Presentation made at the Conference entitled “Safeguarding Religious Minorities in India- towards a credible UK foreign policy, held in Birmingham city Hall UK on 25 April 2015
Mr Chairman I would like to extend my gratitude to you and your colleagues for organising this conferenced entitled “Safeguarding National Religious Minorities in India, and towards a Credible UK foreign policy”.
It is a timely endeavour made all the more appropriate as Britain is in the thick of a General Election campaign.
I am particularly pleased to be invited to speak on the Kashmir issue which is a bone of contention between India and Pakistan since 1947 and it is an issue that impacts on the lives of 18 million Kashmiris every day.
At the heart of the conflict however lies, the fundamental principle of the, inherent and inalienable right of Kashmiris to determine their political destiny.
The genesis, at least at the international level of Kashmir dispute, begins with India taking the matter to the United Nations Security Council on1 January 1948.
At the UN a number resolutions were passed, commitments and solemn undertakings were given by India that were accepted by Pakistan and supported by the leading powers to have the dispute resolved in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people.
Chairman, I am conscious of the shortage of time and will therefore explain briefly some of the salient features of Kashmir issue, and how for almost 68 years the UN and India and Pakistan have utterly failed to resolve the dispute by honouring their obligations and commitments on Kashmir’s future status and the right and aspirations of its people.
It can be said and certainly Kashmiris strongly believe that the history of the dispute is full of betrayals, duplicity and hypocrisy by India in particular, and an indifference and abandonment of Kashmiris’ basic rights by the big powers.
India for example in one of its many solemn pledges on Kashmir declared:
“that the question of Kashmir’s future status vis-a-vis its neighbours and the world at large and the question on whether Kashmir should withdraw from her accession to India, and either accede to Pakistan or remain independent with a right to claim admission as a member of the United Nations all this we have recognised to be a matter for unfettered decision by the people of Kashmir after normal life is restored to them” UNSC document Agenda 227.
Subsequent to the above pledge India was party to scores of UN resolutions, the setting up of UN Commission on India and Pakistan-UNCIP- to administer the (promised) plebiscite- the UN Military Observer Group on India and Pakistan –UNMOGIP- which was created to monitor cease-fire- line when the first Kashmir war ended between India, Pakistan and the free Kashmir forces in January 1949. And the Shimla Accord between India and Pakistan reached after their 1971 war
India alas has since reneged on every single commitment and pledge and obligation that she was a party to for a resolution of the Kashmir conflict. This therefore speaks volumes regarding India’s respect for honouring UN resolutions and international commitments and obligations over Kashmir! Still the Indian prime Minister is demanding a permanent seat on the UN Security Council-UNSC- because India is a ‘democracy’ of 125 crores.
However in September of 2014 we witnessed real democracy being exercised when, British government did not deny people of Scotland, the right to abrogate their 313 year old union with rest of the UK.
Instead of dispatching battalions of British troops to supress nationalist aspirations of the Scots, British government graciously facilitated a free, fair and democratic referendum to settle the question of Scottish union with the UK.
Chairman, India on the other hand does not even acknowledge the existence of a Kashmir issue and considers the dispute over its future status as a figment and machinations of Pakistan and quite blatantly claims Kashmir as an ‘integral’ part of India. Such Indian position is devoid of any moral or legal basis and is clearly a betrayal of the UN and the pledges that were made to Kashmiris and the international community.
Perhaps the UK foreign policy’ aspect is an important aspect of this conference, and I do feel that as British people we should have a critical and constructive appreciation of how ethically British foreign policy is conducted by Her Majesty’s Government and pursued by our leaders.
Having said this I do not wish to reflect on issues pertaining to other parts of the world
suffice to add that on Kashmir issue British policy is disappointing, detached and indifferent to say the least. Whatever else the UK policy on Kashmir is, it is certainly not people centric or informed by the aspirations and fundamental human and political rights of the Kashmiris.
I feel a great deal of hard work needs to be done by British Kashmiri diaspora and the well-wishers of Kashmiri cause, before we can be confident that Britain is willing to assert itself in the way that befits Britain’s international status and obligations over issues like the issue of Kashmir.
Regrettably British view is that India is a responsible state and therefore it can be trusted with permanent membership of the UNSC. In my view this would amount to supporting a poacher to become a game-keeper, and furthermore reward India’s intransigence and betrayals over its Kashmir policy. As permanent member of the UNSC Britain has an obligation to ensure that Kashmiris are allowed the opportunity to exercise their inherent and inalienable right to self determination
This conference today should send a clearly strong message out to a future British government elected during the current General Election scheduled to take place on 7 May 2015 that Britain will seek to ensure fairness, justice, and democracy for Kashmiris under Indian and Pakistani controlled administrations.
This message should also include that a future British government will engage constructively at the UN as a permanent member of the UNSC, and as a leading nation within the European Union-EU-, the British Commonwealth and with India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir, for the objective of finding a peaceful and people centric solution of the dispute.
It has to be recognised by all well-wishers of South Asian sub-continent that India’s intransigence is a major obstacle in the path of a peaceful solution over the dispute on the future status of the state.
Since 2014 India has a BJP led government which is aggressive and chauvinistic in its political ideology and has orchestrated to subvert the socio-political character of Kashmir with Hindutva inspired objectives to affect change in Indian occupied part of the state, and to dilute collective identity, and disrupt centuries old communal harmony of a religiously diverse polity, especially in the Jammu region.
Chairman, bulk of Kashmir’s population and the largest portion of its territory is in Indian occupied part of the state, while the rest of the state territory and population –namely- Gilgit -Baltistan and Azad Jammu Kashmir-AJK- respectively is directly and indirectly ruled by Pakistan.
