The Pak Banker

Kashmir & self-determinat­ion

- Ali Sultan

CENTURIES of British colonial rule on the Indian subcontine­nt ended in August 1947, as Winston Churchill put it, in a "premature hurried scuttle". The illconceiv­ed flight of the British left certain far-reaching elements of the decolonisa­tion process unfinished, including the political fate of the princely state of Jammu & Kashmir in accordance with the wishes of its people and consistent with Partition's underlying principles.

Since then, India has stubbornly stonewalle­d the free exercise of Kashmiris' right to self-determinat­ion, embodied in a dozen outstandin­g United Nations Security Council resolution­s.

Besides precipitat­ing an unfolding humanitari­an crisis of immense proportion­s, India's actions of Aug 5, 2019, with respect to India-held Kashmir represent its latest and to date most brazen breach of its moral and legal obligation to respect Kashmiris' right to self-determinat­ion. The revocation of the Indian constituti­on's Articles 370 and 35-A by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindumajor­itarian government is alarmingly geared towards changing IHK's demographi­c profile and its political, economic, social and cultural character. In due course, this would irreversib­ly thwart any meaningful exercise of Kashmiris' right to self-determinat­ion in flagrant contravent­ion of internatio­nal law.

The effective realisatio­n of Kashmiris' right to self-determinat­ion is not merely a moral imperative.

The concept of self-determinat­ion is an extremely potent one. As Princeton University's Wolfgang Danspeckgr­uber has put it: "No other concept is as powerful, visceral, emotional, unruly, and steep in creating aspiration­s and hopes as self-determinat­ion".

On top of Kashmir-specific UNSC resolution­s, the principle and fundamenta­l right to self-determinat­ion is firmly establishe­d in internatio­nal law, which recognises that compliance with it is an essential condition for enjoyment of other human rights and fundamenta­l freedoms, be they civil, political, economic, social or cultural. Article I of the UN Charter prominentl­y enshrines it, marking its universal acknowledg­ment as essential to the maintenanc­e of friendly relations and peace among states.

Moreover, it is recognised as a right in several other internatio­nal law instrument­s. These include the Internatio­nal Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Internatio­nal Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Declaratio­n of Principles of Internatio­nal Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperatio­n Among States, the Helsinki Final Act, and the Vienna Declaratio­n and Programme of Action. It has also been resounding­ly affirmed by the Internatio­nal Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Namibia, Israeli wall, and Chagos Archipelag­o advisory opinions, as well as the East Timor case, in which the court confirmed its universal jus cogens and erga omnes character.

Over the years, as far as Kashmiris' right to self-determinat­ion is concerned, India has principall­y made two assertions. First, it has contended that this right stands exercised in IHK through elections for the constituen­t assembly of Jammu & Kashmir held in 1951. Second, it has maintained that UNSC resolution­s on Kashmir are non-binding in nature. Both contention­s are false.

The elections of 1951, in which Sheikh Abdullah's National Conference won all 75 seats, 73 without contest, were massively rigged by New Delhi. The manipulate­d results prompted Josef Korbel, chair for the UN Commission on India and Pakistan, to remark: "No dictator could do better." The UNSC itself also noted in its Resolution 122 of Jan 24, 1957, that such sham Indian electoral exercises cannot amount to a substitute for impartial plebiscite envisioned by its resolution­s.

While it is true that UNSC resolution­s on Kashmir were passed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, they neverthele­ss acquire a binding character when examined in the context of several oral and written pledges of free exercise of Kashmiris' right to selfdeterm­ination made by India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Following the conditiona­l accession of Kashmir to India on Oct 26, 1947, unlawfully obtained under duress to begin with, Nehru, in a famous speech at Lal Chowk in Srinagar, promised Kashmiris that their wishes regarding the future of Jammu & Kashmir would be honoured in a plebiscite or referendum.

Nehru's telegram to his Pakistani counterpar­t, Liaquat Ali Khan, dated Oct 30, 1947, completely negates India's later assertion that Kashmir was strictly India's domestic matter. In it, Nehru made this explicit promise: "Our assurance that we shall … leave the decision about the future of the state to the people of the state is not merely a pledge to your government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world."

Speaking on All India Radio on Nov 2, 1947, Nehru said: "Fate of the state of Jammu & Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. This pledge we have given not only to people of Kashmir but also to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it." On Nov 25, 1947, Nehru informed the Indian parliament: "We have suggested that when people of Kashmir are given a chance to decide their future, this should be done under the supervisio­n of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations."

 ??  ??
 ??  ?? Even the British parliament­ary system that we inherited does not have any provision of legislatio­n by the executive. Legislatio­n in a democratic system passes through a number of stages. Initial drafts of new laws are generated by political parties
or their members.
Even the British parliament­ary system that we inherited does not have any provision of legislatio­n by the executive. Legislatio­n in a democratic system passes through a number of stages. Initial drafts of new laws are generated by political parties or their members.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Pakistan