Denial of Self determination

Denial of Self-Determination

Clearly, the accession of Kashmir to India had been an issue as early as the time of accession. Attempts to hold a plebiscite have been met with fierce opposition from India. India has known, right from the start, that the result of a plebiscite is a foregone conclusion - the population of Kashmir would have voted to rid themselves of India’s brutal occupation. This has been the case from 26th October 1947 to the present day.

As Alastair Lamb records, included in the Instrument of Accession itself was a special clause requiring a plebiscite to determine the wishes of the people once law and order had been reestablished.[17] The Governor-General’s further confirmation that “the question of the states’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people,” actually concords with the Independence Act of 1947: “An Indian State shall be deemed to have acceded to the Dominion if the Governor General has signified the acceptance of an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof”. For the Governor General Lord Mountbatten did not accept the Instrument of Accession unconditionally. Rather, in Lord Mountbatten’s very letter signifying his provisional and conditional acceptance of the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharajah, we find the following:

My dear Maharaja Sahib,

Your Highness’ letter dated 26 October has been delivered to me by Mr. V. P. Menon. In the special circumstances mentioned by your Highness my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. Consistently with their policy that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question if accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government’s wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader the question of the State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people.[18]

Unlike other states, therefore, Kashmir had acceded to India conditionally and that conditional integration was accepted without much serious misgiving by India’s post-Independence leadership. Human Rights Watch describes the process as “conditional accession to India.”[19] Thus there is no other choice for the leadership in New Delhi but to come to terms with the historical legacy of the unique nature of the social-contract with the people of Kashmir. But India has refused to do this. Consequently, the accession to India was and remains illegal. Michael Kolodner thus concludes: “There is some question as to the chronology of the accession and of Indian intervention, including the fact that the Patiala brigade, officially troops of the Indian Union after that state’s accession, was in Jammu and Kashmir prior to the accession of Jammu and Kashmir. These questions of timing and the need for a plebiscite lead to significant doubts about India’s claim to the absolute legality of the Maharaja’s accession in 1947.”[20]

The British purportedly chose to partition the subcontinent into two states according to the demographics of each province. All areas that were predominantly Muslim in population would join to form Pakistan while the non-Muslim areas would become India. Kodolner notes that: “According to the logic of Partition and relevant precedent, however, Jammu and Kashmir ought to have gone to Pakistan. No Princely State, when all was said and done, remained independent, though a few tried. If we take it for granted, then, that Kashmir could not have become an independent state, it still seems that Pakistan has the better claim to the territory. The population of the state was overwhelmingly Muslim, economic, geographic, and cultural ties seemed to point towards union with the Pakistan.” This is not my own argument. I do not support Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan; rather I support the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination. However, Kolodner’s analysis demonstrates that according to the principles by which states were acceded to Pakistan or India, Kashmir should have gone to Pakistan. “A relevant precedent in this issue is the case of the accession of Junagadh to India”, observes Kolodner. “The Muslim Maharaja of Junagadh, believing that he might retain some power by joining Pakistan, opted to accede to Pakistan even though his population was overwhelmingly Hindu. India, in order to prevent the loss of this territory, imposed a plebiscite on the state by sending in the army. The population voted to accede to India. Thus, it seems that, for Jammu and Kashmir, the accession of the Maharaja is not final; it must be ratified by a plebiscite in cases where the Maharaja wishes to accede to the opposite Dominion than his population figures would imply. Pakistan has never accepted the validity of the Junagadh outcome, though it seems likely that they would have traded their claim to Junagadh in exchange for Jammu and Kashmir at the time of Partition.”[21]

Since then, “There has never been a plebiscite to determine the wishes of the Kashmiris regarding accession. India has claimed that legislative elections were sufficient to serve as a plebiscite proving that Kashmiris wish to remain in India. This might be true except for some important considerations of the details in Kashmir.” [22] Only one set of elections held in Jammu and Kashmir was even arguably fair: the elections of 1977. However, “Other than the elections of 1977, there has been widespread election rigging and intimidation of voters.” Indeed, “Even the 1977 election, it is argued by some, was accompanied by brutality and intimidation”, contrary to the claims of many pro-Indian writers. “One of the principle methods of insuring victory for Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference was the careful screening of which candidates were even allowed on the ballot. Few opposition parties made it. Thus, elections did not provide an opportunity for the Kashmiri populace to express its opinions; there were not enough options on the ballot between which to choose.”[23]

In the 1977 elections Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference party won 48 seats in a house of 76. The Janata Party, which ruled in New Delhi, won 13 seats; Congress 12, and the Jamaat-I-Islami won one. There is a context here. Regarding the Indian Constitution that was drafted in January 1950, it contained special provisions relating to Jammu and Kashmir. While Article I declared the state an integral part of the Indian Union, Article 370 conferred upon it special status unlike any other state in the Union. Officially, the constitution stipulated that the powers of the Indian Union Parliament in Jammu and Kashmir were limited to defense, external affairs, and communications. The framers of the constitution felt that, if they did not grant the minimal autonomy of Article 370, Sheikh Abdullah might declare that Kashmir wished to join Pakistan. Sheikh Abdullah’s winning National Conference party ferociously contested the Government of India’s official stand on Kashmir, stating that the issue of accession had yet to be settled. In scores of speeches, Sheikh Abdullah and his lieutenants pronounced that: “This [1977] election was in fact an anti-India vote.” Indeed, participation in the Indian political system did not necessarily imply endorsement of that system, but instead indicated that candidates with their own agenda were ready to follow the rules in order to gain power in accordance with the reality of the situation in Kashmir. “Sheikh Abdullah, for example, seemed, in many ways, to have been a puppet of New Delhi. But he always remained a thorn in their side by asserting that Kashmir deserved either independence or autonomy. Thus, even though Sheikh Abdullah accommodated himself extensively to Indian rule in Kashmir and was willing to contest (not to mention rig) elections, he never gave up the belief that Kashmiris retained the right to self-determination and had yet to express their preference in a suitable manner.”[24]

We should also consider what occurred after Sheikh Abdullah was brought to power in the 1977 elections. Indira Gandhi agreed with Sheikh Abdullah in 1975 that he could return to power in exchange for his cooperation in permanently integrating Jammu and Kashmir into the Indian Union. “The plan backfired, however, when Abdullah held elections in 1977 and won by a landslide. Following the election, Sheikh Abdullah began a policy of exceptionally dictatorial measures.”[25] Sheikh Abdullah imposed press censorship, expanded the police powers of detention for up to two years without appeal, commanded his Cabinet members to swear an oath of loyalty to him personally, and generally moved towards one-party rule in the state.[26]

Sheikh Abdullah’s son, Farooq Abdullah, was then passed on the reigns of power from his father in 1981. Abdullah “won” the 1983 elections “amidst widespread violence and hints of rigging”.[27] Farooq Abdullah was soon removed in a carefully planned “coup” engineered by the Indian Governor of Jammu and Kashmir. On 31 July 1984, Governor Malhotra Jagmohan “swore in a true puppet government under G.M. Shah. By 1986, however, the Shah administration had shown its inability to curb the rising violence in the State. Jagmohan announced the imposition of direct Governor’s rule and suspension of the Legislative Assembly on 7 March, 1986. In September, direct rule from New Delhi was imposed.”[28] Rajiv Gandhi attempted to manufacture a semblance of a genuine democratic process by convincing Farooq Abdullah to run in the 1987 elections. However, Farooq Abdullah has admitted that the 1987 elections were entirely unfair, having been covertly rigged.[29]

India’s rigging of elections has been consistent and systematic. For instance, with respect to the 1951 elections held for a Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly in order to give legitimacy to Sheikh Abdullah’s regime, Alastair Lamb records: “In theory its members had been freely elected by secret ballot in a manner hitherto unknown in the state; but somehow Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference Party and those sympathetic to it won all the seats for which they were candidates... Under 5% of the potential electorate [universal adult suffrage] actually voted... No less than seventy-three delegates were returned unopposed; and the whole process was boycotted by the only other tolerably organized party in the State, the Praja Parishad (associated with Jana Sangh in India) which represented the Hindus of Jammu (with a measure of Sikh support), after the nominations for all twenty-seven of its candidates had been rejected.”[30] Although Sheikh Abdullah’s sentiments favoured Kashmiri independence from India, his regime was far from democratic: “the State High Court was effectively shut down, senior appointments were doled out to his clients, trade concessions were sold for personal profit, and potential rivals to the Sheikh’s leadership were allowed to rot in jail.”[31]

This was the type of “democratic” regime Sheikh Abdullah ran and continued to run. Lamb further notes that “The elections of 1957 and 1962 were carefully managed and opposition groups were unable to participate effectively.”[32] Noted jurist of the Bombay High Court, A.G. Noorani, has similarly commented in The Statesman, that “Sheikh Abdullah rigged the polls with merciless efficiency, drawing grateful applause from Nehru. His advice to the Sheikh’s successor, Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammad, was not to refrain from rigging, but to leave just a few seats for the Opposition and thus provide a fig-leaf to cover the nudity of ravaged credibility. The advice was repeated later by one of Indira Gandhi’s closest advisors.” Indian Home Minister, Mr. Inderjit Gupta, while talking to the press in August of 1996, and as reported by the BBC India Service, testified that “in Jammu and Kashmir all elections held to date were rigged to serve the interests of successive Congress governments.”[33] We should hence take note of Kashmir specialist Singh Oberoi’s observation that: “Muslim Kashmiris have always challenged the Instrument of Accession; India regards it as final”

[quote]In the special circumstances mentioned by your Highness my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. Consistently with their policy that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question if accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government’s wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader the question of the State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people.

