January 22, 2002


 Search the Internet

E-Mail this column to a friend
Print this page Best Printed on HP Laserjets
Recent Columns
More Pak lies: on
    J&K this time
Pakistan's lies on
    Junagadh, Hyderabad
The climbdown
The P&R of Indian
Reviving the dormant

Arvind Lavakare

Pak lies: on J&K in the UN

The unnamed writer of the article "Jammu & Kashmir Dispute" posted on the Pak Foreign Ministry's website packs a lot of dynamite in just one single paragraph and a single sentence thereafter that run as follows:

"But Indian leaders, including Jawahar lal Nehru, the Prime Minister and Lord Mountbatten, the then Governor General of India, solemnly declared that the final status of Jammu and Kashmir would be decided by the people of the State. This declaration was reiterated by India at the UN Security Council when the dispute was referred to that august body, under Chapter 6 of the UN Charter relating to peaceful settlement of disputes. The Security Council adopted a number of resolutions on the issue, providing for holding of a fair and impartial plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir under UN auspices to enable the Kashmiri people to exercise their right of self-determination and join either Pakistan or India. The UN also deployed the United Nations Military Observer Group (UNMOGIP) to monitor the cease-fire between the Liberated or Azad Kashmir and the Indian Held Kashmir (IHK). These resolutions were accepted by India and Pakistan and constitute an agreed legal basis for settlement of the dispute."

"India, however, thwarted all attempts by the United Nations to organize a plebiscite in the State of Jammu and Kashmir."

The several emphases supplied by this commentator in the above quote is deliberately done in order to defuse the Pak planted "dynamite" for internet readers worldwide and to show that:

  • It contains just one truth -- about Nehru -- (but see how our venerable prime minister's first name is split)
  • Three half-truths about the reference to (i) Mountbatten, (ii) UN resolutions for a plebiscite in J&K and (iii) India's support there for such a plebiscite
  • All the rest is simply Paki poppycock.

    Now Nehru's public statements supporting plebiscite (or its synonym "referendum") in J&K is on record -- no question of that.

    But it is also on record that the Maharaja Hari Singh of J&K wanted to rule over an independent sovereign state after the end of the British rule over India. That is why, on August 12, 1947, he telegraphically asked both the Dominions of India and Pakistan to sign a Standstill Agreement with him till he could make up his mind to join India or Pakistan or remain independent. What then was India expected to do? Force a plebiscite down the Maharaja's throat?

    What is also on record, more importantly, is that the Nehru government did in fact offer a referendum both to the nawab of Junagadh and to the nizam of Hyderabad. The latter refused it on his own.

    In the case of Junagadh, Pak's prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, interceded, saying that the plebiscite was a matter between the ruler and his subjects while arguing, correctly, that under the monarchical system, a princely ruler had the absolute right to accede without reference to the moral or ethnic aspects of accession. That is how Pakistan accepted the accession of Junagadh without a plebiscite (before losing it due to public pressure) and also Hunza and Nagar, the component territories of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Why, then, can't Pakistan accept the accession of Maharaja Hari Singh's J&K state to India without a referendum?

    So much then for mush Musharraf's latest public averment of January 12, 2002 that "Kashmir runs in our (Pak's) blood." Really, Pakistan's self-proclaimed president of a self-declared military dictatorship badly needs to study the authentic history of the Indian subcontinent from 1947 till J&K state's democratically elected Constituent Assembly formulated a written, full-fledged Constitution for itself on November 17, 1956. He must memorise Section 3 of that very Constitution which proclaims, "The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India." He must also note, and ask his ISI and corps commanders to note that Section 147 of that very J&K State Constitution provides that "no bill or amendment seeking to make any change …in the provisions of Section 3 …shall be introduced or moved in either House of the Legislature." And all of them must lastly note that Section 147 is itself beyond amendment under the state Constitution!

    It is a half-truth for Pak's foreign ministry's website to say that Lord Mountbatten, as governor general of India, declared to the maharaja of J&K "… it is my Government's wish that…the question of State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people."

    That sentence was not "declared solemnly" as Abdul Sattar's ministry would have us believe. Rather, that wish of his government was conveyed by Mountbatten in a personal letter to the maharaja of J&K after he had officially accepted the Instrument of Accession signed by the maharaja on October 26, 1947. More importantly, Mountbatten stated in that letter that "the question of State's accession by a reference to the people" was to be resorted to "as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and its soil cleared of the invader." Has the last happened till now, President Musharraf?

