"me no big chief …

so that others may get their basic human rights?
and can speak without fear?

Monday, October 1, 2007
By LEELA JACINTO and JULIEN PAIN

PARIS, Oct. 1 — Floating face down in a filthy pool of water, a tangled strip of saffron cloth – the distinctive garb a Buddhist monk – still clinging to his neck, the images are a gruesome reminder of the brutality of last week’s military crackdown on Burmese protesters.

The graphic video of what appears to be a dead monk was filmed Sunday in the Pazondaung area of the Burmese city of Rangoon, according to the Democratic Voice of Burma, an Oslo-based opposition group. It is not known when the monk died.

born into a democratic society, the freedoms of thoughts and expression as birthrights
we take our rights for granted, we will never know what life is like without…

there are some people on earth who can only dream of that freedom,
and are prepared to give up their lives to get their basic rights,
to have the voice; to have a say about life and nation.

We are born with our human rights,
and no one, nobody should be allowed to take it away from us.

[Photograph from: France24.com]

NewslifeHuman rightsBurma

earthPal writes
On fasting and starvation

It reminds me again,
we all live on the same planet, but it could well be different realities.

The worlds needn’t be classified as third or n-th or whatever
The realities doesn’t have to be oceans apart.
It can be next door.

Earthie, today
you bring me back a lot of memories.

I will say one thing, poverty doesn’t make anyone inferior.
Been through it, know how it feels, but we valued life, valued humanity no less.

We held onto our pride and dignity, we helped each other
not having was never an excuse for avoiding sacrifices
never relied on charities or on handouts,
we worked, we survived, we still do.

We live to better ourselves.

MemoriesChildhoodlifepovertydignity

BBC South Asia reports today,

Pakistan has rejected a proposal to let the UN question the disgraced nuclear expert, AQ Khan, who has been under virtual house arrest since 2004. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday that the authorities had fully investigated Dr Khan’s activities and had passed on the results to the UN.

So who is Mr AQ Khan?

From BBC Profile: Abdul Qadeer Khan

… But in 1976, Dr Khan returned home to head up the nation’s nuclear programme with the support of then prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

Dr Khan played the key role in developing Pakistan’s nuclear military capability, which culminated in successful tests in May 1998.

During his work, Dr Khan insisted that the programme had no military purpose, but following the 1998 tests admitted: “I never had any doubts I was building a bomb. We had to do it.”

Coming shortly after similar tests by India, Dr Khan’s work helped seal Pakistan’s place as the world’s seventh nuclear power and sparked national jubilation. He went on to work on the successful test-firings of the nuclear-capable Ghauri I and II missiles.

In March 2001 he was promoted to the inner circle of the country’s military leadership as special science and technology adviser to President Pervez Musharraf. He was sacked from the position unceremoniously in January 2004 during the investigation.

… revelations that he has passed on nuclear secrets to other countries have shocked and traumatised Pakistan. Abdul Qadeer Khan, who has confessed to transferring nuclear technology to Iran and Libya, is regarded as a national hero for helping Pakistan become a nuclear state.

In a televised address, Mr Khan offered his “deepest regrets and unqualified apologies”. “I take full responsibility for my actions and seek your pardon,” he said. …

As he was carrying out his programme, Dr Khan was also being investigated in the Netherlands for taking enrichment technology during his time in the country.

Dr Khan’s facility, Khan Research Laboratories at Kahuta, became Pakistan’s main nuclear weapons laboratory where uranium was enriched. It has continued to attract US suspicion and in 2003 Washington imposed sanctions on the firm for the alleged transfer of missile technology from North Korea.