Quote :

So guys, why is India reneging on its own commitments.

“The Muslim Maharaja of Junagadh, believing that he might retain some power by joining Pakistan, opted to accede to Pakistan even though his population was overwhelmingly Hindu. India, in order to prevent the loss of this territory, imposed a plebiscite on the state by sending in the army. The population voted to accede to India. Thus, it seems that, for Jammu and Kashmir, the accession of the Maharaja is not final; it must be ratified by a plebiscite in cases where the Maharaja wishes to accede to the opposite Dominion than his population figures would imply

Quote :

Why this impartiality my Indian friends????

India’s rigging of elections has been consistent and systematic. For instance, with respect to the 1951 elections held for a Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly in order to give legitimacy to Sheikh Abdullah’s regime, Alastair Lamb records: “In theory its members had been freely elected by secret ballot in a manner hitherto unknown in the state; but somehow Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference Party and those sympathetic to it won all the seats for which they were candidates... Under 5% of the potential electorate [universal adult suffrage] actually voted... No less than seventy-three delegates were returned unopposed; and the whole process was boycotted by the only other tolerably organized party in the State, the Praja Parishad (associated with Jana Sangh in India) which represented the Hindus of Jammu (with a measure of Sikh support), after the nominations for all twenty-seven of its candidates had been rejected.”[30] Although Sheikh Abdullah’s sentiments favoured Kashmiri independence from India, his regime was far from democratic: “the State High Court was effectively shut down, senior appointments were doled out to his clients, trade concessions were sold for personal profit, and potential rivals to the Sheikh’s leadership were allowed to rot in jail.”[quote]

Why do we still believe that India will listen to our woes and set us free?

@chinaar,

I think you answered your own question if you read Mountbatten's letter of acceptance. Here is the excerpt from it as you quoted it (italics and underline are mine):

Quote :

it is my Government’s wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader the question of the State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people.[18]

Do you see any possibility of Pakistan (the invader in the above passage that Mountbatten refers to) vacating POK anytime soon ?

@chinaar,

Quote :

while quoting from alastair lamb's book chinaar wrote:
Although Sheikh Abdullah’s sentiments favoured Kashmiri independence from India, his regime was far from democratic: “the State High Court was effectively shut down, senior appointments were doled out to his clients, trade concessions were sold for personal profit, and potential rivals to the Sheikh’s leadership were allowed to rot in jail.”[31]

Why do we still believe that India will listen to our woes and set us free?

Kashmir's leaders (See Sheikh Abdullah's record above) failed Kashmiri people.

Bihar is an example of leadership gone missing. It had everything - perennial rivers, enormous mineral wealth, people resources, forests .. you name it. It ranks today at the bottom of the Indian States by almost all measures. Only one reason: extremely poor leadership - a leadership which enriched itself at the cost of the people (just like Sheikh Abdullah seems to have done above at the cost of Kashmiris).

Demand and follow leaders who really do well by you and you will never be in a situation of 'woes' in the first place.

Quote :

Do you see any possibility of Pakistan (the invader in the above passage that Mountbatten refers to) vacating POK anytime soon ?

Try n see Musharaf's interview with Karan Thapar on Devils advocate on Geo TV. I think it is available on IBN-CNN. You will realise that it is India not Pakistan which is reluctant to do that. One of the primary things in Musharafs 4 point formula was withdrawal of troops on both sides.

Quote :

just like Sheikh Abdullah seems to have done above at the cost of Kashmiris

Trust me there is no love lost for Sheikh Abdullah and his kin in J&K. He started extremely well but could not keep up and in his later years succumbed to Indian hegemony in Kashmir.

@chinaar,

Quote :

chinaar wrote:
Try n see Musharaf's interview with Karan Thapar on Devils advocate on Geo TV. I think it is available on IBN-CNN. You will realise that it is India not Pakistan which is reluctant to do that. One of the primary things in Musharafs 4 point formula was withdrawal of troops on both sides.

No where in Mountbatten's letter of acceptance, does he mention anything about India withdrawing her troops.

According to the letter of Accpetance, the only two conditions for ascertaining the wishes of the people were (1) restoration of law and order in Kashmir and (2) withdrawal of Pakistani (and only Pakistani) invading troops.

