Kashmir Watch, Feb 11

Hameed Shaheen

Kashmiris are the people who appreciate all shades of views; but views value if taken in the context of history.

Now what is history of the Kashmir dispute? how did it emerge? who took it where? who invited the help? what help? of whose help? and finally what did happen? implementable attitude? or arrogance? on whose part?

One liner answers: Kashmir was turned into a dispute by India of Jawarlal Nehru; it emerged out of the armed Indian occupation; India took it to the UN Security Council, got it registered as dispute on Jan 1, 1948 in UNSC.

Jawarlal Nehru sought the UNSC solution help; the UNSC handed back the verdict that fair, free and international plebsicite under UNO should decide the political affiliation of Kashmiris (UNCIP resolutions of Augusdt 13, 1948 and of Jan 5, 1949); this was the first basic verdict India got back from the UN doors; afterwards India started procrastination under one pretext or the other despite international commitments to solve the dispute; the frozen Indian attitude is now internationally known as arrogance/obduracy/stubbornness, characteristic earned by India herself.

History: the south Asian subcontinent is the scene:  the grand solution to the dispute of subcontinent was sought by two parallel representative parties: Muslim League and Indian Congress; the British agreed after hectic haggling to grant self-determination to populace behind these two parallels; Muslims determined their political fate as Pakistan; Hindus determined their destiny as Hindustan; this is simple arithmetic of the political scene of those fleeting British days in the subcontinent.

Decision: How did the decision emerged? it emerged among three parties; the regions/areas with Muslim majority will constitute Pakistan; the regions/areas with Hindu majority will become Hindustan; this is the principle of ideological majorities; the Muslim ideology opted for Pakistan; the Hindu ideology opted for Hindustan; no doubt about this; June 3rd 1947 subcontinental settlement plan.

Logic: the above logic is the birth raison de'tre of both Pakistan and Hindustan's independence, sovereignties; no doubt about this.

Ideology of each as basic principle: Muslim ways of life; Hindu way of life: civilizations apart; heroes and helms of affairs apart; no meeting/common point/ground between these two parallel/competing civilizations.

Now to the specific: Jammu and Kashmir being Muslim majority region should have become part of Pakistan; Maharaja Hari Singh offered Standstill Agreement in 1947 (12th August 1947) to both India and Pakistan; Pakistan accepted the Agreement on August 15, 1947 and conveyed its acceptance to the Maharaja; India did not accept Maharaja's Standstill Agreement.

Outcome: By that agreement the subjects of communications, currency, defence and foreign affairs of the 1947-State of Jammu and Kashmir went to Pakistan; on August 14, 1947, the Independence Day of Pakistan, Pakistan flags were hoisted on all buildings of Post Offices and Telegraphs in J&K under Maharaja Hari Singh's rule; history stands witness to this fact; geophysically Pakistan has taken over its jurisdiction in Jammu and Kashmir - the affairs following Standstill Agreement acceptance by her;

Who aggressed: On October 27, 1947 India landed her troops at Srinagar airport at 9.05 am.

Violation: by the Standstill Agreement, the defence of the State was the jurisdiction of Pakistan; Indian troops landing stands as violation, therefore the act of violation constitutes aggression.

Then what happened: India herself took Kashmir as a dispute to the UNO; got back the verdict of the UNO that free, fair and international plebiscite be held in J&K to decide the future affiliation of the State; that means clearly that the UNO had repudiated all Indian views on Kashmir; UN interevention sought by India, is a 3rd THIRD PARTY solution.

Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru promised plebiscite in Kashmir: The promise was made to the world, to the Kashmiris, but later on backed out of that Indian pledge; Nehru's speeches in the Indian parliament and outside of that.

Now the talks:  Kashmiris welcome talks; India evades the meanings of history; tries to apply her own version; not only Kashmiris alone, but the whole world does not accept Indian freeze on Kashmir; Kashmir exists as dispute on UNSC agenda; it exists as dispute on EU agenda; it does exist on OIC's, on African Union agendas; even on Indian agenda Kashmir is a dispute/issue/problem; that is why she agrees on ongoing talks on Kashmir.

If Hindustan itself comes into independent emergence as a result of talks among three parties - Britishers, Muslim League and Congress - why India is jittery over third party involvement in Kashmir settlement; Kashmir an unmet aspect of that grand settlement of south Asian subcontinent;

This is the genuine explanation in the light of phase to phase chapters of history; by Kashmiris mean every member of the original community in Jammu and Kashmir irrespective of their religious or political affiliations.

Kashmiris by nature are peace-promoters:  Look for centuries Hindus and Muslims lived together; even today there is no Hindu-Muslim or Muslim-Hindu clash in J&K; Kashmiris want to throw away those hands whose grip is around their necks and throats since October 27, 1947; all peace roads of south Asia converge on Kashmir; today's Kashmir is ringed by three nuke powers; the situation on ground is most sensitive; peaceful struggle is on; refusal to grant international pledges keep the struggle alive; passage of time cannot be a closure cork; around 600,000 human lives stand sacrificed in the Kashmiri struggle since August/September 1947.

Note: the write-up has been written in response to popular demand to have a flash back of the bloodiest world dispute - Jammu and Kashmir.

Author can be reached at: abdulhameedshaheen@yahoo.com

Posted on 11 Feb 2010 by Webmaster