Hammad Rohila
Since the inception of the Kashmir dismantling, Indian narrative has been inconsistent with its narrative. India is at a much greater risk of self-destruction under the disastrous leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. His latest assault on the Constitution of India by abrogating article 370 and 35(a), per se, is sufficient to establish his malice to filch the basic structure of the Indian constitution.
Lest the world forgets, Pakistan must continue to highlight and amplify this contradictory and unreasonable conduct of our neighbor. To begin with, it is underlined that India derives its ownership on Jammu Kashmir dismantling Indian narrative on the basis of the Instrument of Accession through which Raja Hari Sing allegedly acceded to the newly formed Dominion of India. It is reminded that the Raja derives his Kingship from the assertion that Kashmir was purchased by his forefathers against a sum of 7.5 million Nanakshahi Rupees from the British East India Company in 1846.
The most important question is always brushed under the carpet. Did the British East India Company have lawful title over Kashmir and whether they were legally allowed to transfer it? The status of the British East India Company was that of illegal occupants, plunderers, and invaders, who usurped, subjugated, and suppressed the Subcontinent. Such acts of might is right were never and would never be ratified by anyone in their right mind. Hence, the policy to settle the issue of accession of such states was in view of the will of its people and not through a mere stroke of pen by their so called rulers.
It is interesting to note that India itself does not recognize the rule of East India Company as they still claim the Koh-i-Noor diamond from the British, even though it was obtained by them after the last Anglo-Sikh war through the Last Treaty of Lahore. Under recognized principles of law, India cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time.
Another instance of running with the hare and hunting with hound arose when India itself referred the matter under Chapter VI of the Charter to United Nations. It is noteworthy that said chapter deals with ‘Pacific Settlement of Disputes’. It is clarified that the said chapter under Article No. 2 of the UN Charter requires all member countries to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security, and justice are not endangered. However, as an afterthought, India now refuses to recognize the issue as a dispute and rejects the United Nations or another state as an independent third party adjudicator. The international community has turned down this revised position taken by India and has numerously offered to mediate between the two stakeholders.
One cannot expect the international community to lend their support unless our case is comprehensively presented before them. Convincing an unbiased third party is a stepping stone before expecting a domino effect. As per a director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) decision to look into the Kashmir conflict resulted in part from a UK-based petition with strong backing from Canadians resulting in over 50,000 signatures worldwide. Hence, it is extremely important to present our case logically to gather momentum which will inevitably bring the desired result.
Another baseless argument forwarded by India is that Pakistan never accepted demilitarization in the disputed territory, whereas it was India who refused to do so when Canadian General Andrew McNaughton negotiated to achieve a demilitarization plan in consultation with India and Pakistan. In another instance, Pakistan agreed to meet the Indian precondition of demilitarization so that plebiscite could be conducted, but as per previous practice, India withdrew. Such subsequent rejection by India is also documented by the Graham Report submitted by the US Senator Dr. Frank P. Graham.
India also seems to hide behind the Simla Agreement which states that both countries should mutually resolve their differences. Articles 34 and 35 of Chapter VI of UN Charter, as invoked by India itself, specifically empower the Security Council to investigate disputes independently. Under International Law UN Charter cannot be made subservient to any bilateral agreement.
Kashmir continues to bleed profusely while Modi claims that he wishes to win the hearts of the Kashmiri people. The global community needs to urgently intervene as Modi continues his chest thumping. We must realize that the world may not have an emotional connection with Kashmir or its residents like Pakistan does. Therefore, we must keep our emotions in check and talk reason with the world.
We are facing propaganda warfare. Propaganda without rationale will be nothing but a fading trend and will eventually be seen as lies and deceit. We must engage all power corners through legal means by raising the case of Kashmir. It is time to compound the fifth generation warfare with law-fare. Raising a law-fare will require us to legally dilute and dismantle the Indian claim on Kashmir dismantling Indian narrative so that the international community can see through their inconsistent arguments.
The author is a managing partner at an Islamabad based law firm. He deals with constitutional and corporate/ commercial matters. His twitter handle is @H_Rohila