Quote :

Trust me there is no love lost for Sheikh Abdullah and his kin in J&K. He started extremely well but could not keep up and in his later years succumbed to Indian hegemony in Kashmir.

Leaders are ultimately accountable to people. So Kashmiris cannot just throw their arms up and say it was Sheikh Abdullah, stooge this that, he was the one that cheated us etc etc. Well, then first, what's so bad if he was put in jail ? Aside from that, my question is this: what were the people of Kashmir doing when their own leaders were stealing their future from them ?

In India, the states that have focussed on developmental democracy have prospered. The states that have not, have failed. Look at what the streetside politics in West Bengal is doing to investments in West Bengal (Tata Nano). Pretty soon, no one would want to invest in WB. But I don't see Bengalis blaming India for their 'woes'. I don't see Biharis blaming India for their enormous problems. They blame their own state leaders and their own inability to guard their democracy and their inability to make sure that their leaders follow them and not the other way around.

@ Liberalmarathi

[/quote]I don't see Bengalis blaming India for their 'woes'. I don't see Biharis blaming India for their enormous problems. They blame their own state leaders and their own inability to guard their democracy and their inability to make sure that their leaders follow them and not the other way around.[quote]

Bro, they (Bihar n bengal) are not disputed territories and have not borne the brunt of all the wars that India has fought with its neighbours. Anyways, the issue of leadership having failed the people of J&K is true and it started with the Government of India itself followed by the people at the local level.

@chinaar,

So you do agree why the Musharraf's 4-point formula is unworkable for India, as it (India) clearly thinks that it is Pakistan (and Pakistan alone) that needs to vacate the territory of POK as per the Mountbatten Letter of Acceptance of the Instrument of Accession.

I honestly don't see any near-term possibility of Pakistan pullings its invader troops out from POK unilaterally. Pakistan has played an enormously negative role in the mess in Kashmir.

i dnt think its only pakistan who are the invaders but morally both india and pakistan are invaders..lets us not go into details now whether india has the moral or political right over kashmir as that has been discussed number of times...
the point is that all the UN resolutions call for both india and pakistan to withdraw there troops from the state...no international country or group of countries recognize kashmir as a part of india or pakistan..it is the people of india who look kashmir as a part of india and people of pakistan consider kashmir as a part of pakistan and the thing that matters the most is that kashmiris consider kashmir as an independent nation...
if india argues over the invasion by the pakistan forces then people question the instrument of accession itself..alaistar lamb believes that instrument of accession does not exist at all..people question moral or political or autocratic right of maharaja hari singh to sign the instrument of accession if it only exists...
if we try to decide the future course by discussind the mistakes comitted by the rulers and leaders of yesteryears then we will not find a solution at all..as musharaf rightly said there has to be out of the box solution and for that both india and pakistan have to show some flexibilty over this issue...it was almost next to impossible for even pakistan to withdraw its troops from kashmir even after musharaf's 4 point proposal due to the extreme domestic pressure and the same would have been for india..the first thing that both the countries have to do is to have a common policy towards kashmir amongst all the political parties...every political party will have to come to a common consensus rearding kashmir and the same has to be done in pakistan...BJP having a more communal policy will not make things better and the same would apply for communal parties in pakistan...a common domestic consensus is a must to make the the dialogue a success..
indians blaming pakistan and pakistanis blaming india is not the answer..we all are GEN-NEXT....if we follow the same old policies that have been there since the birth of the problem then we will pass on the problem as it is to the next GEN-NEXT....both india and pakistan have created the problem and both are party to it..it is better for each and every indian and pakistani to understand it..and most importantly it is for them to understand that they are not the masters of kashmiris.they want to and they will decide there future themselves as it is there right...

@peace,

It is a sensible post and I don't have anything in principle that I need to oppose. Here is the problem though (as I see it):

1. Both Pakistan and India need to agree on giving a choice to Kashmiris to decide their future
2. Both Pakistan and India are developing countries with historical enmity towards each other which look at Kashmir as a zero-sum game
3. Public support for Kashmiri independence currently does not exist in India
4. Emphasis in India at this time is on Roti, Kapda, Makan (typical developmental objectives)
5. Indian politicians have developmental objectives in mind
6. Kashmir ranks at a very low priority level in the minds of most Indians and hence for most politicians Kashmiri independence is a non-issue
7. India is on a rapid growth path but it will take decades for it to be called a developed country
8. It will take decades for India's population to mature to see the humanist story in Kashmir
9. It will take decades for Pakistan's population to mature to see the humanist story in Kashmir
10. Until ( 8 ), India's leadership can be guaranteed to maintain Indian position in Kashmir Valley

Now the question is: What will the ordinary Kashmiris (not the elite on this forum) do until then ? That is the question that the Kashmiri Leadership has to answer.

