Daily Times

“The evil that men do lives after them;

The good is oft interred with their bones.”

(William Shakespeare in Julius Caesar)

The above quote by the master bard captures the anguish and pathos of the war-weary paradise on earth, known as Kashmir. All known legal canons and normative behaviours have been bludgeoned into nothingness in front of the identity eroding Indian act of August 5, 2019, when its Rajya Sabha voted to undo what is legally undoable. The revocation of Article 370 and 35-A was akin to sacrilege to the memory of India’s founding father, who had categorically assured Kashmiris of their special status and autonomy guaranteed under the same acts that have been revoked by his successors. The revocation of Article 370 and 35A is an assertion of the primaeval atavistic instinct of rejection of rival identities and political nihilism, cocking a rude snook at the established conventions of international law and justice.

The State of Jammu and Kashmir was ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh who dithered over accession to either India or Pakistan while other princely states made their choices. Indians under the thin veneer of Nehruvian liberalism masked a covetous Hindu chauvinism that refused to honour the wishes of rulers of princely states like Hyderabad. India probably was taking the same route of annexation about Kashmir but was initially dissuaded by two realities. One was the geography and the other an armed revolt by Muslim subjects of Dogra Maharaja of Kashmir. The Maharaja, instead of acceding to Pakistan in deference to the wishes of his Muslim majority population, tried to prevaricate and procrastinate over the accession issue. The delay caused the anger of the Muslim majority population to boil over and an armed revolt started threatening his tenuous hold over the State.

The State of Jammu and Kashmir was ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh who dithered over accession to either India or Pakistan while other princely states made their choices. Indians under the thin veneer of Nehruvian liberalism masked a covetous Hindu chauvinism that refused to honour the wishes of rulers of princely states like Hyderabad

The Maharaja in panic fled Srinagar leaving a screen of demoralised State forces and few volunteers from the National Conference, a political party headed by Shiekh Abdullah. Indians sensing the opportunity put their annexation plan in motion and moved their troops in Srinagar, the capital of the State. To dupe the world opinion and the Governor-General, they finagled a request for help and an instrument of accession that is still contested as elaborated by independent writers like Alistair Lamb. After forcible annexation of a sizeable territory, the Indians faced an armed rebellion led by Kashmiri ex-servicemen in British Indian Army aided by tribal volunteers from then North Western Frontier Province. When the freedom fighters started advancing towards Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IOJ&K) the Indian Prime Minister Pundit Nehru took the issue to UN Security Council.

The UN Security Council ordered an immediate ceasefire and passed two Resolutions i.e. 39 and 47 asking for a ceasefire and subsequent plebiscite in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to ascertain the wishes of the people for accession either to India or Pakistan. The UN Security Council Resolution Number 47 spelt out a three-step procedure to resolve the issue. In the first step, a ceasefire was to be announced followed by withdrawal of forces by Pakistan. There was then to be a reduction of Indian forces to the bare minimum level to maintain law and order followed by the appointment of an UN-nominated plebiscite administrator to conduct a plebiscite. Till date, the Indians are in violation of that resolution and its stipulated three steps. Instead of reducing their law and order imprint to the bare minimum, they have over 500, 000 security forces’ troops posted in Kashmir. This figure of 0.5 million Indian troops is corroborated recently by Mark Lyall Grant, a former British diplomat and a National Security Advisor to former British Prime Ministers, David Cameron and Theresa May.

As per Khurram Pervez, the Coordinator of Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, there are over seven lakh Indian troops in IOJ&K, with the highest ratio of police to citizens in the world. As per Article 7 of the disputed Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh the State of Jammu and Kashmir could not be compelled to accept any part of Indian constitution except allowed by the State’s legislative assembly. Article 370 was a consequence of a well-thought policy of Nehru to obfuscate the facts and delay the implementation of UN Resolution 47. He reneged on his oft-quoted pledge to hold a plebiscite in State of Jammu and Kashmir and instead offered autonomy as a sop to the sensibilities of people of Kashmir. Kashmiri nationalist leaders like Shiekh Abdullah fell for this ruse and accepted the autonomy that allowed the constituent assembly of IOJ&K to choose areas from Indian constitution to be applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The constituent assembly chose defence, communications, and foreign policy and after passing a resolution the Article 370 of Indian constitution was introduced through a Presidential order of 1954.

When the constituent assembly of IOJ&K dispersed on 17th November 1956 after drafting a constitution for the State the legal authority to confer any other powers to Indian Constitution vanished. Therefore as per law, the Indian government’s all acts like revocation of Articles 370 & 35-A and the introduction of Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act of 2019, according to which the State was reconstituted into two union territories i.e. Jammu and Kashmir having a State assembly and Ladakh governed without an assembly headed by Lieutenant Governors, were downright illegal. Since the Supreme Court of India had itself declared in 2018 that the Article 370 had attained permanency after the lapse of the constituent assembly of the State, the Indians in a clear violation of law rendered the entire Article 370 inoperative, though it remains part of Indian constitution.

The revocation of Article 370 has been supported by BJP, BSP, Aam Admi Party, AIDMK, Telego Desam Party, and Shiv Shena and opposed by Indian Congress Party, Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, Jammu and Kashmir People’s Democratic Party, Trinamool Congress, Janata Dal and DMK. The above clearly shows the polarisation amongst Indian political parties on the controversial act. The main reason for the miscalculated decision by Modi government is its desperation to prove to its electorate that BJP is fulfilling the long-cherished dream of an Akhand or United India. The impelling force behind this rash act has been the RSS the progenitor of the Sangh Parivar, espousing Savarkar’s ideas of the hegemony of Hindu nation defined by Hindu religion and culture. It is a xenophobic creed full of religious hatred against all other religions other than those that originated from India.

The combination of Hindutva and rabid political exclusivism of the BJP has resulted in illegality in Kashmir that threatens to undo the integrity of the state. Kashmiris on both sides of the LOC have risen in revolt against this unjust act and despite worst repression, the valiant resistance of Kashmiris is on. The world ought to sit up and take notice of the evil the men like Modi have done in the shape of 5000 arrests and over 100 brutal killings of innocent Kashmiris since August 5, 2019, whose life has been made a living hell by two scourges: Indian security forces and COVID-19.

The writer is a security analyst and a PhD scholar