This was his response
to a report at that time when he was being investigated by Netherlands.

from Eigen’s Political and Historical Quotations

Quoted by William Langewiesche in
“The Wrath of Khan,” The Atlantic November 2005
Pakistani Scientist; Developer of the Pakistani Nuclear Bomb
Abdul Quadeer Khan

“The article on Pakistan … was so vulgar and low that I considered it an insult to reflect on it. It was in short words a bull-shit, full of lies, insinuations and cheap journalism for money and cheap publicity.
Shyam Bhatia, a Hindu bastard, could not write anything objective about Pakistan. Both insinuated as if Holland is an atomic bomb manufacturing factory where, instead of cheese balls, you could pick up “triggering mechanisms.”
Have you for a moment thought of the meaning of this word? Of course not because you could not differentiate between the mouth and the back hole of a donkey. Response to a report in the British Observer”

Continuing BBC’s report:

The government’s response came after Ms Benazir Bhutto was reported to have said that she would – were she to return to office – give the International Atomic Energy Agency direct access to Dr Khan. On Tuesday ex-PM Benazir Bhutto said she would let the UN nuclear watchdog put questions to Dr Khan, if she returned to office, reports said.

Dr Khan as a national hero for developing Pakistan’s first nuclear bomb.
In 2004 he confessed to leaking nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea and Libya, sparking huge international concern.

President Musharraf pardoned Dr Khan shortly after he made a televised confession claiming sole responsibility for more than a decade of nuclear smuggling. The government maintains that neither it nor the Pakistani military was aware of his illegal activities.

Makes me wonder:

1. If he was promoted to the military inner circle, and was Mr Musharraf’s advisor, how can Musharraf say he was unaware of any such dangerous and hazardous transaction and transportation?

2. If he has confessed, why has he been simply “pardoned” and not faced a trial?

3. If he has been pardoned why is he being kept under “house arrest”?
ie. secured away from being questioned.

4. Pakistan is an ally in the “war against terror”; then why is Pakistan not letting UN officials question Mr Khan to find out who else has benefited from his generosity?

Is it just my suspicious mind or do we have have reasons to suspect a cover up?
After all if we are to be nuked in our jammies,
I would at least like to know who to be grateful to for doing us that favour.

PakistanIslamic BombterrorismWMDsnuclear war

continuing from kashmir myths: india refuses a plebiscite – 1

Historical, Moral and Constitutional Perspectives – contd:

Professor Pranawa C. Deshmukh

On Jan. 1, 1948, India, an infant country facing armed aggression, complained to the UN Security Council under the provision of Article 35 of the UN Charter.

The UN, regarded as the guardian of world order was itself a fledgling organization, and took eight months to have the United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolution tabled on August 13, 1948.

The issue before UN under Article 35 was Pakistan’s aggression against India, and not the legality of the Instrument of Accession. The latter has never been questioned by anybody, including UN legal experts, yet the world is made to believe that it is the accession that is under dispute!

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY
THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN on 13 August 1948.

Relevent excerpts: (Document No.1100, Para. 75, dated the 9th November, 1948).
THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Resolves to submit simultaneously to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following proposal:

PART I: CEASE-FIRE ORDER

[E] The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan agree to appeal to their respective peoples to assist in creating and maintaining an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations.

PART II: TRUCE AGREEMENT

A. (1) 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 that State.

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

B.(1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

PART III:

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish 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 both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.

The UNCIP unanimously adopted this Resolution on 13-8-1948.
Members of the Commission: Argentina, Belgium, Colombia, Czechoslovakia and U.S.A.

Prof Deshmukh contd:

India sought a series of clarifications from the UNCIP.

After the UNCIP received final communication from the Governments of India and of Pakistan dated respectively December 23 and 25, 1948, the UNCIP passed another resolution on Jan. 5th, 1949, declaring certain provisions supplementary to the UNCIP resolution of Aug. 13th, 1948.

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY
THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN on 5 January, 1949.

(Relevent excerpts: Document No. 5/1196 para. 15, dated the 10th January, 1949).

THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Having received from the Governments of India and Pakistan in Communications, dated December 23 and December 25, 1948, respectively their acceptance of the following principles which are supplementary to the Commission’s Resolution of August 13, 1948;

1. The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite;

2. 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 13 August 1948, have been carried out and arrangements for the plebiscite have been completed;

3. (a) The Secretary-General of the United Nations will, in agreement with the Commission, nominate a Plebiscite Administrator who shall be a personality of high international standing and commanding general confidence. He will be formally appointed to office by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.