Do ordinary Kashmiris want to prosper in life while they are under Indian rule ?
What do they really need in the coming decades when Independence is not a viable option ?
Will a constant state of confrontation with India (either violent or non-violent) in the coming decades work in favour of ordinary Kashmiris ?

Those are the questions that a sane Kashmiri Leadership should be asking (in my opinion).

Quote :

chinaar wrote:
Bro, they (Bihar n bengal) are not disputed territories and have not borne the brunt of all the wars that India has fought with its neighbours. Anyways, the issue of leadership having failed the people of J&K is true and it started with the Government of India itself followed by the people at the local level.

West Bengal bore the brunt of the 1971 war with 10 million refugees from then East Pakistan coming to live there. But that is besides the point.

The point I was making is this: for a number of years J&K had a equal+ status in the Indian Union. A smart, sane, and committed leadership would have utilized that plus status for real development of the people in J&K. Sheikh Abdullah and successive Kashmiri governments (barring a few cases) failed to do so and enriched themselves at the cost of their people. The Kashmiri people also failed to (1) recognize their leader's failures and/or (2) address their leaders' failures. Successive Congress governments at the center played their usual brand of politics that was in fashion in those days(destabilize state governments and rule). The last part doesn't happen anymore. So now it is now really, really up to Kashmiri people to demand and follow sane local leaders who can lead them to peace and prosperity in the short term and perhaps independence in the long term.

Quote :

So you do agree why the Musharraf's 4-point formula is unworkable for India, as it (India) clearly thinks that it is Pakistan (and Pakistan alone) that needs to vacate the territory of POK as per the Mountbatten Letter of Acceptance of the Instrument of Accession.

I honestly don't see any near-term possibility of Pakistan pullings its invader troops out from POK unilaterally. Pakistan has played an enormously negative role in the mess in Kashmir.

No my friend I don't agree and Mountbattens letter is not the final authority on the satus of J&K. If it was then so many UN resolutions would never have been passed. Lord Mountbatten was an employee of the Indian Union and therefore by all standards his communique would be considered subservient to Indian interests. The refractory attitude of both India and pakistan is responsible for Kashmir not being resolved. However I wanted you to see Musharaffs interview, he goes on record to say that Pakistan is ready to move its troops out of Azad kashmir provided India does so too. India slept on his proposals thinking that the problem in J&K was over but was caught napping when a small spark in the form of Amarnath and economic blockade of Kashmir blew up into a full scale demand for independence. According to UN resolutions for any plebescite to happen, both India and Pakistan have to move their troops out of J&K.

Hope this clears the misunderstanding.

Indians as the culprits

[/quote]Human Rights Watch describes the process as “conditional accession to India.”[19] Thus there is no other choice for the leadership in New Delhi but to come to terms with the historical legacy of the unique nature of the social-contract with the people of Kashmir. But India has refused to do this. Consequently, the accession to India was and remains illegal. Michael Kolodner thus concludes: “There is some question as to the chronology of the accession and of Indian intervention, including the fact that the Patiala brigade, officially troops of the Indian Union after that state’s accession, was in Jammu and Kashmir prior to the accession of Jammu and Kashmir. These questions of timing and the need for a plebiscite lead to significant doubts about India’s claim to the absolute legality of the Maharaja’s accession in 1947.”[quote]


J&K is a disputed territory. Instrument of accession has no locus standii now. If it did, then the whole of the world community and the UN would have accepted J&K as an integral part of India. The fact that no country does that is evidence that the instruments legallity is questionable.

@kashmiri, @chinaar:

Quote :

kashmiri wrote:
J&K is a disputed territory. Instrument of accession has no locus standii now. If it did, then the whole of the world community and the UN would have accepted J&K as an integral part of India. The fact that no country does that is evidence that the instruments legallity is questionable.

It was India that took the case to the UN. It was India that thought that the illegal, invading action of Pakistan can be rolled back by using the then 2-3 year old UN. The disputed part of the territory is POK (the reason India went to the UN for).

The UN document says that (1) Pakistan should withdraw all its forces and (2) India is required to move only the bulk (not all) of its forces out of J&K. You can read the document and convince yourself that that is indeed the case. Here is the relevant excerpt of the resolution that was adopted at the UN Security Council on 13th Aug 1948:

Quote :

(1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission

If India were an invading party, UN document would have asked India to remove all its forces from J&K. But that isn't the case.

Please also note the causality contained in the above excerpt: When the commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn..... (then), the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces ..."

Another problem with the plebiscite resolution is that there is no mention of the option of 'independence'. It seems to talk only about accession to Pakistan or India. Do you guys have any thoughts on that ? May be I am missing something here ?

