1.
Jammu
and Kashmir dispute and the CPEC
Dr Shabir Choudhry 23 March 2017
The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir
Hari Singh had ambitions to become a sovereign ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. He
did not join India or Pakistan, and after the termination of the British
Paramountcy on 15 August 1947, he technically became a sovereign ruler. He
concluded a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan and offered India to have a
Standstill Agreement too.
India did not refuse to have such
an Agreement but wanted to discuss this matter. On 22 October 1947, Pakistan in
violation of the Standstill Agreement launched a tribal attack on Jammu and
Kashmir with intention of capturing it. This unprovoked aggression resulted in
death and destruction. Tens of thousands of innocent people were killed, women
kidnaped and raped. The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir requested India for help,
which was only provided once he signed an Instrument of accession with India on
26 October 1947.
India, after that made many
blunders; and continue to do so. A short list is as follows:
1. When the panicked Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir signed
the Instrument of Accession he DID Not say it was Provisional; however, it was
‘provisionally’ accepted by the Lord Mountbatten, on behalf of an independent
India, of which he was a Governor General.
2. First the British managed a partition of India on
religious lines that hatred and resentment between both communities continues. 1
Secondly, Mountbatten accepted the accession conditionally giving the people of
Jammu and Kashmir to take the final decision on future of the State. It must be
pointed out that Pundit Nehru wanted the people of the Princely States to take decision
regarding future of the States; but Mr Jinnah wanted the Rulers to take this
decision. After lengthy discussion, the principle agreed between Pundit Nehru
and Mr Jinnah was that the Rulers of the Princely States would decide the
future of their states.
3. Under the Accession treaty it was responsibility of
India to save life, liberty and property of all citizens of Jammu and Kashmir
State.
4. It was also their responsibility to ensure that all
Pakistani troops, all the tribesmen and the Pakistanis who came there for the
purpose of fighting were driven out of Jammu and Kashmir.
5. Once that objective was achieved, then the matter was
between people of Jammu and Kashmir and the government of India. People of Jammu
and Kashmir had 3 options:
A/ Attest the ‘provisional’
accession;
B/ Reject it;
C/ Or negotiate new terms of the
accession.
6. Before this stage, Pundit Nehru was persuaded by Lord
Mountbatten that the matter should be brought to attention of the UN Security
Council. Nehru, of course, had no experience about the mechanism of the UN, so
he readily agreed; and India approached the UN Security Council on 1 January
1948. And to make the matters worse, the case was registered under Chapter six
of the UN Charter which has only advisory role. It is the Chapter 7 that makes
decisions mandatory which could be implemented by force if necessary. Under the
Chapter 6, the parties to the dispute ‘seek a
solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration,
judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other
peaceful means of their own choice’.
7. Under Chapter 6, parties to the dispute can continue
negotiations for ever; and that is what happened to the Jammu and Kashmir
dispute. But the Jammu and Kashmir dispute was internationalised. India could
no longer dictate terms with its military might in the battlefield.
8. Despite the strength of Maharaja’s accession, although
provisional, Nehru agreed to hold a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir to
determine its future.
9. If India truly believed that Jammu and Kashmir was an
‘integral’ part of India, then why they agreed to hold a plebiscite to
determine its future?
10.
The UN Security
Council arranged a Cease Fire on 1 January 1949, that a plebiscite could take
place. Under the UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948, Pakistan had to withdraw
all their troops, withdraw tribesmen and other Pakistanis who entered Jammu and
Kashmir for the purpose of fighting. After this, India had to withdraw ‘bulk’
of their troops followed by a plebiscite. Since Pakistan refused to implement
part one of the Resolution, the other two parts could not take place and the
State remains forcibly divided since 1947.
11.
Apart from these
blunders, India committed another blunder when after the 1965 war, and
subsequent Tashkent Agreement, India vacated areas of Jammu and Kashmir which
they invaded and returned to the pre - war positions. This was acceptance that
India has no claim over the areas of the Jammu and Kashmir state occupied by
Pakistan. On one hand, India claims that the Jammu and Kashmir is an ‘integral’
part of India; and on the other hand, they returned the areas they occupied in
the 1965 war.
If rulers of India had really
believed that the Jammu and Kashmir was an ‘integral’ part of India, then they
could have withdrawn from the areas which were legally part of Pakistan; and
they could have refused to withdraw from the areas of Jammu and Kashmir they
occupied in the war.
12.
Practically it meant,
India was happy with the areas of the State of Jammu and Kashmir they controlled.
They forgot that the provisional accession was for the entire State of Jammu
and Kashmir and not for certain areas. In view of some constitutional lawyers,
if India abandons the other areas of the State, the provisional accession
becomes null and void.
There are other serious blunders
too, but they are related to human rights and administration; and not directly
connected to the CPEC and legal position. Just one short comment. India, in
order to justify what they are doing in Kashmir say, Pakistan is sending
terrorists in Kashmir to create law and order situation and destabilise Jammu
and Kashmir.
Even if we accept that as a whole
truth, still it is a responsibility of India to ensure people living under
their jurisdiction are safe, their rights are not curbed and they don’t live in
fear. It is not responsibility of citizens to challenge and combat those who
train and send ‘terrorists’; or fight the men armed and trained to kill.
How the CPEC will
affect Gilgit Baltistan
After this brief summary of the
Jammu and Kashmir dispute, it is imperative to explain the current situation,
especially related to the CPEC.
Pakistan has no land link with
China. They only have access through Gilgit Baltistan, which legally is not
part of Pakistan. Either under the pressure of China, or to satisfy their
imperial agenda they have virtually annexed the region of Gilgit Baltistan.
Rumours suggest that once again there is Chinese pressure that because of the
CPEC the status of Gilgit Baltistan must be settled. If this happens this will
be a big blow to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. Some people think, may be India
will be happy as that will give an opportunity to New Delhi to incorporate the
areas of Jammu and Kashmir under their control.
As a loyal son of the former Princely State of Jammu and
Kashmir, I sincerely believe that China Pakistan Economic Corridor is not in
our best interests. I have every right to write and oppose this mega project
which, like East India Company of the past centuries, will usurp our rights and
loot and plunder our resources. In my view these are the dangers because of the
mega Project, it will:
1. Change status of Jammu and
Kashmir dispute and Gilgit Baltistan;
2. Exhibit a serious danger in the demographic
changes; already hundreds of thousands of non - local people reside in Gilgit
Baltistan and control local economy and politics;
3. Enhance Pakistani and Chinese
ability to loot and plunder our resources;
4. Affect the eco system of the region,
and we will suffer from enormous environment problems;
5. Strengthen influence and power of
secret agencies of Pakistan and competing interests of secret agencies of other
countries, and will result in curbing our fundamental rights and more
intimidation and harassment;
6. Result in stationing of foreign
troops to protect the CEPC route, and economic zones will also have very
negative impact on our polity and our lives;
7. Encourage those powers or groups
which oppose the CPEC and growing Chinese influence in this region, and might
try to sabotage the projects related to the CPEC by stationing their non - state
actors, which will surely affect our lives and our future;
8. Present a serious danger that
Pakistani occupied Gilgit Baltistan and Balochistan could become a battleground
for competing interests of countries and their proxies; and especially a
battleground for the new Great Game.
Can India become Part
of the CPEC?
In my opinion it won’t happen.
However, some people think India can also join the CPEC; and in this regard,
Pakistan and China have also invited India. I cannot see India joining the
CPEC, because it is not in the national interest of India. I and many other
scholars and strategic experts believe that the CPEC is not only an economic
project; but it also has hidden military and strategic agenda as well. I am
sure Indian military and strategic experts can also see this; and will not
advise the government to shoot itself in foot.
·
How can India join a
project which also aims to encircle India militarily?
·
How can India join a
project which will strengthen its adversaries in the Arabian Sea and in the
Indian Ocean?
·
How can India help
its estranged neighbours to become politically more stable, militarily more
strong and economically more vibrant that they can compete with India and harm
Indian interests; and even defeat India?
·
How can India support
a project that runs through a territory – Gilgit Baltistan, which India claims
to be its ‘integral part’? Supporting the CPEC or becoming part of it will be
tantamount to declaring that these areas belong to Pakistan.
Some critics say there are more
chances that India might disrupt or sabotage the CPEC, rather than joining it
to strengthen its ‘enemies’. In any case, I can’t see how India will benefit by
becoming part of the CPEC. Which route they be using? It is obvious they don’t
want to go to Gwadar. Their interest could be in going to the Central Asia.
That practically means, India using the Pakistani roads to enter Afghanistan
and beyond. A million-dollar question, in view of the India Pakistan relations,
terrorism and hatred, can India trust Pakistan, especially the military
establishment?
For the past two weeks, it was
hot news that Pakistan has decided to make Gilgit Baltistan a fifth province of
Pakistan. Nearly all political parties of Pakistani occupied Jammu and Kashmir
condemned this proposed action. Even pro Pakistan parties also opposed it.
Above all, to surprise of many, the pro Pakistan leadership of the Valley of
Kashmir have also opposed this action and cautioned Islamabad that it will have
adverse impact on the Jammu and Kashmir dispute; and may give New Delhi an
excuse to annex Jammu and Kashmir under their control.
I have seen reports where the
Kashmiri Pundits and the non - Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir also challenged
Pakistan’s proposed action and unambiguously declared that areas of Gilgit
Baltistan are part of the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir; and it must not
be divided.
To me this is a good sign. It
proves that despite what has happened since 1947, people still have a sense of
belonging to each other. They still think that our motherland must not be divided.
