Daily Times

Racism and fascism sits deep in the heart of Indian ruling party of today. On 20 December 1931 many hundreds of RSS members paraded the streets of Lahore in support of Hindu Maharaja of Kashmir and his army. On 13 July 1931 Maharaja’s army had killed 21 innocent Kashmiri Muslims outside Srinagar jail. Muslims in Lahore, in particular Kashmiris had taken a serious exception to this killing and had expressed a serious concern on the plight of Kashmiri Muslims.

The racist credentials of Indian Hindu Majority were first highlighted by the author of Indian constitution Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. He was heartbroken to see Dalits – regarded as untouchables, weak and low in Hindu caste system, not competing well under the Indian constitution. To free his community of millions in India from discrimination and inhumane treatment he decided to renounce Hinduism.  In May 1956 he along with 500,000 Dalits embraced Buddhism. Dr. Ambedkar had told Ghandi, that he was able to give a constitution to India but has failed to assure equality to his Dalit community in India.

‘Hindutva’ makes India unsafe for Muslims, Christians and other minorities. India has degenerated into a “racist nation”to the point thatJustice C.S. Karnan of the Madras High court on Monday 15 February 2016 reached the gate in quick time to tell the media at the gates that India “is a racist nation” and he was “ashamed to be born here”. He also declared he would “cancel my birth right” and migrate to “a country where there is no racism”.

If we continue to avoid our duties to the right of self-determination under existing agreements and constitutions, “bees would come back to bite us.”

BJP has trashed the secular soul of Indian constitution.  Senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy told a long-form documentary correspondent Isobel Young, that “Muslims are a different category”, “they are not equal to Hindus”, “they are not equal among equals in Indian constitution” and “any country that has 30% Muslims is in trouble.”  Swamy was challenged that it constituted hatred and discrimination against 200 million Muslims and a violation of article 14 of Indian constitution. Subramanian Swamy answered that equality was among equals and Muslims were not equal to Hindus. According to him article 14 of Indian constitution was in line with the Citizenship Bill and the majority in the country supported BJP. In fact BJP had fulfilled one of its election promises. This utterance savages the Principle of UN Charter, which sets out a duty to promote “equality of people” and the right of “self-determination” of the people by the member nations of UN.

RSS waited for 83 years from 1931-2014, when it tricked Kashmir based political party PDP and as part of PDP-BJP Alliance succeeded to find a foothold in Kashmir. In August 2019 BJP decided to launch a military aggression in Kashmir and unlawfully re-occupy the State.

In the context of the Rights Movement in Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir, to seek a UN supervised Plebiscite for all people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir Government and Pakistan have taken upon agreed responsibilities in Karachi Agreement of April 1949 and in Azad Kashmir Constitution Act 1974. Muzaffarabad and Islamabad have struck all kinds of political deals and quid pro quos in respect of power sharing and in terms of enjoying benefits of all kind. The two officers loaned to Azad Kashmir by Pakistan, assume themselves into Gulliver’s, the minute their car crosses the Kohala Bridge and enters into AJK territory.  The only common duty that they have continued to put on hold has been a well organised challenge to RSS’s “racism and fascism” and how to force India to honour the UN Resolutions on Kashmir.

Pakistan paid no attention to an opportunity argued in its favour by Netherlandsat the 611^th meeting of the Security Council held on 23 December 1952. It has said, “…there shall be, on the Pakistan side, the minimum number of forces required for the maintenance of law and order and of the cease-fire agreement, with due regard to the freedom of the plebiscite; on the Indian side, in addition to these two criteria, the stipulation “with due regard to the security of the State” must be taken into account – although that does not mean that India has the exclusive responsibility in this respect.” India does not have a “carte blanche” for maintaining law and order situation in Jammu and Kashmir.

United Kingdom came out with a strong defence of equitable demilitarization. UK representative at the 606 meeting of the UN Security Council on 6 November 1952 in para 27 has found the Indian argument, as a condition not compatible with the idea of a ‘free plebiscite’. Sir Gladwyn Jebb said,“I have mentioned earlier that at no stage should demilitarization involve a threat to the cease-fire agreement. This would mean that the forces of each side of the cease-fire line should be, broadly speaking of the same kind. I should make. it dear that the United Kingdom Government has never thought that the proposal to limit the forces on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line to an armed civil force while leaving a military force on the other side of the cease-fire line was consistent with a really free plebiscite. I hope that representatives will join me in urging that the parties should resolve any differences they may still have on this point in the way which I have suggested.” Governments of Pakistan continued to sleep over these opportunities and failed to convert them into master strokes, in the interests of Kashmir cause and Pakistan’s national interests.

Governments of Azad Kashmir, too has failed to discharge its duties under Karachi Agreement of April 1949 and the Constitution Act 1974. AJK Government could have used the 12 Refugee Members in the Assembly(in reference to UN SC Resolution of 21 April 1948) as diplomatic radar and Sections 8 and Section 11 in Act 70 and Act 74, identifying the appointment of a Plebiscite Advisor would have caused an immediate and ongoing interest of the UN. It is obvious that we have not done the right things at the right time as required under the Agreements or Constitution Acts.

The 12 refugee members elected from amongst the refugees since 1974, have hardly contributed anything to the cause of Kashmir. They continue to enjoy in the name of Kashmir cause, continue to remain a burden on the State purse and remain on the lookout for deals in the formation of a Government. AJK Assembly, 12 refugee members and the Plebiscite Advisor, would have been so heavy a diplomatic machinery, that it would have removed all Indian ‘containers’ placed in the path of Kashmiris Rights Movement. Government of Pakistan could have guided and perfected this structure and India would not have had an exit ramp.

We have three UN Reports on Human Rights situation in Kashmir and the full regime of UN Security Council Resolutions. These resolutions defend the “Rights and Dignity” and “Security and Self-Determination” of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The formation of AJK Government has a reference to UNCIP Resolutions and Pakistan is a partner in a Constitutional arrangement. If we continue to avoid our duties to the right of self-determination under existing agreements and constitutions, “bees would come back to bite us.”

The author is President of London based Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights – NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations.