‘The only Kashmir issue is Pak occupation’

data-src="https://data.indianexpress.com/election2019/track_1x1.jpg" data-lazy-src="https://data.indianexpress.com/election2019/track_1x1.jpg" alt="" width="1px" height="1px" style="display:none;">

Not everyone is fully aware of the truth behind the propaganda that Pakistan indulges in. Friends, the first point to understand and remember is the fact that the accession of Jammu & Kashmir to the Union of India in 1947 was entirely lawful and in full accordance with provisions of the relevant laws which governed integration of princely states with the Indian Union as well as with Pakistan, namely, the Government of India Act of 1935 and the Independence of India Act of 1947. The accession of Jammu and Kashmir is total and irrevocable. Neither in international law nor under the two laws that I have referred to above, is there any provision for a ‘conditional’ accession.

Pakistan has always coveted and continues to covet J-K. When it saw that it could not obtain the J-K by legal means, Pakistan’s response was to try and seize it by force. In October 1947, Pakistan initially sent tribal invaders into J&K and then, followed it up with regular troops.

The presence of these troops was even publicly acknowledged by Pakistan in May 1948. Faced with an act of such blatant aggression, it was India which decided in January 1948 to take the matter to the UN. There are those who argue that this decision was a big mistake. This is however an issue for historians to debate.

Let me now turn to the charge that India is denying people of J-K their right to self-determination. At the outset itself, I would like to state that it is completely ridiculous that a country which is currently a military dictatorship, which has been under military rule for almost half its existence and whose ruler deposed an elected PM and forced him into exile chooses to accuse India — the largest democracy in the world — of denying to its people their right to self-determination.

The essence of self-determination, in relation to States that are independent, is the regular exercise of democratic choice. Human dignity, freedom, justice, tolerance and plurality are based on the full and equal participation in governance of every citizen in an open democracy. It is wrong to interpret self-determination as a right which permits every sub unit that constitutes such a state to secede and seek independence from the rest. If this was indeed the case, then no multi-ethnic state could survive in the world. Every one of them would be torn apart by secessionist movements.

In Pakistan itself, Baluchistan, Sindh and North West Frontier Province have at various times sought arrangements different from what exists today. India, in particular, is a political laboratory where there has been a wide variety of experiments in federal power sharing over the last fifty-five years.

There are different models in place across the country. For J&K, there has always been a special status provided through Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Pakistan’s advocacy of self-determination for J-K is therefore nothing but a cover for its territorial ambitions.

It is with the specific intention of preventing misuse of the right to self determination for political ends that the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 re-emphasised that the right to self-determination is not to be construed as either authorising or encouraging any action both internally generated or externally sponsored which could dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states.

Let me also point out how ludicrous is Pakistan’s talk of self-determination in the context of the policies it pursues vis-a-vis Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. The territories of J-K illegally occupied by Pakistan are not only extremely poor but also singularly lacking in political rights. Pakistan maintains a fig leaf of a so-called ‘‘AJK Government’’ headed by a ‘‘Prime Minister’’ with very limited executive powers. The reality, however, is that the Government of Pakistan maintains direct and complete hold on the so-called ‘‘AJK’’ through the ‘‘AJK Council’’, a large number of whose members are non-Kashmiris. There have never been free and fair elections in POK and the ruling parties in Pakistan have repeatedly manipulated results in favour of its allies, ensuring the subservience of local leadership.

In the Pakistani version of self-determination that POK enjoys, there can be no questioning of the occupation by force of these territories by Pakistan.

For example, Part 2 of Section 7 of the POK Constitution states: ‘‘No person or political party in Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be permitted to propagate against or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to the ideology of the State’s accession to Pakistan’’. Under the POK Legislative Assembly Election Ordinance of 1970, any person propagating any opinion or action in any manner prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, the ideology of POK’s accession to Pakistan, or the sovereignty and integrity of Pakistan can be disqualified.

The same caveat also applies to anyone who ‘‘defames or brings into ridicule the Armed Forces of Pakistan’’. As a result of this, in the 1996 and 2001 elections in POK, parties and candidates who wished to participate on the platform of independence and refused to sign a declaration accepting POK’s accession to Pakistan were denied the right to field candidates.

Residents of the sparsely populated and ethnically and linguistically diverse so-called ‘‘Northern Areas’’ are even more deprived of political rights. Northern Areas have no legal status. It is treated neither as a province of Pakistan nor a part of the so-called ‘‘Azad Kashmir’’.

Consequent to these policies, there has been widespread discontent amongst the people of these “Northern Areas”. Many political groups have had no option but to remain underground since any overt expression of political will is not permitted. Demonstrations by students in Gilgit against unemployment have been crushed and there have been many reports of brutal suppression of dissenting voices. For a country which indulges in such gross violations of human rights, to talk of self-determination is height of hypocrisy.

India has always been willing to discuss the issue of J-K with Pakistan. But, Pakistan seeks parity with India in terms of ‘locus standi’ in Kashmir. Pakistan is the aggressor. It cannot have parity with India. Pakistan is in illegal occupation of a part of the state of J-K.

The only issue that remains to be resolved is therefore the question pertaining to this illegal occupation and domination of the people of this area by the military establishment based in Rawalpindi, which derives its justification for disproportionate perks and privileges, and avoiding accountability, through manufactured causes and mythical enemies.