Daily Times

The Indian decision regarding the special status of occupied Kashmir has triggered tension in South Asia. It has added fuel to the already boiling state of affairs. This region is important for the political, economic and strategic powers and, thus, the Indian decision must have multiple complications.

On August 5, 2019, India renounced bilateral treaties and international resolutions on the dispute of Kashmir. Articles 35 (A) and 370 of the constitution of India were amended. The government brought an end to the special status previously granted to occupied Kashmir. India refused to abide by the resolutions of the UN, which were passed on the problem of Kashmir.

Article 35 (A) was incorporated in the constitution in 1954. At that time, Jawaharlal Nehru was the premier of India. He had accepted to implement the UN resolution of holding a plebiscite in India. The article authorised occupied Kashmir legislature to decide the bases of permanent residents of the territory; special rights of employment with government and right of acquisition of property, etc.

According to one source, Article 370 was drafted by Ayyangar, who was a minister in the first Union Cabinet of India. He also remained Diwan to Maharaja Harisingh of Kashmir. The article gave a special status to the territory, which was not a territory of the Federation of India.

After the revocation of the two articles, a person other than the resident of the disputed territory would be able to get property there. The territory, deprived of its due right, is now a state of India. Its special status has ended.

The Indian government would sponsor the settlement of non-Muslims in the occupied land to convert the Muslim majority to a minority. This model has previously been applied by Israel in the land of Palestine

Apprehension is that Indian government would sponsor the settlement of non-Muslims in the occupied land to convert the Muslim majority to a minority. This model has previously been applied by Israel in the land of Palestine. India might have conceived the idea to first convert the majority into minority and then make deliberations on the dispute in the light of UN resolutions or bilateral treaties signed between Pakistan and India.

Despite the resolutions passed by the UN, India has always held the problem of Kashmir is a bilateral issue. Its claim is mainly based on two treaties i.e. the Simla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration, signed between Pakistan and India.

The Simla Agreement was signed in July 1972. It provided, “That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.”

It further provided, “That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.” The Agreement also contained, “In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line.”

The above text of the Agreement does not rule out the role of the UN in the problem between the two countries. Moreover, both signatories accepted the Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory. To add further, the treaty opened another avenue that the problem could be resolved either through bilateral negotiations or a mutually agreed upon method. Both signatories were bound to maintain the sanctity of the treaty as it was between two sovereign countries.

Lahore Declaration was signed between the two countries in February 1999 when Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee visited Pakistan. The Declaration provided, “Reiterating the determination of both countries to implementing the Simla Agreement in the letter and spirit.”

It further provided, “The prime ministers of the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan have agreed that their respective governments shall intensify their efforts to resolve all issues, including the issue of Jammu and Kashmir.”

The Declaration reconfirmed that Kashmir problem stood as an outstanding issue between India and Pakistan. Both the countries pledged that they would implement the Simla Agreement word by word. It put a stamp on the baseless claim of India that amendments in its constitution (revoking of articles 35 (A) and 370) and changing the status of occupied Kashmir are its internal affairs. How a matter could be internal to one country when it pledges with another country to resolve it through a”mutually-agreed-upon mechanism.”

It gives birth to the question that would India maintain the sanctity of treaties signed with other countries? India did not withdraw from the aforementioned treaties and still, repudiated the articles 35 (A) and 370 of its constitution. I leave a question for readers and experts here: whether such an action is not a violation of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, 1969?

The people who won so-called elections of Jammu and Kashmir and ruled over it have condemned the Indian action of revoking two articles. Conditions have been imposed on their movement. It would certainly compel those having a soft corner for the Indian government to rethink their relationship and loyalties.

The writer is an author and has a doctorate in Political Science