Top Story

  Editorial

  Metro

  Kashmir

  Business

  Sports

  Scoop

  Societal

  Health

    Cartoon

KASHMIRI political parties (aside from the NGOs) are generally divided into pro-accession and pro-independence parties. History of the Kashmiris’ political struggle reflects that even the so-called pro-independence parties could not be dubbed as anti-Pakistan (Nehruvian Government and their successors however regarded pro-independence parties as Pakistan’s ‘stooges’. Independence supporters believe that absence of the third option will avoid division of the pro-Pakistan votes.

Nehru believed that pro-independence sloganeers were Yankee agents or Pakistanis in Kashmiris’ clothing. His abhorrence to independence is well-reflected in prolonged imprisonment of his erstwhile friend, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah. Nehru believed Abdullah to be pro-independence, and by corrolly, pro-Pakistan. On April 19, Sheikh Abdullah said at Islamabad (Anantnag), “Future of Kashmir remains undecided. I shall not be cowed by kicks nor won over by kisses”.

In historical context, the Kashmiris’ struggle for freedom looks like continuation of the Pakistan movement. Pro-Pakistan sentiments of even the puppet IHK’s Assembly are conspicuous from the Resettlement Act 1982. This act was passed by the IHK’s ‘Assembly’ to the bitter chagrin of the Indian government. There was a spate of articles expressing rancour against the said Act.

For instance, MN Ghatate, in his article The Resettlement Act 1982: An Invitation to Pakistanis to settle in the Valley alleges, “This Bill was introduced as a Private Member Bill by Shri Rath, who later became Deputy Speaker of J & K. the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was the first political party to pass resolution on April 13, 1982 opposing the Bill, stating inter alia that the Bill short-circuits the control of the Central Government over immigration to India from outside India, a subject which is reserved for the Central Legislature. At a time when the relations with the Government of Pakistan are not too cordial and there is a standing danger of saboteurs, fifth columnists and disruptionists entering the Indian territory, the power to permit large scale infiltration of people from Pakistan is fraught with dangerous consequences to the stability and security of India”.

The Indian Government’s stooges requested the IHK’s governor not to give assent to the Bill, because it was ‘unconstitutional and anti-national’. Yet, the Bill was passed by both the Houses of Legislature. The then Governor BK Nehru returned the Bill for reconsideration with the remarks that, “As the Bill makes no provision for checking the antecedents of an applicant nor, indeed, prescribes that his antecedents should be such as to satisfy the competent authority that he is not likely to be a security risk, it makes it possible for spies, saboteurs and foreign agents to come and settle in our State as a matter of legal right.” But the puppet Assembly on October 4, 1982 again passed the Bill and it became an Act.

It is relevant to note that the BJP, through its then President Atal Behari Vajpayee, filed intervention opposing the Act, and also asked for stay of the Act. The then Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah rejected interventions, contending that the act was constitutionally valid. Later, the IHK’s high court upheld the Act in allowing a Pakistani tourist, to stay in the IHK as long as he desired, because he was an old Kashmiri (State subject) residing in Pakistan.

The greatest achievement of the Kashmiri political parties is that they brought home the message, loud and clear, to the Indian Governmentand countries of the world that the Instrument of Accession to India was a fraud. No UN resolution makes mention of the so-called accession. No UN resolution identifies the ‘tribal Lashkars’ or the Pakistan Government as an aggressor. Interestingly, even the Indian Government did not ask the UN to declare Pakistan an aggressor and clamp sanctions on it under Chapter VII. For one thing, the so-called accession, extracted under duress, is in legal parlance a nullity.

The UN accepted the J&K as a disputed State. It did not recognise the State’s accession to India and discuss it under international law “States” succession theses”, like the ‘clean slate’ (tabula rasa) thesis and the ‘universal succession’ thesis. The United State’s resolution 241 (1994) does not recognise the so-called accession. It identifies the State as a disputed State where India is committing human rights violations instead of listening to Hurriyat Conference leaders. The resolution States. “Mr President, it is the people of Kashmir who suffer. Their calls for self-determination have been brutally suppressed by India’s border security forces. These human rights abuses have been well-documented by international human rights organisations including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty Intentional. There are no democratic freedoms in Kashmir. The political process has been suspended, Court decisions are overruled in the name of State security. Under India’s Public Safety Act, the border security forces have the ability to act at will without fear of retribution or justice. This has led to a record number of Kashmiris who have been tortured, and raped, or who died in custody. In the past year, Amnesty International has dedicated two special reports detailing these abuses…”

At the time of partition, Kashmir had two major political parties that is, Muslim Conference and National Conference which, together with Praja Prishad (a Hindu dominated party) represented the collective will of the people of Kashmir. These parties should have been consulted by Maharaja before deciding about the matter of accession. However, the mere fact that he did not do so is enough to prove that Maharaja’s decision of accession to India did not have the backing of his people. On 26 October 1947, when Maharaja’s Government announced accession to India, it did not actually possess effective politico-military control of the State. Besides the political parties, the Kashmiri semi-political, social, human rights and humanitarian organisations, NGOs have made monumental contribution to the freedom struggle. These organisations have, on one hand been projecting Kashmir issue on international level according to their own political points of view, and on the other hand, have been fully exposing gross violations of human rights by Indian forces of occupation deployed in the IHK.

The writer is a freelance columnist and Kashmir affairs analyst.
© 2004 Amjed Jaaved