B L Saraf
Today , while we rightly celebrate J&K’s union with India, detractors – masquerading as researchers, like Victoria Schofield , Alastir Lamb , Md Yousuf Buchh and others need to be told that Kashmir having lawfully acceded to India on 26th October , 1947, in a final and full form, stands universally acknowledged. Storm raised about its finality has settled down. That the UN has no role left in the matter is a foregone conclusion. So, there are no takers to the Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari’s latest complaint to the General Assembly that the UN has failed the Kashmiris by not insisting on holding Plebiscite. Pakistan and its supporters in Kashmir willdo good to themselves and to the gullible poor to understand that international relations governing states are based on hard realities . Not for nothing is a country going to pull other country’s chest nuts out of the fire . Jacob Malik , the Soviet representative to the UN explained it to Sheikh Abdullah way back in1949 ,in New York, that international relations don’t weigh on justice and rights but on hard national interests . This is the only standard that works. Following it, no country, excepting the neighbouring one , thinks much of Kashmir these days .
Some home grown ‘ libertarians ‘ and some surfacing elsewhere on the globe go on chest beating that India should deliver on its promise made to the Kashmiris that their voice will be heard before acting finally on the Instrument of Accession , executed by the erstwhile ruler of the State in favour of the former .Reference to the UN resolutions is often thoughtlessly made . Taboos , in this regard , seem to have been cultivated by so many well-meaning persons which inhibit them from taking up well defined positions. Platon Morozov , the then Soviet Union’s representative in the UN , was first to cut loose the taboo while speaking on 4th May , 1962 in UN SC , ” The question of plebiscite had lapsed itself since the question was predicated up on a condition which was never fulfilled ( Prompt removal of all Pak troops ).” Parvez Musharaf buried the myth when he openly distanced himself and his government from the UN Resolution and came up with his five point formula to resolve the’ dispute’ . Professor Abdul Gani Bhat declared last year that U N Resolutions on Kashmir have become inapplicable with the passage of time .
Votaries of Azadi try to pin down India on the so called commitment of Lord Mountbatten, on his acceptance of Kashmiri’s accession, that the accession should be temporary prior to a referendum , plebiscite or election . Here , too , a taboo of sorts has been developed to avoid a discussion on the issue . It doesn’t help to shy away . If we only recall what V K Krishana Menon told the U N in May , 1962 the myth of reference to the will of people, stressed by the Azadi seekers , will stand finally laid to the rest . He told the world body that this was only a policy statement of Government of India intended to democratise the State of J&K . According to Nehru’s biographer Sarvapalli Gopal, Nehru and Patel attached no importance to the Mountbatten’s insistence on temporary accession. Even the diehard anti – accessionist Victoria Schofield writes in her book Kashmir In Conflict – India Pakistan and the Unending War ” In the meeting with Mountbatten on 1 November Jinnah did not respond favourably to the suggestion of plebiscite .”( p 61 ). Will of the people was actually ascertained through elected State Constituent Assembly ; Section 3 of J&K Constitution described State as an integral part of India . Moreover , when we take right of self – determination of people as meaning right to pursue their economic, social and cultural development the people in J&K have been enjoying it for the last 62 years .
Undoubtedly ,there are many creases in the Centre – State affairs which need to be ironed out. Delineation of powers between the State and the Union and grant of certain amount of autonomy are in hot debate . We come across a section of Indians who clamour for strong centre and to whom word ‘ autonomy ‘ is a taboo . They would frown when the issue is raised. Nonetheless, there is an impending need to free the taboo and see how centre -state relations can be smoothened . There is no harm in discussing the matter . Particularly so , when we hear voices raised in other states of the Union as well, for devolution of some amount of financial and functional authority . Narender Modi’s Gujarat Government is a case in the point. On British government’s termination of no contact policy with the Chief Minister of Gujarat, Modi remarked ” Gujarat and Europe will work together and prosper.” Nobody could take offence on word ‘ India ‘being left out in the remark. Because, a concept of certain degree of autonomy was inbuilt in the statement ; so, none could condemn Modi as a regional chauvinist . The Gujarat Chief Minister and some of his counterparts in other states have been saying that their states would not contribute to the federal finances if their share is not allotted to them from the central funds .All of them have been looking directly to the foreign aid . In this regard , Modi and others practice what US scholar John Kincaid calls ” constituent diplomacy .” It is a synthesis of market liberalisation and federalism which tends to drive provincial governments to mobilise, independently, the international resources for the betterment of their people. Given the available indications , post 2014 central elections we are going to see a spurt in the regional aspirations – affecting country’s domestic and foreign policies .
We hear almost all the political organisations say that J&K has a political issue with the Centre which needs to be sorted out. Few interject external dimensions . Therefore , one comes across various ideas floating in the air . Some canvass for greater autonomy , some propagate self – rule theory , some seek State’s re organisation and others project achievable nationhood demand. Regardless of external dimension and without commenting here on the merits of the respective ideas put forth by the concerned, issue of Centre State relations must be brought to the fore for a meaningful resolution. It can’t be a forbidden fruit . Even if it is so , bite has to be taken. It won’t auger well for democracy and the Indian state to let issue lie .
(The Author is Former, Pr District & Sessions Judge)
Follow our WhatsApp channel