India got upset seeing the resolution on India-Occupied Kashmir (IOK) adopted at the end of the 57th OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) Foreign Ministers’ conference (CFM) held on November 27-28 in the city of Niamey, the capital of Niger.
Despite the expansionist and illegal Indian occupiers outwardly shouted to boost the psyche of common Indians, inwardly they became terrified comprehending the weight of the strong-worded resolution which was unanimously passed. What made India particularly worried and perplexed is how such a strong worded resolution was unanimously adopted in the presence of the most powerful and influential OIC member-countries, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, whom India propagated and disseminated around the world as its most trusted allies.
Pointing to the resolution, the Indian media quoted the statement of the Pakistan foreign ministry, which in brief says: “The [OIC] Resolution demands that India cancel the issuance of domicile certificates to non-Kashmiris as well as other unilateral and illegal actions, including ‘Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Order 2020’, ‘Jammu & Kashmir Grant of Domicile Certificate Rules 2020’, ‘Jammu and Kashmir Language Bill 2020’ and amendments to the land-ownership laws.”
However, the same paper, perhaps intentionally, missed many other vital aspects of the resolution that the Pakistan Foreign Minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi mentioned in his statement. He said that the resolution categorically condemned the state-sponsored terrorism and crimes against humanity committed by the Indian occupation forces against the Kashmiri people.
It denounced extrajudicial killings during fake ‘encounters’ and ‘search-and-cordon’ operations and demolition of houses and private properties as a form of collective punishment.
The unanimous resolution condemned the renewed use of pellet guns by Indian occupation forces against innocent civilians, condemned the harassment of Kashmiri women by Indian troops and deplored that India had callously exploited the current Covid-19 crisis to intensify its military crackdown and further advance its unlawful occupation.
The resolution asked India to adhere to its international human rights obligations and allow the OIC Special Representative on Jammu and Kashmir and the OIC Fact-finding Mission to visit occupied Kashmir and implement recommendations of the two reports of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on Jammu & Kashmir.
It asked the international community to review its engagements with India as it was violating and disregarding the international law, the international humanitarian law, and international resolutions.
The OIC recognized IOK as the core dispute between Pakistan and India, and its resolution indispensable for realization of the dream of peace in South Asia.
The CFM noted that the people of Jammu and Kashmir are the principal party to the dispute, and stressed that they should be included in any peace process for the resolution of the dispute. It affirmed that any political or electoral process held under foreign occupation cannot be a substitute to the exercise of the right to self-determination.
It is really a great victory for Pakistan, particularly for the virtually imprisoned people of IOK where about two million Indian security forces including regular military, paramilitary of different names, irregular and retired troops, police, secret agents and informers, armed civilian Hindus and secret killers are deployed to annihilate them.
The resolution undoubtedly appeared as a new headache for Indian occupiers. They have already started to feel its weight. Observers opine that the latest resolution undoubtedly carries some awesome messages for India. The OIC this time seems to be more proactive to end Indian games in IOK and obviously needs to do something positive in light of its resolution.
Hundreds of such types of resolutions have so far been adopted on Kashmir, not only by the OIC, but also the UN, to facilitate the Kashmiris to decide their fate of whether they opt to join Pakistan or India. India so far faces no viable pressure either from the UN or the OIC that dares it to defy the resolution. This is the reason India continues to keep its illegal occupation in Kashmir and deny minimum human rights to the people living therein.
Observers strongly believe if Kashmir were not a Muslim territory, its people would have gotten out of Indian occupation far earlier. Still, at least, the OIC could easily compel India to end its illegal occupation in Kashmir, if its member-countries, particularly the rich ones, could ask India either to implement the OIC and UN resolutions or face the expulsion of its hundreds of thousands of working citizens on whom the Indian economy heavily depends. If such a pressure could be applied, India would bend down within a week.
The OIC shouldn’t prove itself as a paper tiger. It should show and prove its solid unity and strength. It should fix a timetable for India either to comply with its commitment on the Kashmir resolutions mentioned above or face stern commercial embargo.
Comprehending the impacts of the OIC resolution, Indian policymakers opt to keep the morale of the Indians high, who are already frustrated and shivering seeing the Chinese dragon at their door that prompted Indian foreign policymakers to mock at the resolution.
A former diplomat, Zikrur Rahman said hundreds of such resolutions are passed by the OIC and have little overall impact. “This is neither the first nor the last time that Kashmir will be the talking point at the OIC,” he added.
The Indian foreign ministry derided and warned the OIC, adopting harsh language statting, “We have always maintained that the OIC has no locus standi in matters strictly internal to India, including that of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, which is an integral and inalienable part of India,” an Indian foreign ministry statement said. “We strongly advise the OIC to refrain from making such references in the future,” it added.