I do really believe that much of your anger at the current situation in Kashmir is misdirected towards India. The real trouble maker here is Pakistan. And I am not a Pakistan-baiter - I want them to succeed as a nation but not by causing problems in the neighbourhood.

@liberal Marathi

I want to bring your attention to point 2 part c clause i, ii and iii. Has India respected its side of the bargain.

What does the presence of 700,000 troops tell you.

Yes, you surely are missing the point.

and the point u r missing is that we Kashmiris want equal representation in any decision making processes. In other words India and Pakistan cannot solve our problem without taking us into confidence.

@ LiberalMarathi

I also want to draw your attention to UN resolution number 98 of 23rd December 1952 which states as follows:

Quote :

urges the government of India and pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of UN representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach an agreement on the minimal level of armed forces on each side of the cease fire line at the end of de-militarization on both sides

Point is UN wanted demilitarization on both sides and the troop numbers were not supposed to be more than 6000 on the Pakistani side or more than 18000 on the Indian side.

So, my friend with more than 700,000 troops on the ground in J&K, India is in blatant violations of all UN resolutions and therefore a party to war crimes on innocent Kashmiris .

@chinaar,

I couldn't get to the document. Is this a General Assembly resolution or a security council resolution ?

The Security Council resolutions are very clear. Following steps have to happen in that specific order before a plebiscite could be conducted.

(1) Ceasefire and Truce must precede plebiscite

(2) Truce is defined by the SC resolution as
(a) withdrawal of all Pakistani forces from J&K (never happened)
(b) notification of (a) having happened by UN SC to India (never happened)
(c) India withdrawing bulk of its forces from J&K (not going to happen as (a), (b) didn't happen)

(3) Plebiscite conducted by a Plebiscite Adminstrator with the two choices being accession to India or
Pakistan (i.e. no third option of Independence)

So I am not actually missing anything. This is the way it is.

According to the much touted SC resolutions, the only thing that India needs to do at this point is to wait for the notification from the UN Security Council that Pakistan has withdrawn all its forces from the state of J&K. India's obligations arise only after Pakistan has fulfilled its part of the obligations in the SC resolution.

I ask you again: what do you think is the chance of Pakistan doing a unilateral withdrawal of all its troops from J&K as required by the UN SC resolutions ?

@chinaar,

Quote :

chinaar wrote: I also want to draw your attention to UN resolution number 98 of 23rd December 1952 which states as follows:


urges the government of India and pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of UN representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach an agreement on the minimal level of armed forces on each side of the cease fire line at the end of de-militarization on both sides

By 1952, unfortunately, the positions of the two disputants had become entreched. The UN at this point was relegated to making toothless "urgings" to get the parties to talk. The UN did not have a chance to force Pakistan to vacate its part of the territory so the plebiscite process could be started.

Quote :

chinaar wrote:
Point is UN wanted demilitarization on both sides and the troop numbers were not supposed to be more than 6000 on the Pakistani side or more than 18000 on the Indian side.

Don't have any reason to dispute that. The ordering of the demilitarization was an important part of the demilitarization process. Pakistan had to withdraw all its forces first, followed by the SC notification to India, followed by bulk of the Indian withdrawal from J&K. That ordering may seem like petty bickering but it is what it is and we cannot be wishy-washy about it now.

Quote :

chinaar wrote:
So, my friend with more than 700,000 troops on the ground in J&K, India is in blatant violations of all UN resolutions and therefore a party to war crimes on innocent Kashmiris .

It is Pakistan that is in violation of the SC resolutions. Pakistan is required to move all its forces from J&K first. Then the UN can notify India and then India can begin the withdrawal of its forces. Then the plebiscite can be held and we can all be happy that the plebiscite has been held. Unfortunately, the plebiscite held according to the UNSC resolutions can have only two choices on the ballot. So at the end of this all, Kashmiris will get to decide whether to accede to India or Pakistan. Unfair ? Yes. But that is what the UNSC resolutions say.

Quote :

I couldn't get to the document. Is this a General Assembly resolution or a security council resolution

Its a Security council resolution.

Quote :

Unfortunately, the plebiscite held according to the UNSC resolutions can have only two choices on the ballot. So at the end of this all, Kashmiris will get to decide whether to accede to India or Pakistan. Unfair ? Yes. But that is what the UNSC resolutions say.

If that happens, we will be back to square one as only an Independent J&K can satisfy the aspirations of all its constituents i.e. Kashmiri pandits/Muslims, Dogras in Jammu and Buddhists in Ladakh. Accession to any one dominion will create more problems than solutions. I don't know how the modalities can be worked out.....but for all the peoples of J&K to feel safe n secure, the only solution is an Independent J&K with special relationships with both India and Pakistan. A sort of a duty free buffer zone of friendship between the two nations.

