Sanjay Achharya wrote: Dear Congressman
Bonior:
I'm writing to you to bring to your
notice a set of factual information that would help you understand the
J&K Issue in a completely unbiased manner and be able to appreciate
the genuineness of India's case pertaining to the dispute of the state
of Jammu & Kashmir with Pakistan. This is in reference to the newly
formed "Kashmir Forum In US Congress" of which you are a founding member.
1. There are two resolutions of
the UNCIP (United Nations Commission of India and Pakistan) dated August
13, 1948 and January 5, 1949. Whereas the first resolution provided that
"the future status of the state of J&K shall be determined in accordance
with the will of the people" [allowing three possibilities -- a. accession
to India or b. accession to Pakistan or c. remain independent], the second
resolution provided that "The question of accession of the state of Jammu
and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be through the democratic method
of a free and impartial plebiscite." Thus, the latter resolution excluded
independence.
2. Part II of the UN resolution
of 13-8-1948 explicitly required, as a pre-condition to any consideration
of the plebiscite, the complete withdrawal by Pakistan of all persons who
had illegally entered the state of J&K. That condition was reiterated
in the resolution of 5-1-1949. Pakistan has obstinately refused to comply
with that condition all these years. (In fact the Kashmir valley has been
ethnically cleansed of Hindus and is currently dominated by terrorists
from neighboring countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan.)
3. India accepted the above two
resolutions only on the basis of certain assurances given by the UNCIP.
Among those assurances -- which form part of the official records of the
Security Council -- are the following:
Plebiscite proposals shall not be
binding upon India if Pakistan does not implement Parts I and II of the
resolution of August 13, 1949.
Pakistan shall be excluded from
all affairs of J&K, in particular in the plebiscite, if one is held.
The sovereignty of the J&K government
over the entire territory of the state shall not be brought into question.
There shall be no recognition of
the so-called Azad (Free) Kashmir government.
The territory occupied by Pakistan
shall not be consolidated to the disadvantage of the state of J&K.
(Those UN assurances are enough for India to take Pakistan to the International
Court of Justice?)
4. Pakistan was categorically branded
as an aggressor on September 5, 1950 by Sir Owen Dixon, who succeeded UNCIP
as UN Representative for Indian and Pakistan. He said "When the frontier
of the state of Jammu and Kashmir was crossed... by the hostile elements,
it was contrary to international law and when, in May 1948, units of the
regular Pakistan forces moved into the territory of the state, that too
was inconsistent with international law." (Should we let this blatant aggressor
bully and blackmail us now?)
5. The "Will of the people of J&K"
has already been expressed. Consider the following sequence of events:
On 27-10-1950, the General Council
of All Jammu & Kashmir National Conference passed a resolution asking
for convening a Constituent Assembly of J&K state.
On 1-5-1951, the Yuvraj of J&K
issued a proclamation directing the formation of a Constituent Assembly
consisting of peoples' representatives elected on the basis of adult franchise
exercised by direct and secret ballot.
Elections under the above proclamation
were completed by August 1951. Reporters and observers from all over the
world described this election as free and fair.
The first meeting of that duly elected
Constituent Assembly was held on 31-10-1951 when Sheikh Abdullah's opening
address called that day as the "day of destiny. A day which comes only
once in the life of a nation." He told the members then that whatever they
decided had "the irrevocable force of law." One of the main objects of
the Constituent Assembly, he declared then, was to declare its reasoned
conclusions regarding the accession and the future of the state. He enumerated
three alternatives: a. accession to India, b. accession to Pakistan c.
complete independence.
The Constitution Drafting Committee's
report was presented to the Constituent Assembly on 12-2-1954 and adopted
on 15-2-1954. The adoption of this report embodied the ratification of
the state's accession to India.
This Constituent Assembly confirmed
the accession of J&K to India. Thus, Section 3 of the Constitution
of the J&K state declares that 'The state of J&K is and shall be
an integral part of the Union of India'. Moreover, Section 147 of that
Constitution forbids any amendment of its Section 3.
After the dissolution of the Constituent
Assembly, elections to the new legislative assembly were held in March
1957. The second elections to the state assembly were held in 1962 -- under
the supervision of the Election Commission of India. And so on. (If all
of the above wasn't a momentous symbol of "the will of the people", what
was it?)
6. The legality of J&K's accession
to India was never questioned by the UN Security Council or by UNCIP. In
fact, on February 4, 1948, the US Representative in the Security Council
said "The external sovereignty of Kashmir is no longer under the control
of the Maharaja... with the accession of Jammu and Kashmir, this foreign
sovereignty went over to India and is exercised by India, and that is how
India happens to be here as a petitioner."
7. The Legal Adviser to the UN Commission
came to the conclusion that accession was legal and could not be questioned.
Now, back to current events. September
11, 2001 has been rightly perceived Black Tuesday, as an attack on our
way of life and value system, and not just as the destruction of one of
our modern high-rise buildings. In the same way, India's fight in Kashmir
is not a fight for a piece of territory; it is for the preservation of
the very idea of India.
It is true that Kashmir has always
been a part of the cultural and civilizational unity of India. It is, therefore,
wrong to call Kashmir a disputed territory as many countries do. There
are legal connotations to that construct, whereas the Instrument of Accession
was signed by the ruler of the state under the Indian Independence Act,
1947, which also created Pakistan.
India's track record as a democracy
tolerating differing viewpoints is as good as any in the world. Few nations
allow people to talk about secession but the Hurriyat leaders can move
around freely talking about an independent Kashmir.
But India's case goes beyond all
these arguments. The battle in Kashmir is between Pakistan's belief that
religion is the basis of statehood and what India and the undivided state
of Jammu and Kashmir opted for in 1947 ? A multicultural, multifaith society.
If India accepts the idea of the separation of the Kashmir valley just
because it is a Muslim majority area, it would not only invite trouble
for the 150 million Muslims residing in all parts of the country, it would
be the beginning of the end of India as an entity. There is no way India
can allow the Valley to secede without setting into motion the balkanization
of India.
I urge you to bring this to the
attention of other members of the Congress as a responsible member of the
Kashmir Forum and when discussing the Kashmir issue in the Congress.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sanjay Achharya
72 Kensington Drive
Piscataway, NJ 08854
(732) 748-0504