4.(a) After implementation of Parts I and II of the Commission’s resolution of 13 August 1948, and when the Commission is satisfied that peaceful conditions have been restored in the State, the Commission and the Plebiscite Administrator will determine, in consultation with the Government of India, the final disposal of Indian and State armed forces, such disposal to be with due regard to the security of the State and the freedom of the plebiscite.

The UNCIP unanimously adopted this Resolution on 5-1-1949.
Members of the Commission: Argentina, Belgium, Colombia, Czechoslovakia and U.S.A.

Prof Deshmukh contd:

Amongst these supplements was a provision for a Plebiscite Administrator to be nominated by the Secretary General of the UN in consultation with the UNCIP.

More importantly,
also unambiguous was the fact that the consideration of the plebiscite would come into effect ONLY AFTER the UNCIP would find 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.

The UN resolution further required that all persons who on or since August 15, 1947, have entered the state (of Jammu and Kashmir) for other than lawful purposes, shall be required to leave the state.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the UNCIP resolution of August 13th, 1948 provided for the future status of the State of Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people, and thereby included the possibility of Jammu and Kashmir becoming independent of both India and Pakistan.

Pakistan had this provision reduced, in the UNCIP resolution of January 5, 1949 to the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan, thereby excluding the possibility of an independent Jammu and Kashmir.

Yet, the Indian media has allowed the Pakistan to carry on the propaganda that Pakistan champions the cause of freedom of the people of J&!

THE REALITY OF THE CHOICE for the Kashmiris is stark:

An independant Kashmir, is only a myth

The powerful proganda does find ready sympathisers in India who believe, there will truly be an independant Kashmir and lends their voices in support, and “do not believe there is one reality for anything”; even in these UN resolutions.

Prof Deshmukh contd:

As of today, Parts I and II of the UNCIP resolution of August 13th 1948 have never been put into operation. Instead, Pakistan consolidated its aggression.

India, instead of evicting the intruders on the spot, kept protesting to the Security Council, (who an Indian diplomat for obvious reasons refers to as an impotent international body), that Pakistan vacate its aggression.

So far as the cease-fire agreements have been concerned, as is well known, notwithstanding Part I of the said Aug.13, 1948 UNCIP resolution, Pakistan has signed some, and broken them all, subsequent to several military defeats (most notably in 1965, 1968, 1971 and the latest in 1999).

THE PLEBISCITE: HOW AND WHY PAKISTAN AVOIDED IT
TERMINATION OF UN FRAMEWORK

Prof Deshmukh contd:

Pakistan NEVER was in favor of self-determination of the Kashmiris.

Pakistan’s claim to have supported Kashmiris self- rule is manifestly refuted by the stand it has taken. All evidence is essentially to the contrary. Pakistan wanted, following the outdated tactics of the Moguls, to coerce the Kashmiris to accede to it. Every time the UN came close to organizing a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan raised difficulties and actually avoided the plebiscite.

Pakistan had to avoid the plebiscite because it realized that Kashmiris, had suffered an enormous loss of human dignity at the hands of Pakistan, and would not vote to accede to it. Pakistan hoped that it could put off the plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir till there was sufficient illegal Pakistani infiltration, which would offset the popular choice in the state.

Pakistan’s policy was manifestly simple and malicious:
First and foremost – disregard democracy.
Further, coerce people into saying what it wants to be stated as popular people’s mandate.

Pakistan employed the strategy of accepting and consolidating what they get, and go on to ask for more and more – much on the lines of Jinnah.

The instrument of accession of Jammu and Kashmir accepted by the Government of India was the very same as for all other princely states. The accession was thus complete in law and in fact, and made the State of Jammu and Kashmir an integral part of India.

There was simply no popular support to Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir: how could the very same people against whom Pakistan committed atrocities actually want to join it?

