Create more space for peace and tolerance, speech of Dr
Shabir Choudhry in Kings College, London, 28/10/17
Topic of the debate is 'Kashmir Through My Lens'. Before I deliberate on this, I want to
ask, are we here to examine issues related to the Kashmir Valley; or are we
here to debate on the matters associated with the former Princely State of
Jammu and Kashmir?
We must remember that the Kashmir Valley is only one region of the Jammu
and Kashmir that existed on 15 August 1947; and no region, no matter how
important can represent other regions like Jammu, Ladakh, Gilgit Baltistan and
Pakistan Administered Jammu and Kashmir.
There are many narratives on Jammu and Kashmir. Both India and Pakistan
have their conflicting narratives. Also, each region of the former Princely
State of Jammu and Kashmir have their own narratives. In fact, there are too
many conflicting narratives because each political and religious group has its
own narrative.
It is not my responsibility to defend or promote narrative of New Delhi
or Islamabad. I am here to present a pro Jammu and Kashmir and pro peace
narrative. I will present some irrefutable facts. It is possible that some
people may not appreciate my narrative. They are entitled to their opinion. I
hope they will acknowledge my right to dissent, which is not unpatriotic.
Mr Chairman, status of Jammu and Kashmir
To understand the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, it is essential that I go
back to 1947, when the British ruled the Indian Sub - Continent. The British
Raj in
India consisted of two units, namely the British India and Princely India.
Whereas, the British India was directly ruled, the Princely States had treaty
arrangements with the British and they enjoyed various levels of internal
autonomy.
Because Jammu and Kashmir was the largest Princely State with great
strategic importance and resources, it enjoyed some kind of a special status.
The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir was entitled to 21 guns Salute. Maharaja Hari
Sing also had the honour of serving as a Member of Churchill’s British War
Cabinet.
Defence and foreign affairs of all the Princely States were controlled
by the British. However, Rulers of Jammu and Kashmir were, to some extent,
allowed to conduct their own foreign policy; and they continued with military
expeditions in other regions after the Treaty of Amritsar (1846).
The Maharaja Hari
Singh, like his predecessors helped and supported the British Raj. He provided
finance and provided tens of thousands of fighting men in the Second World War;
just like the Maharaja Partap Singh did during the First World War.
Crown Representative Lord
Mountbatten in his address to a Special Full Meeting of the Chamber of Princes
on 25 July 1947said, and I quote:
‘Now, the Indian
Independence Act releases the States from all their obligations to the Crown.
The States will have complete freedom- technically and legally they become
independent.’ unquote.
Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the
founder of Pakistan, also shared the above legal view about the status of the
Princely States; and on 7 June 1947, in a reply to one question he asserted,
and I quote:
“Constitutionally and
legally, the Indian States will be independent sovereign states on the
termination of Paramountcy and they will be free to decide for themselves to
adopt any course they like. It is open to them to join the Hindustan
Constituent Assembly, the Pakistan Constituent Assembly, or decide to remain
independent. In the last case, they enter into such arrangements or
relationship with Hindustan or Pakistan as they may choose.” Unquote
No matter what our
personal desires are with the regard to the Princely States, the legal status
was clearly explained by Mr Jinnah and Lord Mountbatten.
Mr Jinnah went a
step further, and practically proved that the Two Nations Theory did not apply
to the Princely States. The State of Junagarh had nearly 80% non-Muslims with a
Muslim Ruler. He expressed his desire to accede to Pakistan. Mohammed Ali Jinnah
accepted this accession, even though this State had overwhelming non-Muslim
majority; and had no land link with Pakistan.
If the Two Nations
Theory was applicable to the Princely States, then Junagarh would have
automatically become part of an independent India. Despite these irrefutable
facts, if some people want to distort history and fool people in name of
religion to advance their agenda then we cannot help them.
Mr Chairman, new status of Jammu and Kashmir acknowledged
When the British Raj in India ended on 15 August 1947, two
things became crystal clear.
1/ Two Nations Theory, whatever its significance, was not
applicable to the Princely States.
2/ The State of Jammu and Kashmir regained its sovereignty.
The Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir offered to have a Standstill
Agreement with its neighbours India and Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan
acknowledged the new status of Jammu and Kashmir government and entered in to a
written agreement. The Government of an Independent India also acknowledged this
new status of Jammu and Kashmir; and wrote back to the Prime Minister of Jammu
and Kashmir that:
“Government of India would be glad if you or some other Minister
duly authorised in this behalf could fly to Delhi for negotiating Standstill
Agreement between Kashmir Government and India dominion.
Mr Chairman, unprovoked attack on Jammu and Kashmir
Pakistan claims to be a fort of Islam – a country established to
promote and practise Islam. Islam ascribes a great importance to agreements and pledges. In Sura
Almahida, Ayat 1, Almighty Allah commands:
‘Oh people of faith, honour your pledges’.
