The Indian action of August 5, 2019, was a grave offense against the people of Kashmir and a horrendous human rights violation. Political chaos and a hardline approach would only be detrimental to India and its future generations. It needs to course-correct and uphold the international treaties it is bound to comply with.
The Indian Parliament voted in favor of a resolution to revoke the temporary special status, or autonomy, granted under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir on August 5, 2019. Jammu and Kashmir is a region administered by India as a state that is made up of the larger portion of Kashmir, which has been the subject of a dispute between India, Pakistan, and China since 1947.
Several prominent Kashmiri leaders, including the former chief minister, were detained. These limits, according to government representatives, were put in place to prevent violence, and their removal was justified by the need to allow state residents access to government programs including reservations, the right to education, and the right to information.
Communication was cut off, and a curfew was implemented. Unquestionably, India committed a grave offense.” The three parties that have been violated in this offense are “the other party (Pakistan), the United Nations, and the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination.”
Pakistan retaliated in a variety of ways starting on August 6. In a statement, the Foreign Office referred to India’s revocation as an unlawful “unilateral step.” According to the army chief of Pakistan, the Pakistan Army would “go to any extent” to help the Kashmiri people. A joint emergency session of parliament adopted a resolution denouncing India’s action on August 7. The National Security Committee decided to downgrade Pakistan’s diplomatic ties with India. The Samjhauta Express and Thar Express train services were halted.
Pakistan formally terminated most of its trade links with India on August 9, 2019. Imran Khan, Pakistan’s former prime minister said that silence on Kashmir would be equivalent to “appeasing Hitler.” He claimed that India was trying to employ ethnic cleansing to alter Kashmir’s demographics, which are dominated by Muslims. On August 20, 2019, Pakistan declared that it would take the matter before the International Court of Justice, noting that the focus of its case would be on the alleged infringement of human rights by India.
On August 4, 2020, the Pakistani government published a new political map that showed Pakistan’s territorial claims on the Indian states of Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, the Siachen Glacier, the eastern banks of Sir Creek, and Junagadh and Manavadar. In all of Pakistan, the map has been adopted for official use. The Kashmir Highway, which passes through Islamabad, was renamed Srinagar Highway by the government. Pakistan also marked 5 August 2020 as Youm-e-Istehsal (“Day of Exploitation”) on the first anniversary of the removal of Kashmir’s special status.
A rights-based organization, Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights (JKCHR) has been continuing to work on the UN Template on Kashmir and the defense of “All People’s” human rights. In its recently published report of December 2022, JKCHR has depicted the merits of the Indian Action of 5 August 2019. The report notes that according to UN Charter Article 35, the Kashmir case has been reported to the Security Council of the UN. It is based on a complaint from India made on January 1st, 1948 (document S/628), warning the UN SC of a situation “whose persistence is likely to imperil the maintenance of international peace and security,” and a letter from Pakistan written on January 15th, 1948.
Pakistan submitted three documents: (I) “Pakistan’s reply to the complaint preferred by India against Pakistan under Article 35 of the Charter of the United Nations,” (II) “a statement of disputes which have arisen between India and Pakistan and which are likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and order,” and (III) “contains a statement of the particulars of Pakistan’s case concerning both the matters dealt with in Document I and II.”
The president of the UN Security Council informed India and Pakistan on January 6, 1948, that the Security Council will be discussing the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, the two nations should “refrain from taking any action inconsistent with the Charter and likely to aggravate the situation, making it more difficult for the Security Council to take action.”
On October 17, 1949, a “temporary provision” called Article 370 was added to the Indian Constitution, granting the state of Jammu and Kashmir exceptional rights and allowing it to formally adopt its own constitution. As a result, the state was subject to the requirements of just Article 1 and Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. The state granted property rights, career opportunities, scholarships, and other social benefits to people who were considered permanent residents.
Following the 1954 order, 47 Presidential orders between 11 February 1956 and 19 February 1994 were issued. According to Jill Cottrell, some of these Presidential directives were given out while Kashmir had “no Kashmir government at all” and the state was governed by the President.