Philip Talbott wrote in World Politics, No.3, April 1949, of the tenacious resistance against Jinnah and Pakistan by Kashmir’s largest political party, the Kashmir National Conference, which was Muslim led (by Sheikh Abdullah) and largely Muslim supported.

Pakistan’s strategy was therefore to avoid plebiscite till it manipulated the demography of the region. This would be done over ten, twenty, thirty, fifty, years as many as it would take, till the demography of the region is maneuvered by forcing Indians out of the state, through terror and malice, and replace them by illegal infiltration.

This would be done till the result of a plebiscite would be in Pakistan’s favor.

Pakistan repeatedly raised problems regarding demilitarization of the region required as a pre-condition to the plebiscite by the UN resolution, so that it could actually stall the plebiscite even as it kept demanding it!

Pakistan is still continuing to play this very game plan,
and India and world leaders let it!

Pakistan was claiming Jammu and Kashmir on the grounds that it was predominantly Muslim, but it failed to assess the strength of secularism that has been at the very heart of the Indian tradition.

In May 1951, Yuvraj Karan Singh issued a proclamation convoking a CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY on the basis of free adult franchise, elections to which were held in October 1951. Correspondents and observers who came personally to witness the elections reported upon these elections across the world.

On April 30, 1951 the UN appointed Dr. Frank D. Graham as an arbitrator. Pakistan was claiming Jammu and Kashmir on the grounds that it was predominantly Muslim, but it failed to assess the strength of secularism that has been at the very heart of the Indian tradition.

MEMORANDUM TO Dr. Frank P. Graham, UN REPRESENTATIVE
on 14 August, 1951
Excerpts from the Memorandum

It is a remarkable fact that, while the Security Council and its various agencies have devoted so much time to the study of the Kashmir dispute and made various suggestions for its resolution, none of them has tried to ascertain the views of the Indian Muslims nor the possible effect of any hasty step in Kashmir, however well-intentioned, on the interests and well- being of the Indian Muslims. We are convinced that no lasting solution for the problem can be found unless the position of Muslims in Indian society is clearly understood.

If we are living honorably in India today, it is certainly not due to Pakistan which, if anything, has by her policy and action weakened our pooition. The credit goes to the broadminded leadership of India, to Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, to the traditions of tolerance in this country and to the Constitution which ensures equal rights to all citizens of India, irrespective of their religion caste, creed, colour or sex…

It is, therefore, clear that our interest and welfare do not coincide with Pakistan’s conception of the welfare and interests of Muslims in Pakistan…

This is clear from Pakistan’s attitude towards Kashmir. Pakistan claims Kashmir, first, on the ground of the majority of the State’s people being Muslims and, secondly, on the ground, of the state being essential to its economy and defence. To achieve its objective it has been threatening to launch “Jehad” against Kashmir in India.

It is a strange commentary on political beliefs that the same Muslims of Pakistan who like the Muslims of Kashmir to join them invaded the state, in October 1947, killing and plundering Muslims in the state and dishonouring Muslim women, all in the interest of what they described as the liberation of Muslims of the State.

In its oft-proclaimed anxiety to rescue the 3 million Muslims from what it describes as the tyranny of a handful of Hindus in the State, Pakistan evidently is prepared to sacrifice the interests of 40 million Muslims in India – a strange exhibition of concern for the welfare of fellow- Muslims. Our misguided brothers in Pakistan do not realise that if Muslims in Pakistan can wage a war against Hindus in Kashmir why should not Hindus, sooner or later, retaliate against Muslims in India.

We should, therefore, like to impress upon you with all the emphasis at our command that Pakistan’s policy towards Kashmir is fraught with the gravest peril to the 40 million Muslims of India. If the Security Council is really interested in peace human brotherhood, and international understanding, it should heed this warning while there is still time.