But history doesn’t testify that Kashmir is “an integral and inalienable part of India.” When the subcontinent was divided to create India and Pakistan, Kashmir, a princely state, with an overwhelming Muslim majority, opted to remain independent out of India and Pakistan. (If a referendum were held in Kashmir, it would have become a territory of Pakistan.) Such princely states were given an option either to remain independent or merge with either of the countries. In case of a merger with any of these two countries, the king/queen of these princely states were told that they must consider the demographic character, people’s hopes and aspirations and the geographical proximity of the concerned states/states.
According to the Indian Express of December 30, 1981, in Jammu and Kashmir (J&k) Muslims were 72.4% while the Hindus were 24.4%. After 40 years, in 1981 Muslims were reduced to 64.19% while Hindus increased to 32.24%. In 2011, after 70 years, Muslims were 68.31% and Hindus were 28.43%. Still, the Muslims retained their overwhelming majority.
Now let us see the geographical proximity of J&K. To get the real information, (which could be believable to Indians) of its geographical proximity, let me borrow from Raktim Majumdar, an Indian bloggar, who wrote: “In 1947, the communication and transport channels between Pakistan and Kashmir were much more robust than on the Indian side. It was only due to some last moment maneuvering by Lord Mountbatten (who was biased to and lured by the Nehru-gang to make the first governor general of India) that the Gurdaspur district of Punjab fell into India’s side of the border (three tahsils of the district conspiringly given to India had Muslim-majority). Gurdaspur provided the only viable land link between mainland India and Jammu; without it, Kashmir would have been effectively cutoff (from India). Subsequent connectivity to the valley and onwards to Ladakh was treacherous and possible through high altitude passes like Banihal, Pir Panjal and Zoji La which became inaccessible during winter months.”
This means that India got road connection to J&K at the cost of those three Muslim-dominated tahsils of East Punjab, which were supposed to be within Pakistan. On the other hand, Pakistan had common borders with J&K from three sides. Joining India, King Hari Singh, a Hindu, directly violated the above three basic factors (demographic character, people’s sentiments and aspirations and the state’s geographic proximity). So his accession to India was entirely illegal.
Contemporary analysts question how and when New Delhi got the so-called instrument of accession signed by Hari Singh within hours in those days when communication was not so swift as we see today. Their view is that India took the signature of the king after Indian forces occupied Kashmir. They allege India used the so-called will/wish of the King to occupy Kashmir ignoring his Muslim subjects, their sentiments or its geographical proximity.
Analysts alleged that India violating the all the basic principles set by the British government deliberately occupied the Muslim-dominated princely state of Kashmir. Here India used the so-called ‘will’ of the king, but not the ‘will’ of the people, which was mandatory for the king before merging with either India or Pakistan. So India’s occupation in Kashmir is historically, factually and ethically illegal and unacceptable.
Nehru raised the Kashmir issue
If Kashmir was “an integral or inalienable part of India” why did Nehru, even before raising the Kashmir issue in the UNSC, in a radio broadcast to the Indian nation on November 2, 1947 say, “Let me make it clear that it has been our policy all along that where there is a dispute about the accession of a State to either Dominion, the decision must be made by the people of the State. It was in accordance with this policy that we added a proviso to the Instrument of Assession of Kashmir.”
In his broadcast on All India Radio he added, “We have declared that the fate of Kashmir ultimately has to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given, and the Maharaja (Maharaja Hari Singh) has supported it, not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not, and cannot, back out of it.”
Prior to this, Nehru had assured the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, on October 31, 1947, that India’s pledge to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir on whether it should accede to India or Pakistan “is not merely a pledge to your government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world.”
Nehru made such commitments as he knew that accession of Kashmir to India was not valid and lawful and it was done violating the basic principles set by the British government regarding the accession of any princely state before joining either of the Dominions.
Conversely, facing mass-revolt, Nehru on January 1, 1948 raised the issue before the UN Security Council (UNSC) and sought its mediation. The UN carefully studied the gravity of the Kashmir issue and adopted the unanimous Resolution Number 47 on April 21, 1948 along with the following comments: “noting with satisfaction that both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.”.
Nehru welcomed the UNSC resolution and repeatedly pledged to implement it.
Therefore, no one, not even the Indian foreign ministry, nor the entire Modi government, can claim Kashmir is the integral territory of India. India’s genocide in IOK or its cunningness of branding local elections as a supplement to plebiscite will only uncover its ugly face further, but will help India little to legalize its illegal occupation in Kashmir.
*Mohammad Zainal Abedin is a Bangladesh-origin American journalist and researcher.
December 13, 2020
The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of Aequitas Review.
