Here is a piece of history by
Dr. Nyla Ali Khan, a Kashmiri scholar at the Oklahoma University, that raises
pertinent questions about the willingness of both Pakistan and India to resolve
the Kashmir dispute, amicably, bilaterally under the UN Resolutions. The
policymakers need to evaluate the available options and understand the situation
keeping in view the Kashmiri people’s aspirations, fears and reservations.
In the interests of expediency, the UNCIP appointed a single mediator, Sir Owen
Dixon, the United Nations representative for India and Pakistan, Australian
jurist and wartime ambassador to the United States, to efficiently resolve the
Kashmir conflict. Dixon noted, in 1950, that the Kashmir issue was so tumultuous
because Kashmir was not a holistic geographic, economic, or demographic entity,
but, on the contrary, an aggregate of diverse territories brought under the rule
of one maharaja. In a further attempt to resolve the conflict, Sir Owen Dixon
propounded the trifurcation of the state along communal or regional lines, or
facilitating the secession of parts of the Jhelum Valley to Pakistan.
Despite the bombastic statements of the governments of both India and Pakistan,
however, the Indian government has all along perceived the inclusion of
Pakistani-administered J & K and the Northern Areas into India as unfeasible.
Likewise, the government of Pakistan has all along either implicitly or
explicitly acknowledged the impracticality of including the predominantly
Buddhist Ladakh and predominantly Hindu Jammu as part of Pakistan. The coveted
area that continues to generate irreconcilable differences between the two
governments is the Valley of Kashmir.
Dixon lamented:
“None of these suggestions commended themselves to the Prime Minister of India.
In the end, I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to
demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the
plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite
being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and
other forms of influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the
plebiscite might be imperiled.” (The Statesman, 15 September 1950).
Sir Owen Dixon nonetheless remained determined to formulate a viable solution to
the Kashmir issue and suggested that a plebiscite be held only in the Kashmir
Valley subsequent to its demilitarization, which would be conducted by an
administrative body of UN officials. This proposal was rejected by Pakistan,
which, however, reluctantly agreed to Sir Dixon’s further suggestion that the
prime ministers of the two countries meet with him to discuss the viability of
various solutions to the Kashmir dispute. But India decried this suggestion. A
defeated man, Sir Dixon finally left the Indian subcontinent on 23 August 1950.
There seemed to be an inexplicable reluctance on both sides, India and Pakistan,
to solve the Kashmir dispute diplomatically and amicably. Sir Dixon’s concluding
recommendation was a bilateral resolution of the dispute with India and Pakistan
as the responsible parties, without taking into account the ability of the
representatives of the people of J&K to be the architects of their political
future. Is this the anachronistic policy being toed by the governments of India
and Pakistan in 2015?
What Pakistan needs to do is to exploit effectively and forcefully the rebutting
of the Indian claim of Occupied Kashmir being part of India, by the Jammu and
Kashmir High Court that has recently ruled that the State has never been part of
India. “Article 370 of Indian constitution that deals with the status of Jammu
and Kashmir is beyond abrogation, repeal or even amendment,” the high court said
in its ruling the other day. “Article 35A gives ‘protection’ to existing laws in
force in the State. Article 370 though titled as ‘Temporary Provision’ and
included in Para XXI titled ‘Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions’ has
assumed place of permanence in the Constitution,” a division bench of justice
Hasnain Masoodi and Janak Raj Kotwal ruled in a 60-page judgement. “It is beyond
amendment, repeal or abrogation, in as much as Constituent Assembly of the State
before its dissolution did not recommend its Amendment or repeal,” the bench
ruled.
The decision has been highly welcomed by the local parties and political figures
representing the major population, Muslims. Peoples Democratic Front (PDF)
President and Awami Muthida Mahaz (AMM) leader Hakim Mohammad Yasin welcomed the
landmark judgment. They said, “Now the challenge for Jammu and Kashmir
government is to further strengthen Article 370. According to the ruling, the
Article 370 is a permanent provision of the Constitution and it cannot be
abrogated, repealed or even amended. “It is a welcome decision.
There was a demand within and outside the Assembly that Article 370 should be
safeguarded and the High Court’s historic decision is a welcome step. But now it
a challenge for the J&K government and especially for Mufti sahib how to further
strengthen it (Article 370) and restore those previsions of this Article which
have been eroded over the years,” Hakim Yasin said in a press statement.
“Limited sovereignty or special status stands guaranteed under Article 370 of
the Constitution,” he added. Media, both print and electronic, must highlight it
and the foreign office as well as the intelligentsia must debate it in order to
find out and put pressure on India as well as the world community to take the
initiative towards resolution of Kashmir as early as possible.
One remembers the words of Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif, who, on
the eve of Golden Jubilee of 6 September war of 1965, said in his speech:
“Kashmir is the unfinished agenda of the subcontinent’s partition. The people of
Indian occupied Kashmir are being subjected to Indian injustice and atrocities
for over the last seven decades. Enduring peace in the region is not possible
without just resolution of Kashmir, it can be no longer put on the back burner.
Therefore, time has come that Kashmir issue should be resolved in line with the
aspirations of its people in accordance with UN resolutions.”