Dr. Zakir Hussain (Vice Chancellor Aligarh University)
Sir Sultan Ahmed (Former Member of Governor General’s Executive Council)
Sir Mohd. Ahmed Syed Khan (Nawab of Chhatari, former acting Governor of United Provinces and Prime Minister of Hyderabad)
Sir Mohd. Usman (Former member of Governor General’s Executive council and acting Governor of Madras)
Sir Iqbal Ahmed (Former Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court)
Sir Fazal Rahimtoola (Former Sheriff of Bombay)
Maulana Hafz-ur-Rehman M.P. (Col. B.H. Zaidi M.P.)
Nawab Zain Yar Jung (Minister Gcvernment of Hyderabad)
A.K. Kawaja (Former President of Muslim Majlis)
T.M. Zarif (General Secretary West Bengal Bohra Community)

Prof Deshmukh contd:

Several Muslim leaders supported Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India.
In a Memorandum submitted on August 14, 1951, by fourteen prominent Indian Muslim leaders to the UN, the petitioners clearly spelt out how Pakistan did not consider the well being of the Muslim community at large (as later atrocities on East Pakistan, for example, clearly proved).

This memorandum deplored Pakistan’s attitude toward the Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir and expressed confidence in India’s will and ability to safeguard Muslim interests. This memorandum is one of the countless expressions of solidarity of the Muslim community to the interests of India, and has been in consonance with the rich secular traditions of modern India. Sheikh Abdullah and Maulana Azad were not the only Muslims who understood the fact that India was not automatically a Hindu state in imbalance just because Jinnah declared Pakistan to be a Muslim State.

Disgusted with Pakistan’s continued evasion and non-cooperation on the plebiscite, Dr. Graham asked for extra time on Oct.15th, 1951, and then on January 17th, 1952, he admitted failure!

On August 7th, 1952, Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, declared in the parliament of India: Jammu and Kashmir’s accession was complete in law and in fact it is patent and no argument is required because the accession of every (princely) state in India was complete on these very terms. When the United Nations Commission accompanied by legal advisors and others came here, it was open to them to challenge it. But they did not.

On February 6th 1954, the constituent assembly unanimously confirmed the Instrument of Accession. The will of the people was ascertained in the highest of democratic traditions. What more is required to establish popular mandate?

Pakistan continued to take the issue to the UN and kept pressing for a plebiscite even while evading it.

Finally in 1964, at the UN Security Council meeting, India’s brilliant representative, Mahomadali Currim Chagla declared:
Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of India… You cannot make more complete what is already complete… The two basic UN resolutions of 1948 and 1949 were conditional and contingent on Pakistan vacating its aggression and the condition has not been complied with…. The basis having disappeared, these resolutions are no longer binding on us… The only people who continued to suffer were the people of Kashmir for whom Pakistan felt no care…the resolutions of the UNCIP had lapsed, and under no circumstances would India agree to a plebiscite which Pakistan repeatedly avoided.

Finally, the UN Security Council debate ended, with the President of the Security Council stating, on May 18, 1964, that the negotiations between India and Pakistan might be complicated by any outside intervention. USA, Great Britain and the Soviet Union asked for a bilateral settlement instead of a UN involvement.

The US representative to the UN, Adlai Stevenson said: the Kashmir question should be peacefully resolved…. We urged bilateral talks between the parties last year. An agreement cannot be imposed from the outside. This was reported by the President of the USA, while reporting to the U.S. Congress on events in 1964 on Our participation in the UN (US State Dept. Publication 7943, released Feb. 1966, pp.63-70).

KashmirhistoryIndiaPakistanpropagandahuman rights

continued as kashmir myths: there will be an independent kashmir

Continuing from: kashmir-myths: pakistan’s claims on kashmir

KASHMIR, a princely state, was never a subject of the Mountbatten Plan.
Yet the name PAKISTAN was based on the first letters of the regions demanded.
Since 1933

It has ALWAYS BEEN a matter of what Pakistan wants.
for them it has NEVER BEEN what the People of Kashmir wants.

And since January 5, 1949,
it is clearly documented, Pakistan has excluded a “free Kashmir” as an option.

