel and Krishna Menon tried every ploy to integrate these states into the Indian Union. At the time of Partition, the princely states covered 48 percent of the area of pre-Independence India and constituted 28 percent of its population.
Under duress, most of the rulers agreed to the dissolution of their respective states, surrendering control of thousands of villages, jagirs, palaces, and institutes, cash balances amounting to crores and a railway system of about 12,000 miles to the Indian government without receiving any compensation.
India abolished the statehood of Kashmir to control it from the Centre. A large expanse of Kashmiri land was allotted to the occupying forces. Now the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention act is being clamped on women and children.
Some states were a hard nut to crack for India. Junagadh formally acceded to Pakistan. Hyderabad and Kashmir declared that they intended to remain independent.
Jodhpur wanted to accede to Pakistan. But, Patel coerced the state’s ruler Hanvant Singh to accede to India. Patel agreed to connect Jodhpur with Kathiawar by rail and supply grain to it during famines.
Another state that wished to declare independence was Bhopal, which had a Muslim Nawab, Hamidullah Khan, ruling over a majority Hindu population. A close friend of the Muslim League, the Nawab was staunchly opposed to Congress rule. He had made clear his decision to attain independence to Mountbatten. However, Mountbatten disappointed him by stating that “no ruler could run away from the dominion closest to him”. By July 1947, the prince became aware of the large number of princes who had acceded to India and decided to follow suit.
On September 13, Indian troops were sent to Hyderabad in what came to be known as ‘Operation Polo’. In an armed encounter that lasted for about four days, the Indian army conquered the state. Later, in an attempt to reward the Nizam for his submission, he was made the governor of the state of Hyderabad.
Declassified Nehruvian documents reflect that Nehru was never sincere in holding a plebiscite in occupied Kashmir. It delayed the plebiscite on one pretext or another, until it declared that the United Nations’ resolutions were mediatory in nature. And, it was up to India to accept them or not.
Because of Nehru’s failure to keep promises, Sheikh Abdullah had begun to talk of independence. Nehru wanted to keep the bull at bay while concealing his desire to annex the disputed state. He made many assurances to dam Sheikh Abdullah’s over-ebullience.
Avtar Singh Bhasin (India and Pakistan: Neighbours at Odd) tells on page 63 on the basis of Nehruvian diaries, `Nehru addressed a lengthy letter to him [Sheikh Abdullah] on 25 August 1952 from Sonamarg, where he was then camping. After narrating the events since the accession of the State in October 1947, he went on to assure him of his commitment to the people of the State that the future would be decided by them alone, and if they wanted India to be put out of Kashmir, there would be no hesitation. He wrote, if the people of Kashmir clearly and definitely wish to part company from India, there the matter ends, however we may dislike it or however disadvantageous it may to India. If the Constituent Assembly told India to get out of Kashmir, we would get out, because under no circumstances can we remain here against the expressed will of the people.
Nehru banked on the so-called Instrument of Accession and its authentication by the Constituent Assembly’. But in a strange volte face, Nehru declared, `after consideration of the problem, we are inclined to think that it [plebiscite] should be held under United Nations’ auspices’. He reiterated in New Delhi on 3 November 1951 that ‘we have made it perfectly clear before the Security Council that the Kashmir Constituent Assembly does not [insofar] as we are concerned come in the way of a decision by the Security Council, or the United Nations’. Again, at a press conference on 11 June 1951, he was asked `if the proposed constituent assembly of Kashmir “decides in favour of acceding to Pakistan, what will be the position?”’ he reiterated, ‘We have made it perfectly clear that the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir was not meant to decide finally any such question , and it is not in the way of any decision which may ultimate flow from the Security Council proceedings’. He re-emphasised his view once again at a press conference in New Delhi on 3 November 1951. He said ‘we have made it perfectly clear before the Security Council that the Kashmir Constituent Assembly does not [insofar as] we are concerned come in the way of a decision by the Security Council or the United Nations’.
It is flabbergasting that from 1947 to 1952, Nehru kept harping commitment to plebiscite. Then there was a sudden metamorphosis in his compliant attitude.
Bhasin points out that `there was a perceptible shift in his [Nehru’s] stand on July 24 1952` about the future of the State: ‘If the decision of the Security Council was at variance with that of the Constituent Assembly’. Nehru said, ‘Unless the Security Council functioned under some other Sections of the Charter, it cannot take a decision which is binding upon us unless we agree to it. They are functioning as mediators and a mediator means getting people to agree’.
Nehru made a tactical error,.of committing himself to the UN. He spelled out Indian policy towards Kashmir.
For about 70 years, India continued to abide by UN resolutions describing Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed state. Simultaneously, it continued to harp that Kashmir was her integral part (atoot ang).
India abolished the statehood of Kashmir to control it from the Centre. A large expanse of Kashmiri land was allotted to the occupying forces. Now the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention act is being clamped on women and children.
New domiciliary policy changed Kashmir’s demography. Currently, at least 1.7 million migrants have applied for a domicile certificate.
Also, with a nudge from the Centre, the underprivileged from other states like Bihar could rush to the Valley for a better life.