Apart from this there are numerous sayings of the Holy Prophet urging
people to honour their pledges.
Pakistan had a written agreement with State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Totally against the Islamic teaching they violated that agreement and attacked
its weak neighbour. Some pro Pakistan citizens of Jammu and Kashmir claim that
India is aggressor and Pakistan is a friend of Jammu and Kashmir.
Important distinction has to be made between the forces of India and
Pakistan when they entered Jammu and Kashmir.
1. Pakistani troops in
civilian clothes and Tribesmen entered Jammu and Kashmir by violating the
Standstill Agreement;
2. They came to Jammu
and Kashmir against the wishes of the Maharaja;
3. They came there with
intention of invading the State and teaching the Ruler a lesson;
4. The Jihadi warriors
were told they had a licence to kill, loot and plunder, and even kidnap women –
they were told everything that is removable is yours; and anything that is
irremovable will be Pakistan’s.
The Indian army on the other hand came to
Jammu and Kashmir:
On
the request of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir;
They
came there after a treaty called Provisional accession;
They
came there to protect life, liberty and property of the people;
They came there to
drive out the invaders and protect integrity of Jammu and Kashmir.
America and some other countries claim Pakistan is exporting extremism
and hatred in name of religion. They forget that we were the first victims of
Pakistan’s Jihadi policy which justifies export of brainwashed religious
warriors, who happily kill innocent people to advance Pakistan’s agenda.
Jammu and Kashmir dispute was a political dispute. It required a
political solution. But this tribal attack in name of Jihad not only killed
tens of thousands of innocent people, raped women and plundered our land, they
also polluted the Jammu and Kashmir polity with hatred and intolerance.
It is sad that role of the Indian troops
changed with time; and they failed to honour obligations they assumed under the
Provisional Accession and under the UN Resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir. Indian
troops, which came to save life,
liberty and honour of people, now have their hands red with the blood of
Kashmiri people. They are responsible for committing human rights abuses.
However, Pakistan gets the distinction to be the first country which attacked
Jammu and Kashmir, killed innocent people, raped women and kidnaped them and
then sold them in Pakistani cities.
Mr Chairman
In the UN Security Council Resolution of 13 August 1948, it was stated
that: ‘The
Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the
future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in
accordance with the will of the people..’
The term future status implies 3 options, namely accession to Pakistan,
ratification of the provisional accession to India; or some kind of
independence. On request of Pakistan, this was changed; and people were given
only two options, either to join India or join Pakistan. This fact was
reflected in the UNCIP Resolution of 5 January 1949.
Pakistan talks of Kashmiri people’s right of self - determination, but
in actual fact, they deprived us of right self - determination and gave us
right of accession. We are not interested in any kind of accession. Our
struggle is for united and independent Jammu and Kashmir State.
The first Pakistani sponsored jihad in Kashmir resulted in forced
division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir; and people continue to suffer on
both sides of the divide since 1947. Pakistani obsession to capture Kashmir has
not changed. New round of Pakistani sponsored jihad continues to bleed people
of Jammu and Kashmir. People die in gun battles, in bomb blasts, in custody and
in across the LOC firing. Whether it is an India bomb or a Pakistan bomb,
victims are people of Jammu and Kashmir.
We don’t want more dead bodies. We don’t want more widows and orphans.
This bloodshed has to stop. Guns kill people. They don’t resolve disputes. They
create more problems. Since the introduction of Pakistani gun in Kashmir we are
more divided, more intolerant and more aggressive. Extremism and hatred is on
rise. Kashmiri Pundits were forced to leave their homes.
Mr Chairman, the way forward:
1. Acknowledgment
from all stake holders that there is no military solution to the Jammu and
Kashmir dispute.
2. Jammu
and Kashmir is home of all its citizens; and those who were forced to leave
their homes must return with dignity and full compensation and protection.
3. Where
violation of State Subject Ordinance has taken place and non-local people have
settled, they must return to country they belong to.
4. Export
of militants to Kashmir must stop.
5. Across
Line of Control firing must also stop.
6. Extremism,
religious intolerance and hatred must stop and perpetrators must be punished.
7. When
gun culture and violence stops, troops should move out of populated areas.
8. Along
the LOC area of five miles should be allocated – a kind of no man’s land, where
local people from both sides can meet each other, socialise and trade with each
other. This means troops of both countries move back from their respective
positions; and carry out security checks there before people are allowed to
enter this zone.
9. India
and Pakistan establish friendly relations and create an environment of peace
and trust.
10.
When conducive environment is established
then all stakeholders of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute should sit down and work
out a mechanism to resolve the dispute.
I know it is difficult, but it is not impossible, provided all sides
exhibit sincerity. Also, I know for some people with vested interests, Jammu
and Kashmir dispute is a business, which requires more blood.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Writer is a political analyst,
and author of many books and booklets. Also, he is Chairman South Asia Watch,
London and Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
