Indian ambassador terribly wrong
Reportedly, the Indian ambassador in Islamabad, speaking at a lecture on ‘State of India-Pakistan Bilateral Relations — Current Issues and Prospects’, organised by Centre for Research in Security Studies, while dilating on the Kashmir issue said that the discussions with Pakistan on it would focus on part of the state which was under Pakistani occupation as Jammu and Kashmir was integral part of India consequent upon accession of the state to India in 1947. I am afraid the contention of the Indian ambassador on the status of Kashmir dispute is contrary to the facts and warrants setting the record straight.
First of all, the accession of Kashmir to India made by the Maharaja of Kashmir was against the spirit of the partition plan and the principle enshrined in it regarding accession of the princely states to any of the two dominions. The underlying principle was geographical proximity and the demographic realities of the states. Both these factors made accession of Kashmir to Pakistan as a foregone conclusion but the Maharaja under coercion from India went against the wishes of the Kashmiri people. The announcement of the accession immediately invoked a revolt in J&K. The so-called accession was accepted provisionally and Lord Mountbatten unequivocally stated that the final settlement in this regard would be made through reference to the people, which was never made. When the developments in J&K led to war between Pakistan and India, it was India which took the matter to the UN as contended by the ambassador. The UN adopted 23 resolutions on the issue invariably emphasising pull out of troops from Kashmir by both India and Pakistan to create conducive conditions for a UN sponsored plebiscite to settle the accession of Kashmir. India accepted the UN resolutions and never said that the state had already acceded to India. The UN resolution clearly recognised the status of Kashmir as a disputed territory.
Jawahar Lal Nehru is on record to have reiterated Indian commitment to hold plebiscite in Kashmir. The foregoing facts are enough to dismiss claims of the ambassador regarding Kashmir being an integral part of India on the basis of the accession announced by Maharaja. And when India tried to use the constituent assembly of Kashmir to announce accession of Kashmir to India, which it successfully did, the UN through its resolutions number 91 and 122 outrightly rejected the Indian action maintaining that the question of accession of Kashmir could not be settled by any means other than by a plebiscite held under the auspices of the UN. The question arises that if as per the contention of the ambassador, J&K became an integral part of India as a result of the accession announced by Maharaja in 1947, then why did it feel the necessity of manoeuvring accession from the constituent assembly in 1957? Why did it not say in the Simla Agreement that the Kashmir dispute was regarding the part under the Pakistani control only?
The position taken by the Indian ambassador, as is evident from the foregoing facts, is morally, logically and legally wrong. Coming at a time when Pakistan and India are well poised for the resumption of a comprehensive dialogue and both capitals in the wake of interaction between the two prime ministers in Paris and the consequent visit of the Indian foreign minister to Pakistan, are brimming with hopes of moving forward, the statement of the ambassador is terribly wrong, ill-timed and tantamount to throwing a spanner in the works. Both the countries need an ambience of trust and mutual confidence in achieving the much needed bonhomie between the two countries in their mutual interest as well as peace and security in the region. Therefore, there is a need to focus on the positives that can provide a common ground for nudging the process of dialogue and not making negative and controversial statements.
The nature of Kashmir dispute and relations between the two countries as a consequence of the developments over the six decades have undoubtedly become very much convoluted and would require a very astute and imaginative handling by both the sides. The emerging geo-political and geo-economic realities in the region also demand burying the hatchet and making a new beginning with sincerity of purpose and unswerving commitment to the cause at hand. There are no two opinions about the fact that peace, security and economic prosperity in the countries in South Asia and Central Asia is inextricably linked and dependent on regional connectivity. The entire region can benefit from détente between Pakistan and India.
Both Pakistan and India are now members of the SCO, which provides a credible forum to both the countries to work within the framework of the organisation for achieving common goals and kick-starting an era of amity between the two countries. The leadership of the two countries must therefore not fritter away the opportunities that have come their way through these developments and make sure that the process of dialogue is pursued with unruffled commitment to achieve tangible results in consonance with the demands of the emerging regional realities and the unenviable history of relations between the two countries is not allowed to undermine the new initiative.