Since 1988 tens of thousands of people have been killed by Indian forces. Thousands are missing, presumed dead while women of Kashmir have been violated.
Is there a person with a conscience who could forget the 1991 mass gang rape of women in the Kupwara village of Kunan-Poshpora? It was most despicable and heinous act of savagery perpetrated against dozens of young and elderly women by Indian soldiers, supposedly from an honourable regiment of the Indian army- the 4 Rajputana Rifles- of the 68 brigade. The victims of this crime who are alive, still await justice against the outrage!
Laws such as Armed Forces Special Powers Act-AFSPA protect the Indian occupation forces from prosecution and give soldiers a blank cheque to operate with impunity against the civilian population.
Kashmiri leaders have said ‘enough is enough’. Huriyat Conference leaders Syed Ali Geelani and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, and the JKLF Chairman Yasin Malik, all three speaking at a condolences gathering for Sohail Ahmed Sofi, who was shot in cold blood last week, strongly condemned violence perpetrated against civilians by the Indian forces.
Yasin Malik said and I quote “for how long shall fathers in Kashmir bear the pain of shouldering their sons’ coffins?” and added “our budding youth is trampled by Indian forces to suppress our just cause”. Yasin Malik asked the Indian authorities a straight and simple question “how long this killing will continue?
The Killings and the oppression of the masses has continued unabated since 1947 and the end does not appear in sight. Even as the anti-colonial struggle against British rule raged in British India that resulted in freedom for India and Pakistan-, Kashmiris too were engaged in a struggle of their own for democracy, rule of law, social and economic justice and emancipation from despotism of their rulers from the 1920s onward. From 1947 onwards however the struggle has taken the added importance of nation self-determination.
When British India was partitioned with India and Pakistan emerging as the two dominant nations in South Asia , semi-autonomous princely states numbering some 562, among whom Jammu Kashmir was one of the largest, regained their sovereignty as British paramountcy over them lapsed. The rulers of these states were allowed the options to either accede to one of the successor states or remain independent.
The Maharaja of Kashmir offered a Standstill Agreement to both India and Pakistan which Pakistan accepted, while India disregarded it, indicating an early ill intent towards the state.
Maharaja’s dithering on the final disposition of his kingdom exacerbated an already fraught situation among Kashmiri masses, who rose up in a popular rebellion to topple his rule. The rebels set up a provisional government on 4 October which was reconstituted on 24 October 1947 and declared Jammu Kashmir a republic.
On 27 October 1947 India invaded Kashmir by landing a battalion of troops in Srinagar, under the pretext that the Maharaja acceded Kashmir to India on 26 October. When in reality he was not in control of his country and was in fact fleeing from Srinagar to the city of Jammu - some 200 miles to the south. It is more credible to state that a contingency plan might already have existed for the purpose of invasion under a so called pretext of an accession, which at any rate, under all accounts could only have been obtained well after the Indian troops landed at the Srinagar airfield, if at all.
It seems from all accounts that India was too eager to enter Kashmir come what may to throttle a freedom movement of people who endured unimaginable suffering and despotism at the hands of their rulers. India in fact invaded a Kashmir that was an independent and sovereign nation between 15 August and 27 October 1947.
This certainly is the conclusion of independent observers of the events of this period which includes among others, the British historian and expert on Kashmir Alastair lamb. India’s illegal invasion therefore extinguished the flame of freedom that had been lit, with blood and toil of countless generations of Kashmiri men and women.
Ironically a nation which itself gained freedom after a protracted struggle against British rule, displayed utter disregard for Kashmiri aspirations and continues to do so today with the deployment of hundreds of thousands of regular and paramilitary forces.
India’s intervention in Kashmir changed the power equation as well as the nature of struggle from being a movement for socio- economic emancipation and democratic representation to a struggle for national freedom.
The invasion also posed a genuine threat of encroachment to Pakistan. Pakistani forces inevitably entered liberated areas to stop the Indian advance which posed a direct threat to Pakistan’s sovereign territory. This then was the formal beginning of the first Kashmir war between the neighbours. The war stopped with a UN sponsored cease fire in 1949 which became the de-facto border between the two countries in Kashmir. Their wars of 1965 and 1971 affected some minor boundary changes though the division of the territory remains as it was in 1949.
The cease fire line however was changed under the 1973 Shimla Accord to be called a Line of Actual Control or simply the LoC.
Over 500 miles of the LoC that marks forced divide of Kashmir is the most active military flash point in the world. India alone is estimated to have half a million regular troops, with tens of thousands of paramilitary forces deployed to maintain its occupation- making Kashmir the most heavily militarised region in the world. This aggressive deployment of opposing forces across the LoC can easily lead to another full scale war between the nuclear armed adversaries.
In conclusion Mr Chairman, though Kashmiris are against status quo over Kashmir, they want peace between India and Pakistan. They harbour a strong desire for Kashmir to become a bridge of peace and prosperity, and not a bone of contention and enmity between the neighbours.
To this end however it is an absolute necessity that constructive engagement and dialogue takes place between the two countries. Thus far Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP government has shown no desire for dialogue with Pakistan.
As long as powerful countries like Britain, with a privileged position in world affairs maintain the view, that the “pace and scope” of interaction is up to the parties involved in relation to Britain’s policy on Kashmir then, with such a British ‘nudge’ I’m afraid India will not feel any diplomatic or moral pressure, to make a constructive move towards a resolution of Kashmir any time sooner.
British Kashmiris and their friends therefore, will need to be, diplomatically and politically resourceful and persuasive for there to be a Kashmir centric British foreign policy after the 7 May 2015 General Election.
Prof Zafar Khan
Head of Diplomatic Bureau
Jammu Kashmir liberation Front-JKLF-