The JKCHR report notes that the Indian government granted itself the authority to intervene in the region of Kashmir which is on its side of the cease-fire line. India is not permitted to do so, and the action of August 5, 2019, is illegal. Since January 6th, 1948, the UN Security Council has warned India against intervening in Kashmir.
India has formally committed itself four times to remove its troops from Jammu and Kashmir.
It gave up the conditional Agreement of October 26, 1947, on January 15, 1948, in exchange for a referendum under UN supervision. As a result, on January 15, 1948, the character of the accession from October 27, 1947, changed. India pleaded three times in front of the UN Security Council.
1. The 27 October Agreement clarifies the following:
(a) The matter of the State’s accession should be decided by referring to the people once law and order have been restored.
(b) The Indian Army will assist the security forces in Kashmir in defending the region and safeguarding people’s lives, property, and honor.
The JKCHR report further says that the Indian diplomacy on Kashmir has been ‘onion-like’, i.e., full of layers. The report recalls:
What it has said on 26th October 1947 to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, on 27th October 1947 to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on 28th October 1947, and to the UN Security Council on 15 January 1948, and what it did on 5 August 2019 explains it all.
JKCHR recommends the following ways to settle the dispute in Kashmir:
1. That the Government of India vacates her action of 5 August 2019
2. Keeps the number and status (non-arms bearing) of the forces as proposed by India at the 608th meeting of UN SC held on 8 December 1952.
3. Government of India to return to its status in Kashmir as explained at the 533rd meeting of UN SC held on 01 March 1951 and as explained by the Court in the Maghar Singh case of May 1953.
4. It should revive a political process.
5. Indian army to perform the four duties agreed in the agreement of 27 October 1947. The stationing of the forces to be carried out per Para 2 (c) (i) (ii) and (iii) of UN SC Resolution of 21 April 1948
6. Allow the political activities of Hurriyat under its constitutional discipline
7. Release all political prisoners.
8. Consider the Human Rights situation described in the two reports of the UN High Commissioner for Human rights of June 2018 and July 2019 and in the Report of the UN Secretary-General of May 2018 and act on the recommendations
9. Until the implementation of the UN template Government of India accepts the Canadian proposal “to afford security to the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir under some authority which will be recognized by everyone concerned as strictly impartial; and, most importantly, to provide for a Plebiscite of the people in which all of them will be permitted to express without fear or favor their wishes as to the future government of the State.”
Where does India stand?
India is faced with UN Resolutions on Kashmir, political resistance embedded in the Hurriyat Constitution of July 1993, June 1997 India- Pakistan joint statement, State Autonomy Committee Report of June 2000, 3 UN Reports of June 2018, July 2019, and May 2018, duties of AJK Government under UNCIP Resolutions, Gupkar Declaration of 4 August 2019, terms of temporary admission of forces into Kashmir, unlawful rescinding of Visa requirement for entry into Kashmir of Indian citizens, regrouping of five out of six interests group to undo the occupation, Kashmiri Diaspora, 2.5 million Kashmiri Muslim refugees living in the four provinces of Pakistan and Pakistan as a party to the dispute and as a member Nation of UN.
Offering a pragmatic view of things, the report further says that India does not, in any way, have a greater influence at the UN than the US or Israel do. On November 17, 2022, a draft resolution on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination was proposed by Egypt and approved by a record vote of 167 in favor to 5 against (Nauru, Marshall Islands, United States, Israel, Micronesia), with 7 abstentions (Cameroon, Kiribati, Guatemala, Palau, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, Togo).
The JKCHR concludes in the report that India is not Great Britain, and the BJP is not the East India Company. It is carrying out a colonial occupation in Kashmir. If India does not repent of its actions from 5 August 2019, history will not support its forceful occupation, and it will not be able to live side by side with future generations.
The detailed report on Kashmir by JKCHR can be found here: https://jkchr.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/December2022Report.pdf
Contributor: Elsa Imdad