PAKISTAN DECLARATION 1933:
NOW OR NEVER: ARE WE TO LIVE OR PERISH FOR EVER?

Rahmat Ali’s Pakistan Declaration issued on January 28, 1933 from Cambridge.

At this solemn hour in the history of India, when British and Indian statesmen are laying the foundations of a Federal Constitution for that land, we address this appeal to you, in the name of our common heritage, on behalf of our thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN – by which we mean the five Northern units of India, Viz: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan – for your sympathy and support in our grim and fateful struggle against political crucifixion and complete annihilation.

October 26, 1947
LETTER FROM HARI SINGH TO MOUNTBATTEN

Excerpts from the letter: written on the day of Pakistani invasion of Jammu & Kashmir

My dear Lord Mountbatten,
I have to inform Your Excellency that a grave emergency has arisen in my State and request the immediate assistance of your Government…

Afridis, soldiers in plain clothes, and desperadoes wnh modern weapons have been allowed to infiltrate into the State, at first in the Poonch area, then from Sia1kot and finally in a mass in the area adjoining-Hazara district on the Ramkote side…

The wild forces thus let loose on the State are marching on with the aim of capturing Srinagar, the summer capital of my government, as a first step to overrunning the whole State.

An unnecessary war was sent into Kashmir in 1947

October 26, 1947
INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION

Excerpts from the document:

Whereas the Indian Independence Act, 1947, provides that as from the fifteenth day of August, 1947, there shall be set up an independent Dominion known as INDIA, and that the Government of India Act 1935, shall with such…

Now, therefore, I Shriman Inder Mahinder Rajrajeswar Maharajadhiraj Shri Hari Singhji, Jammu & Kashmir Naresh Tatha Tibbet adi Deshadhipati, Ruler of Jammu & Kashmir State, in the exercise of my Sovereignty in and over my said State do hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession and

1. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India with the intent that the Governor General of India, the Dominion Legislature, the Federal Court and any other Dominion authority established for the purposes…

October 26, 1947
TELEGRAM FROM NEHRU TO BRITISH PM CLEMENT ATTLEE

Excerpts from the telegram:

“I should like to make it clear that question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view. It is quite clear, however, that no free expression of will of people of Kashmir is possible if external aggression succeeds in imperilling integrity of its territory.

I have thought it desirable to inform you of situation because of its threat of international complications.”

October 27, 1947
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF ACCESSION:

“My dear Maharaja Sahib,
Your Highness’ letter dated 26 October has been delivered to me by Mr. V. P. Menon. In the special circumstances mentioned by your Highness my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India…”.

Yours sincerely, October 27, 1947. Mountbatten of Burma.”

October 27, 1947
TELEGRAM FROM NEHRU TO PAKISTAN PM LIAQAT ALI KHAN

The day the Indian army officially intervened in Kashmir: excerpts from the telegram:

I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with the wishes of people and we adhere to this view.

October 31, 1947
TELEGRAM FROM NEHRU TO PAKISTAN PM LIAQAT ALI KHAN

Sent four days later, excerpts from the telegram:

” …. our assurance that we shall withdraw our troops from Kashmir as soon as peace and order are restored and leave the decision about the future of the State to the people of the State is not merely a pledge to your government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world.”

November 1, 1947
A DISCUSSION BETWEEN Mr. Jinnah and Governor General Mountbatten
IN THE PRESENCE of Lord Ismay at GOVERNMENT HOUSE, LAHORE
Excerpts from Governor General Mountbatten’s own notes

Part I: India’s Policy towards States whose Accession Was in Dispute:
I pointed out the similarity between the cases of Junagadh and Kashmir and suggested that plebiscites should be held under UNO as soon as conditions permitted. I told Mr. Jinnah that I had drafted out in the aeroplane a formula which I had not yet shown to my Government but to which I thought they might agree.