Quote :

Don't have any reason to dispute that. The ordering of the demilitarization was an important part of the demilitarization process

I am happy that as an Indian atleast you agree to this, otherwise I am fed up of the Atoot Ang (Integral Part) tirade. Thanks for being fair.

Once again I want you to see Karan Thapars interview with Musharaff in which he declared Government of Pakistan was ready to move its troops out of POK.

Quote :

How India Subscribes to “Self-Determination”

As has been documented above, India’s political record in Kashmir has hardly been democratic or conducive to the indigenous population’s self-determination. Examples are numerous, since documentation on the matter is rich.

For instance, India decided to hold elections for 6 Lok Sabha seats in Indian-held Kashmir in three phases soon after the general elections in India. The first round of voting was held in Ladakh and Jammu on 7th May 1996, in Baramula and Anantnag on 23rd May 1996 and in Srinagar and Udhampur on 30th May 1996. CNN reported on the “elections”:

Soldiers roused many villagers and townspeople from their homes soon after dawn Thursday to vote in the first elections in seven years in the predominantly Muslim Jammu-Kashmir state. Many voters complained of being forced to participate in a government they don’t support. At stake are six seats in the 545-member parliament in New Delhi. It’s the first election since a campaign for independence from Hindu-dominated India turned violent in 1989.

‘The army came early in the morning and dragged people from their houses. But we gathered all the men, women, boys and girls to come here. We will not vote,’ said Mohammed Safi, a pharmaceuticals salesman in Sopore. ‘We don’t want to be with India. They have destroyed our lives. We want only freedom,’ he said. ‘These are fake elections.’

The soldiers escorted the Kashmiris to polling stations. Security forces also visited mosques, telling people to vote after morning prayers. ‘They said if we do not vote, they will beat us,’ Gulan Mohidin said. Police wielding clubs clashed with demonstrators. The officers fired shots in the air, launched tear gas and charged protesters in Baramula, about 35 miles northwest of the Himalayan state's summer capital of Srinagar… Witnesses said protesters stormed polling booths, prompting police to use force. ‘We do not want elections, we want freedom,’ screamed a group of women.

Officials predict a turnout of 25 percent, a dramatic increase from the 5 percent who voted in 1989.[35]

American Washington Post correspondent Kenneth J. Cooper was thus led to observe: “The central government has a long history of manipulating elections and hand-picking leaders in Kashmir, where democracy has been the least realized in India. Journalists who observed today’s voting in the two Kashmir Valley districts saw widespread evidence of security officers forcing residents to the polls... Some villagers said security forces began making threats more than a week ago.”[36]

According to the Associated Press:

… [C]orrespondents visiting dozens of villages and townships found few people who said they were voting willingly. Most voters did not know who the candidates were, and some claimed that military officials had threatened to cut off a finger of anyone who did not vote…

Diplomats from the United States, Great Britain and Japan toured polling stations, escorted by local police. One diplomat, who spoke on condition that his country not be identified, said he would report back that the election was a sham.

Villagers said troops waving sticks and carrying rifles slung over their soldiers banged on doors in the morning to bring voters to the polls in groups. ‘Nobody can take a risk with his life. God has given us just one,’ said a 42-year-old man who refused to give his name for fear of retaliation. ‘My wife locked me out of the house. She said, `You must go. I don’t want you to be killed.` I don’t even know who the candidates are, but I will vote. What choice do I have?’[37]

The next day, the Associated Press reported:

Armed troops herded Kashmiris to the polls today for the rebellious state's first elections in seven years, forcing them to pick representatives to an Indian government they reject… India portrayed today’s election as evidence that Kashmiris are weary of war and that the insurrection is waning…But in dozens of towns and villages, few people said they were voting voluntarily. Most did not know who the candidates were, and many said they deliberately spoiled their ballot by marking more than one name… At Delina, a village on the road from Baramula to Srinagar, a half-dozen soldiers herded a line of men toward a polling station. Wearing camouflage helmets, the soldiers blew whistles and waved sticks to keep the men moving, and tried to prevent reporters from interviewing them. ‘We are being forced to vote. We do not want this election,’ said one man, as dozens of others shouted their support.[38]

The Independent reported that:

In the old Kashmir town of Baramulla, the Indian army obliged people with 5am wake-up call so they would not forget to vote in yesterday's elections. It was not a courtesy call but a threat. Armed soldiers filed through the rainy alleys of Baramulla, forcing their way into the cedar beamed houses and dragging people from their beds… But when polls opened at 8am the expected queues of eager Kashmiri voters failed to appear. So the soldiers went back. This time they used their rifle butts and bamboo sticks to herd the people through the mud like frightened animals. One grizzled old man held out his thumb, marked with an indelible stain by polling officers which showed he had voted. He was relieved but bitter.

