Difference between 22 and 27
October? Dr Shabir
Choudhry
London 22
October 2017.
It is sad that under the propaganda and distorted history taught to
citizens of Jammu and Kashmir, some of us are still greatly influenced by
narratives of our occupiers. This confusion is further aggravated by their foot
soldiers and ‘face book’ scholars.
Crown
Representative Lord Mountbatten in his Address to a Special Full Meeting of the
Chamber of Princes on 25 July 1947said:
‘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.’ 1
Also,
on the status of the Princely States, Mohammed Ali Jinnah asserted on 7 June
1947:
“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.” 2
Mohammed Ali Jinnah
demonstrated with his action that the Two Nations Theory flawed as it was, did
not apply to the Princely States. The State of Junagarh had around 80% non -
Muslim majority with a Muslim Ruler. If the Two Nations Theory was applicable
to the Princely States then this Princely State should have automatically
become part of India. But because the Two Nations Theory was not applicable to
the Princely States, Mohammed Ali Jinnah as a Governor General of Pakistan
accepted its accession to Pakistan.
Despite these clear facts some people
try to confuse the issue by saying that Jammu and Kashmir belongs to Pakistan
because of the Two Nations Theory.
There are other historical facts, which people try to confuse. After
lapse of the British Paramountcy, the State of Jammu and Kashmir became
independent on 15 August 1947.
The
Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, RC Kak, sent two telegrams to India
and Pakistan with the same text, which reads and I quote:
“Standstill Agreement”
“Jammu and Kashmir Government would welcome
Standstill Agreement with Union of India/Pakistan on all matters on which there
exists arrangements with the outgoing British India Government.”
The
Government of Pakistan happily accepted the Standstill Agreement and replied
back on 15 August 1947, which reads:
“The Government of Pakistan agrees to have
Standstill Agreement with Jammu and Kashmir for the continuation of existing
arrangements …”.
Some
people wrongly propagate that the Government of India rejected the Standstill
Agreement. This is not true. In reply to Prime Minister Kak’s telegram, the Government
of India wrote back in the following words:
“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.
Early action desirable to maintain intact existing agreements and
administrative arrangements.”
Furthermore, some people spend extra time to distort history and confuse the issues by saying that both
armies entered Jammu and Kashmir as aggressors. This is also not true. An
important distinction has to be made between the armies:
1. Pakistani troops in civilian clothes and
Tribesmen entered Jammu and Kashmir by violating the Standstill Agreement;
2. They came to 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 Jihad warriors were told they had a
licence to kill, loot and plunder, and rape and kidnap women.
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 – 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.
3
It
is sad that role of the Indian troops changed with time; and they failed to
honour obligations they assumed under the Provisional Agreement and under the
UN Resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir.
It
is a bitter fact that troops of India, which came to save life, liberty and
honour of people of Jammu and Kashmir, now have their hands red with the blood
of the innocent 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.
Some
people are very eager to drag India in everything; and condemn India. They are
also very enthusiastic to hold demonstrations against India. I am not against
holding demonstrations against India. Nevertheless, I am against holding
demonstration on 27 October and 15 August.
In
my considered opinion, 27 October cannot be a Black Day, because Indian troops
came in Jammu and Kashmir on this date on the request of the Ruler of Jammu and
Kashmir; and after a treaty known as Provisional accession.
Also,
15 August cannot be a Black Day for two reasons. The British Raj ended on 15
August 1947, and with that Jammu and Kashmir also became independent. It is not
prudent to call that day a Black Day and to hold demonstrations. Critics can
say we are holding demonstrations against our own independent day.
Furthermore,
it is not sensible to hold a Black Day demonstration when people are
celebrating their Independence Day. We need to win support of Indian and
Pakistani civil society; and by holding demonstrations on their Independence
Day we will only hurt their sentiments and turn them against us.
In
addition, if we only hold demonstrations on the Independence Day of India and
wave Pakistani flags or remain quiet on 14 August, which is Pakistan’s
Independence Day, we are giving this message to the world community that we are
advancing the agenda of Pakistan.
Apart
from these dates, if you want to hold a demonstration against India on the
issue of human rights abuses, I am with you. I will be out there with you protesting
outside the Indian High Commission; but I cannot be a party to advance the
agenda of GHQ.
References:
1.
H S Guru Raj Rao, Legal Aspects of
the Kashmir problem, Page 190
2.
In a reply to a question about legal
status of the Princely States, Mohammed Ali Jinnah clarified Muslim League’s
viewpoint on 17 June 1947.
3.
Some Clarifications regarding
Kashmir dispute.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment