Wanting a referendum in the area of the country where death toll of security personnels is still higher than the terrorists or civilians indicates at the ill motives of AAP. So, it’s not an honest concern for human right but some wasted interests lead to this remark. On November 2, 2010 too, a close friend of Prashant Bhushan and social worker Medha Patekar had defended seditionist Arundhati Roy’s statement on Kashmir that it should be granted freedom from the “Indian occuption”.
Amazingly interested in Jammu-Kashmir, Prashanth Bhushan or AAP for that matter, till date did not voice for the West Pak refugees, Kashmiri Pandits, SC/ST rights, Kishtwar riot victims, Panches of the state or easily visible regional discrimination. This selective concern of human rights annoyed all of nationalists.
With inputs from Jammu & Kashmir Study Center, we are providing the reality check on the issue of plebiscite which is haunted by many misnomers:
If Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India legally, and the people of Jammu and Kashmir ratified this through their elected representatives in their assembly, why did India go to UN before the ratification?
India went to UN under the UN charter article 35. That was regarding the aggression of Pakistan on some parts of Jammu and Kashmir, and never about the legal status or accession of the state with India, or any dispute with Pakistan.
What were the key UN resolution items after the Pakistani aggression was discussed there?
The first of the six points in the UN resolution was – The unconditional withdrawal of troops sent or maintained by Pakistan, from all parts of Jammu and Kashmir. That was because UN clearly decided that the presence of Pakistani troops on any part of Jammu and Kashmir was illegal.
What did UN say as the second point of the resolution?
They said that Azad Jammu Kashmir government and Azad Jammu Kashmir Forces (both in Pakistan Occupied Jammu Kashmir), must be disbanded. Both were illegal.
What did UN say as the third point of the resolution?
The territorial integrity of Jammu and Kashmir should be fully restored. It should be one entity like how it was during Maharajah Hari Singh’s rule on August 15, 1947.
What did UN say as the fourth point of the resolution?
Those displaced from their homes in Mirpur, Gilgit, Baltistan, Muzaffarabad etc. under Pakistan’s illegal occupation, must be settled back in their homes. There were 2,00,000 people who ran to Jammu and Kashmir regions that were under Indian governance in 1947, due to communal and violent attack by Pakistani tribes and Pakistani army.
What did UN say as the fifth point of the resolution?
India would maintain the required number of forces. This by far explains that there was no dispute in Jammu and Kashmir’s legal status. By asking Indian army to stay in Jammu and Kashmir, UN clearly told everyone that Jammu and Kashmir is 100 per cent India. Also note here that UN said Pakistan must withdraw its forces, and only India must maintain its army, not a joint army.
What was the final point of UN resolution, which talked of plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir?
Plebiscite was always India’s internal commitment to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. UN only asked if that could be conducted under UN supervision. India gave its consent to a UN appointed Plebiscite commissioner, but he was to perform his duty under the Jammu and Kashmir government.
What did India put as a pre-condition to a plebiscite point in the UN resolution?
India put a pre-condition before accepting the UN resolution. The UN resolution was grouped into three parts.
First the ceasefire part, second the truce part and lastly the plebiscite part. If Pakistan does not accept part 1 and Part 2, or if Pakistan does not implement those two parts, then the third part of plebiscite was not going to bind India. That was India’s position clearly expressed by then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and accepted by UNCIP Chairman Dr. Lozano.
Why did not India complain to UN about Pakistan not following the UN resolution?
No, India several times tried to bring this matter to the Notice of UNCIP. But despite many complaints by India, Pakistan never implemented first two part of the resolution so in 1953 India closed the chapter and made UN aware of it. In 1972, through Shimla Agreement, both India and Pakistan resolved that they will resolve their difference through bilateral negotiations, further nullifying the plebiscite issue from Pakistani side.
What did India tell UN when closing the case?
Firstly, Pakistan did not complete its commitments as per the UN resolution. So India can’t wait for unlimited period of time. India’s commitment of plebiscite was completed via India’s legal democratic process in 1954.
And finally, India had observed that out of the 15 members of the Security Council at that time, majority had become allies of Pakistan in the Baghdad pact, hence UN Security Council was no longer an independent forum that could decide a case between India and Pakistan impartially.
Then what is the current UN position?
When asked to the three recent UN General Secretaries, if there is any dispute regarding Jammu and Kashmir in UN, their answer was that there is no issue in the Security Council regarding Jammu and Kashmir. The issue with UN got over in 60s itself. UN Secretary Generals during their official visits to Islamabad, first by Butros Ghali in 1991 and by Kofi Annan in 1998, clearly told to the Pakistani media, “According to the UN Charter, if two contesting states signed a bilateral agreement by virtue of which peace and normalcy are restored, and the agreement is ratified by the respective parliaments, the role of the Security Council will come to an end”.
If India met its original commitment of knowing the wishes of people via February 6, 1954 ratification in the Jammu and Kashmir constituent assembly elected by the people of Jammu and Kashmir, why do we hear educated people talk of plebiscite even today?
Simple. Due to misinformation campaign by many vested parties all along. Also, due to the lack of information and some devious media agenda of vested channels and people. The plebiscite talk is mainly because of lack of authentic research by academia or nationalist people.
These clarifications on the referendum clearly depicts that the Jammu & Kashmir is not a problem legally or otherwise. Only the vested interests in the Kashmir valley and their political masters in New Delhi keep on raising it for political gains. Prashant Bhushan wants to be part of that list of “intellectuals”.