‘The army said that if I didn't come back with this ink on my thumb, I’d be shot dead. But none of us wanted these elections. We want freedom from India’, said the old man. The crowd pressing in on us shouted ‘Azadi-Azadi’ (freedom).

The army’s coercion in Baramulla, was not a single, ugly incident. Throughout Kashmir valley, systematic use of intimidation and vote-rigging was carried out by Indian authorities… Everywhere, from Baramulla to Anantnag in southern Kashmir, the story was the same: Indian soldiers and police forced the Kashmiris to vote. It was a fraud of careless transparency and brutality, one that has convinced many Kashmiris that Indian democracy, at least in the troubled Himalayan state, is only a sham.[39]

And that answers the query to who our elected leaders of today really are....so the question of poor leaders who were and still are in cahoots with the leadership of New Delhi is again the creation of Indian machinations.

Quote :

However I wanted you to see Musharaffs interview, he goes on record to say that Pakistan is ready to move its troops out of Azad kashmir provided India does so too. India slept on his proposals thinking that the problem in J&K was over but was caught napping when a small spark in the form of Amarnath and economic blockade of Kashmir blew up into a full scale demand for independence.

As a result of sponsoring terrorism throughout the world, supporting Taliban, indulging in nuclear black-market trade, Pakistan and its leaders have lost all credibility on the world stage. Having multiple power centers in the country (ISI, the Mullahs, government, and army) also makes things complicated and quickly destroys any illusion of Pakistan's credibility. This is the reason why Indian government and as a matter of fact any sane governments in this world do not give any serious weight to Pakistan or its leaders.

Musharraf is irrelevant and was desperately trying to appear relevant in the interview upto the extent that he is even willing to indulge in frivolous talk. Personally, I thought the interview was pathetic and just goes to show how irrelevant Pakistan and its leaders has become.

The credibility of Pakistan and its leaders has not just been questioned in India, but all across the world including in US, Germany, Afghanistan, etc.

Sources:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/oct/14ram.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1528960/US-outraged-as-Pakistan-frees-Taliban-fighters.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,515647,00.html
http://www.hindu.com/2008/01/14/stories/2008011454191000.htm
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/28/536933.aspx
http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DB08Df01.html

Quote :

According to UN resolutions for any plebescite to happen, both India and Pakistan have to move their troops out of J&K.

Chinaar wrote:

Human Rights Watch describes the process as “conditional accession to India.”[19] Thus there is no other choice for the leadership in New Delhi but to come to terms with the historical legacy of the unique nature of the social-contract with the people of Kashmir. But India has refused to do this. Consequently, the accession to India was and remains illegal.

Clearly your reasoning here is false. As per Human Rights Watch website:

In 1948 the then-ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, who was holding out for independence, acceded to India on condition that the state retain autonomy in all matters except defense, currency and foreign affairs.

So the "conditional" part that you are referring to is fully satisfied by Article 370. However, Pakistan's illegal occupation of J&K terretories and its gift of certain areas to China is not satisfied yet.

Source: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kashmir/back.htm

Chinaar wrote:

No my friend I don't agree and Mountbattens letter is not the final authority on the satus of J&K. If it was then so many UN resolutions would never have been passed.

Even UN has backed down from its resolution and clearly stated that the problem should be solved by mutual discussions rather than by relying upon UN resolutions that are not enforceable in the first place. Also, Pakistan has become completely irrelevent and is mired in its own problems. So your only and the best hope for resolving any grievances is the electoral process in India and the government of India.

Source: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010317/main5.htm

But unfortunately there is no cohesive leadership among Kashmiri separatists: some want full independence, some what to merge with Pakistan, some want to wage jihad just for the hell of it, and some start shouting slogans and want azadi just because the electricity went out.

Source: http://indiapost.com/article/india/3620/

Develop a cohesive and most importantly a representative leadership, develop some sort of common goals, and decide what your grievances actually are. Once that is done you guys would be in a better shape to negotiate with government; otherwise, the government will have absolutely no idea what to negotiate with whom. The problem that there is no unified leadership and no common demands is making the solution to the Kashmir problem more difficult.

And most of all, next time the electricity goes out in Kashmir Valley, don't take to streets and start shouting for merger with Pakistan. It just makes the whole atmosphere very bitter and drives out all the tourists which effect your own income in the valley. It also trivializes your stance. Instead you would have better luck going to the electricity office and filing a complaint there.