The government of India on the
other hand also expressed their policy and opposed Pakistan’s proposed
annexation of Gilgit Baltistan, which they call India’s ‘integral’ part. I
believe, India can only issue statements to express their official stand, may
be for public consumption. They cannot and will not do anything in practise to
challenge the occupier or make a serious effort to liberate those areas.
Perhaps, they expect the local people to challenge Pakistan, fight with them
and after defeating them request India to make them part of Jammu and Kashmir
which is under their control.
This approach is similar to the
Pakistani position which want the Kashmir Valley to become part of Pakistan;
but are not prepared to fight for that. Instead, they use proxies and expect
people of the Valley to fight and defeat India; and then request Pakistan to make
them part of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Both Indian and the Pakistani
approaches are wrong. In real life, it does not happen. If people of Gilgit
Baltistan fight Pakistan, suffer death and destruction; and after defeating
them, then they would not like to become part of any country. They would prefer
to become independent. I suppose same will be the position of people of
Kashmir.
Chinese view on
Status of Kashmir
On March 18, 2017,
Hua Chunying, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson
clarified the Chinese position on the issue of Kashmir, he said, “China’s
stand on the disputed valley will not be affected by China-Pakistan
Economic Corridor.” She said this while addressing a press conference
in Beijing. In a reply to question she reiterated China’s historic stance on
the matter and added that the dispute is a ‘leftover issue from history
between India and Pakistan; and needs to be settled between India and Pakistan
through a process of dialogue and consultation’.2
I have noted that many
people, including citizens of Jammu and Kashmir expressing their satisfaction
that China has not changed its policy on Kashmir. I don’t agree with that, as I
don’t go by statements of politicians and diplomats, I observe the actions and
see if they are in consonance with the public statement.
In any case, the statement
needs a careful examination: “China’s stand on the disputed valley
will not be affected by China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.” This
statement is only related to the Valley of Kashmir and not the entire Jammu and
Kashmir state which, apart from the Valley, includes areas of Jammu, Ladakh,
(Aqsai Chin, occupied by China), Pakistani occupied Jammu and Kashmir and
Gilgit Baltistan. It also includes nearly 2000 square Kilometre of area gifted
to China by Pakistan in 1963.
According to the above
statement, to China only the Valley of Kashmir is disputed. Does it mean they
recognise Ladakh and Jammu to be part of India and the Pakistani Occupied Jammu
and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan as part of Pakistan. Also, the statement
clearly say it is a matter between India and Pakistan and they should settle it
by a process of dialogue. In other words, people of the Valley of Kashmir have
no say in this matter.
I don’t know if India and Pakistan
have any issue with the above statement or not, but being a patriotic citizen
of the former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir, I have very serious
objections. To me this is another step towards dividing my motherland. The Valley
of Kashmir is not the only region that is disputed. The entire State of Jammu
and Kashmir that existed on 15 August 1947 is disputed
CPEC and the UN Resolution
To the amazement of many the recent UN Security
Council Resolution in support of the CPEC has surely strengthened the Chinese
and the Pakistani positions on the CPEC. The UN Security Council Resolution ‘renewed the mandate of the UN Assistance Mission in
Afghanistan for one year’. The 15-nation UN body commended to ‘promote security
and stability in Afghanistan and the region “to create a community of shared
future for mankind”. In this context, the Resolution welcomed ‘efforts
to strengthen the process of regional economic cooperation, including measures
to facilitate regional connectivity, trade and transit, including through
regional development initiatives such as the Silk Road Economic Belt and the
21st-Century Maritime Silk Road (the Belt and Road) Initiative”. 3
The Resolution also refers to other
projects like “regional development projects, such as the
Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project, the Central Asia
South Asia Electricity Transmission and Trade Project, the Chabahar port
project agreed between Afghanistan, India and the Islamic Republic of lran”.
4
India, as pointed out above, is not in favour
of the CPEC (BRI) because of many issues which include the claim over Gilgit
Baltistan. However, the UN endorsement of the CPEC can complicate the matters
for India as far as claim over Gilgit Baltistan is concerned. China and
Pakistan are jubilant because the UN Resolution has supported the CPEC – it is
regarded as a diplomatic victory for China.
I sincerely believe that the CPEC is not in
favour of Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir. It will immensely benefit China, but
it will create enormous problems for the region. Sadly, by the time people of
Pakistan will realise it will be too late. Pakistan will not only suffer
economically, but they will lose their sovereignty; and may lead to a military
clash and result in disintegration of Pakistan.
Writer is Chairman, South Asia Watch, London.
References:
1.
Dr Mubarak Ali, a Pakistani
historian, in an interview with Dunya with Kamran Khan, 23 March 2017. http://www.sajtv.com/2017/03/23/dunya-kamran-khan-ke-sath-23-march-2017-dunya-news-youtube/
3.
Ref Hindustan Times,
18 May 2017
4.
Ibid
No comments:
Post a Comment