    The second half-truth of the Pak foreign ministry's article "Jammu & Kashmir Dispute" being analysed today is that the J&K matter was referred to the UN Security Council under the UN Charter. Yes, that was indeed so, but apart from its error of dubbing Chapter VI as Chapter 6. And dubbing that chapter as bearing the title "Peaceful Settlement of Disputes" instead of the correct one of "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", the Pakistani article conceals the fact that --

    • It was India, not Pakistan, that went to the UN (on January 1, 1948). Its complaint said, inter alia, that "Since the aid which the invaders are receiving from Pakistan is an act of aggression against India, the Government of India are entitled, in international law, to send their armed forces across Pakistan territory for dealing effectively with the invaders. As such action might involve armed conflict with Pakistan, the Government of India…desire to report the situation to the Security Council in accordance with provisions of Article 35 of the Charter." Among the four requests they made to the Council was "to prevent Pakistan government personnel, military and civil, participating in or assisting the invasion of Jammu and Kashmir." (A History of Kashmir, page 704, by P N K Bamzai, Metropolitan Book Co Private Ltd, Delhi, 1962, with a Foreword by Jawaharlal Nehru).
    • The word "situation" above has been emphasised by this writer to bring home the point that though Chapter VI bears the word "Dispute" in its title, it also deals with any "situation which might lead to international friction" in all its Articles 33, 34 and 35, whereas the remaining two Articles, 36 and 37, refer exclusively to a "dispute". India's complaint to the UN Security Council drew attention to "any situation which might lead to international friction or… endanger the maintenance of international peace and security." (Reference
    • The very first sentence of the very first resolution of January 17, 1948 of the Security Council on J&K starts with the words "Having heard the statements on the situation in Kashmir from representatives of the Governments of India and Pakistan…." Further, in the para numbered 1 in that resolution, the Security Council mentions the word "situation"-- not "dispute". So what does Pak keep talking of the Kashmir "dispute" or "J&K 'dispute'"?
    • The word "situation" is also used twice adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) in its resolution of August 13, 1948 -- the most vital resolution proposing, in its Part III portion, that "the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement …." And what did that Truce Agreement (titled PART II) say? Its two paragraphs, A (1) and A (2), assert that:
    • "As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from the State.
    • The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesemen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting."
    • The UNCIP resolution of January 5, 1949 was even more specific. It said in para numbered 2 that "A plebiscite will be held when it shall be found by the Commission that the cease-fire and truce arrangements set forth in Parts I and II of the Commission's resolution of August 13, 1948, have been carried out and arrangements for the plebiscite have been completed."
    • Finally, Pakistan's foreign ministry must look up history to realise that the UN Security Council did not adopt "a number of resolutions" on a plebiscite in J&K, but just two: the one of April 21, 1948 "Noting with satisfaction that both India and Pakistan desire that the question of accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and fair and impartial plebiscite" and the second one of March 14,1950 "Commending the Governments of India and Pakistan for …reaching the agreements of August 13, 1948 and January 5 1949…." As seen earlier, the latter two resolutions were of UNCIP, and not of the Security Council.

    If, Pervez Musharraf, the self-proclaimed president of a self-declared military dictatorship called Pakistan, now wants the international community to accept him as a man of honour, he must first accept that the above two paragraphs A (1) and A (2) of the UNCIP resolution of August 13, 1948 euphemistically branded (i) Pakistan as a nation that had lied initially on the situation about which India had complained on January 1, 1948 and (ii) Pakistan had, in fact, committed aggression in the state of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 as complained by India.

    It should be crystal clear now that whatever fiction Pakistan may have created for over half a century and wants the world to believe even today, "Jammu & Kashmir" has never been a "dispute" between the two countries but a "situation" brought about solely because of the invasion of Pakistan-instigated-cum-aided tribals in October 1947 into the legally and constitutionally acceded Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Yet, at one place, the Pak website article has the audacity to say that "The Indian armed intervention in the State of Jammu and Kashmir was illegal."

    Equally obvious is that Pakistan has never, from August 13, 1948 till today, withdrawn its forces from the state of Jammu & Kashmir as required by the UNCIP resolution of that date. How then could even a plan for plebiscite there be chalked out? Yet, Sattar's foreign ministry has the cheek to post the internet lie that "India thwarted all attempts by the United Nations to organize plebiscite in the State of Jammu and Kashmir."

    Another outright lie on the Pakistan website under reference is that "The UN also deployed the United Nations Military Observer Group (UNMOGIP) to monitor the cease-fire line between the Liberated or Azad Kashmir and the Indian Held Kashmir (IHK)." Believe it or not readers, the "Cease-Fire Order" (under Part I) of the UNCIP resolution of August 13, 1948 does not even mention the phrases "Azad Kashmir" and "Indian Held Kashmir." For that matter, not a solitary UN resolution used either of those two obnoxious phrases.

    So much then again for Musharraf's latest pronouncement of January 12, 2002 that Pakistan would never "budge from its principled stand on Kashmir." "Principled stand?" What principle, President Musharraf? Of using half-truths and lies first, and then to tell India to "lay off" is it?

    Arvind Lavakare

Tell us what you think of this column