The Indian government, suiting its hegemonic and expansionist blueprint, claims that its annexation of J&K (Jammu and Kashmir) and its changes that were made on August 5, 2019 are internal to India
Modi abrogated the special status of J&K, deleted its statehood or partitioned it into two union territories, claiming these are internal affairs of India. But, they are contrary to UNSC (UN Security Council) and even a violation of the Indian constitution. This controversy came to the forefront after the telephonic conversation of Bangladesh PM (Prime Minister), Sheikh Hasina and her Pakistani counterpart, Imran Khan. During the 15-minute conversation, the Pakistan PM, among others, drew the attention of Sheikh Hasina to the J&K crisis that deserves a peaceful resolution.
The telephonic conversation between the PMs of the two countries, particularly raising the Kashmir issue, were beyond India’s expectation. Curious journalists were naturally eager to get the reaction of the Indian government over such a development.
The Daily Star of July 23, 2020 of Bangladesh quoted Anurag Srivastava, the spokesman of India’s foreign ministry as saying that India appreciates Bangladesh’s “consistent” stand that J&K and developments there “are internal to India.”
The daily said, Srivastava’s remarks came in response to a question asked by two Indian journalists at a virtual media briefing seeking India’s position as Pakistan PM Imran Khan raised the J&K issue during his telephonic conversation with Sheikh Hasina on July 22.
However, Srivastava used a one year old official release of Bangladesh issued on August 21, 2019 that said, “Bangladesh maintains that the abrogation of Article 370 by the Indian Government is an internal issue of India. Bangladesh has always advocated, as a matter of principle, that maintaining regional peace and stability, as well as development, should be a priority for all countries.”
But Srivastava couldn’t exactly quote PM Sheikh Hasina on what she exactly told the Pakistan PM. No media outlet in Pakistan and beyond could disclose whether Sheikh Hasina made any statement or comment or remained silent. But some Bangladeshi career diplomats, who preferred not to be named, opined that Sheikh Hasina, at least, for courtesy’s sake, might have said something to Imran Khan. “It is unnatural that the Bangladesh PM was silent or avoided the issue,” one of them added. “She must have said something, whether it was positive or negative for Pakistan.”
When contacted, a veteran journalist of a Dhaka-based foreign media outlet said that such comments of Srivastava are outdated. The situation seems to be radically changed with the lapse of time. He said that Srivastava could do better if he could quote Sheikh Hasina, in which he failed. So, Srivastava’s comment may not accurately and factually represent the position of Bangladesh at this moment.
Srivastava is not a spokesperson of Bangladesh. He upheld India’s position. Bangladesh, or any other country, on logical and ethical reasons, cannot be aligned with India, at least, on the J&K issue. J&K is a disputed territory. India is an illegal occupier in J&K. Any Indian action in J&K ignoring UN resolutions, is also illegal. Bangladesh shouldn’t support such illegality.
Let us see how Modi’s actions in J&K are illegal. It was the Indian government that internationalized the J&K issue. India raised the J&K issue before the UN and sought its mediation to solve the problem between India and Pakistan. The UNSC adopted a historic resolution to hold a free and fair plebiscite in J&K under UN supervision to decide whether the Kashmiris opt to join Pakistan or India. India’s late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru welcomed the resolution and repeatedly pledged to implement it. He even declared India would honor and comply with the results of the plebiscite if it would go against the expectation of India. The UNSC adopted 13 identical resolutions on J&K to resolve the crisis and marked J&K as a disputed territory on the UN map. So Modi cannot change the position of J&K ignoring UNSC resolutions and India’s own commitments of holding a free and fair plebiscite in J&K under UN supervision.
The people of J&K didn’t welcome Indian occupation in their motherland. Since 1948, they are at war with India to liberate their motherland. If Bangladeshis denounce the liberation war of the Kashmiris, we also disown our liberation war of 1971. If we were right in getting out of Pakistan, the Kashmiris have stronger grounds to get out of India. The people of East Bengal joined Pakistan through a free and fair referendum, but the Kashmiris didn’t join India in the same manner. India forcibly occupied J&K beyond their will. So the liberation war of the Kashmiris is legal and lawful from all considerations. Bangladesh is constitutionally bound to support the liberation war of the oppressed people around the world and cannot go beyond its constitutional obligations.
Extending support to Modi’s illegal changes in J&K means denying the liberation struggle of the Kashmiri people, which the Bangladeshis cannot do. If Sheikh Hasina denies the liberation war of the Kashmiris, then our liberation war in 1971 becomes unjustified and controversial. In that case, we, the freedom fighters, also become terrorists, as India brands the Kashmiri freedom fighters as terrorists. On the other hand, India claims our victory as its own victory against Pakistan, which is totally untrue. India dishonors and denies our contribution, our victory and shows disregard to the blood and sacrifice of our martyrs.
India is now submerged under a vast sea of problems. So it strives to salvage itself even by catching a straw. For this reason, it claims that Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives, etc., support its illegal changes in Kashmir. Many of these countries might have changed their policy on Kashmir, as the foreign policy of a country is not rigid, but rather dynamic and ever-changing. During the Cold War, India acted as the “pay’ada” (lackey) of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union was dissolved, India shifted its loyalty to America and plays the same role. It changed its policy suiting its interest. It is applicable to all neighboring countries of India.
India desperately begs the support of any country to bury its crimes that Modi committed by violating and ignoring the UNSC resolutions and denying the human rights of the Kashmiris. Let us see what the international communities still say about the position of J&K, despite India’s illegal annexation and changes.
The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres on February 17, 2020 said that the Security Council resolutions on Kashmir have to be implemented. The Secretary General, who was on a visit to Pakistan, made the above comment at a news conference in Islamabad. He said, “It is clear that we have taken a position about the need for the Security Council resolutions to be implemented and for effective de-escalation and dialogue linked to that, with another very important condition, which is full respect for human rights and (fundamental) freedoms in Jammu and Kashmir.”
On August 16, 2019 the U.S. Congressional Research Service, denouncing Indian illogical steps centering J&K said, “India’s August action sparked international controversy and unilateral change of the J&K status that could hamper regional stability eliciting U.S. and international concerns about further escalation between South Asia’s two nuclear-armed powers.”
(https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R45877.pdf)
The United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) has been supervising the State of Jammu and Kashmir ever since 1949.
Although Pakistan and India agreed on a “Line of Control” in 1972 and both the countries do not agree on UNMOGIP’s mandate, yet it is deployed there. The mission can only be terminated by the UN Security Council and therefore has continued to observe the border and report any ceasefire violations.(https://betterworldcampaign.org/u-n-peacekeeping/kashmir-unmogip/).
The presence of the UNMOGIP means that India or Pakistan cannot defy the UN resolution on the UNMOGIP. If so, how can India claim Kashmir as its own territory or change its status, as the UN resolutions on Kashmir still persist and declared to hold a free and fair resolution under UN supervision to decide to which country the Kashmiris opt to join — Pakistan or India.
Even U.S. President Donald Trump, the mentor of Modi, didn’t support Modi’s steps regarding J&K. Rather, he repeatedly offered his readiness to mediate on the J&K crisis. Pakistan accepted his offer, but India denied it. If Trump would have supported Modi’s illegal step in J&K, he wouldn’t have offered his mediation.
All these realities simply justify that none should support India’s illegal activities as long as the UN resolutions on J&K continue. On the UN World Map, J&K is still marked as a ‘disputed territory’, not as a territory of India.
India’s major opposition parties also rejected the changes as they know Modi did wrong. They even went to the Court, as those changes violated the Indian Constitution. Even the Kashmiri politicians who ruled Kashmir on behalf of India, opposed Modi’s step. Pro-India Kashmiri leaders like Farooq Abdullah, Omar Abdullah, Mehbooba Mufti and their followers, even the common Kashmiris, rejected and denounced Modi’s move. They are still under detention. It remains hidden how many thousands of the Kashmiris were arrested and killed over the last one year, not to speak of the last 73 years, since 1948.
Being a Member-country of the UN, Bangladesh logically and ethically cannot side with India, as long as the UNSC resolutions on J&K exist.
These resolutions testify that the Indian occupation in J&K will be treated as illegal. And its change in J&K is also illegal and unacceptable. Hence, the so-called support to India’s illegal change of the status of J&K is also illegal and unsupported.
If we recognize India’s illegal occupation and its other crimes in J&K today, it may occupy its neighboring countries, even Bangladesh, tomorrow and claim that its illegal occupation is legal. None should have trust in India, which occupied a country, Sikkim, though it had committed in writing to protect it (Sikkim) from foreign aggression.
*Mohammad Zainal Abedin is New York-based Bangladesh-origin journalist and researcher.