This was the formula:’
“The Governments of India and Pakistan agree that, where the ruler of a State does not belong to the community to which the majority of his subjects belong, and where the State has not acceded to that Dominion whose majority community is the same as the State’s, the question of whether the State should finally accede to one or the other of the Dominions should in all cases be decided by an impartial reference to the will of the people.”

Mr. Jinnah’s first observation was that it was redundant and undesirable to have a plebiscite when it was quite clear that States should go according to their majority population, and if we would give him the accession of Kashmir he would offer to urge the accession of Junagadh direct to India.

I told him that my Government would never agree to changing the accession of a State against the wishes of the ruler or the Government that made the accession unless a plebiscite showed that the particular accession was not favoured by the people.

Mr. Jinnah then went on to say that he could not accept a formula if it was so drafted as to include Hyderabad, since he pointed out that Hyderabad did not wish to accede to either Dominion and he could not be a party to coercing them to accession. I offered to put in some reference to. States whose accession was in dispute “to try and get round the Hyderabad difficulty” and he said that he would give that his careful consideration if it was put to him.

I then pointed out that he really could not expect a principle to be applied in the case of Kashmir if it was not applied in the case of Junagadh and Hyderabad, but that we naturally would not expect him to be a party to compulsory accession against the wishes of the Nizam.

I asked Mr. Jinnah why he objected so strongly to a plebiscite, and he said he did so because with the troops of the Indian Dominion in military occupation of Kashmir and with the National Conference under Sheikh Abdullah in power, such propaganda and pressure could be brought to bear that the average Muslim would never have the courage to vote for Pakistan.

I suggested that we might invite UNO to undertake the plebiscite and send observers and organisers in advance to ensure that the necessary atmosphere was created for a free and impartial plebiscite. I reiterated that the last thing my Government wished was to obtain a false result by a fraudulent plebiscite.

Part II. Kashmir:
I handed Mr. Jinnah a copy of the statement of events signed by the Indian Chiefs of Staff, which I had shown to Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan.

Continuing he said that the accession was not a bona fide one since it rested on “fraud and violence” and would never be accepted by Pakistan.

I asked him to explain why he used the term “fraud,” since the Maharaja was fully entitled, in accordance with Pakistan’s own official statement, which I had just read over to him, to make such accession: It was therefore perfectly legal and valid.

Mr. Jinnah said that this accession was the end of a long intrigue and that it had been brought about by violence. I countered this by saying that I entirely agreed that the accession had been brought about by violence; I knew the Maharaja was most anxious to remain independent, and nothing but the terror of violence could have made him accede to either Dominion; since the violence had come from tribes for whom Pakistan was responsible, it was clear that he would have to accede to India to obtain help against the invader.

Mr. Jinnah repeatedly made it clear that in his opinion it was India who had committed this violence by sending her troops into Srinagar; I countered as often with the above argument, thereby greatly enraging Mr. Jinnah at my apparent denseness.

Lord Ismay suggested that the main thing was to stop the fighting; and he asked Mr. Jinnah how he proposed that this should be done. Mr. Jinnah said that both sides should withdraw at once. He emphasised that the withdrawal must be simultaneous.

When I asked him how the tribesmen were to be called off, he said that all he had to do was to give them an order to come out and to warn them that if they did not comply, he would send large forces along their lines of communication. In fact, if I was prepared to fly to Srinagar with him, he would guarantee that the business would be settled within 24 hours. I expressed mild astonishment at the degree of control that he appeared to exercise over the raiders.

I asked him how he proposed that we should withdraw our forces, observing that India’s forces were on the outskirts of Srinagar in a defensive role; all the tribes had to do was to stop attacking.

November 2, 1947
Extracts from Nehru’s Broadcast

“We have decided to accept this accession and to send troops by air, but we made a ‘condition that the accession would have to be considered by the people of Kashmir later when peace and order were established. We were anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis, and without the fullest opportunity to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It was for them ultimately to decide.

“And here let me make clear that it has been our policy all along that where there is a dispute about the accession of a State to either Dominion, the decision must be made by the people of the State. It was in accordance with this policy that we added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir.

“We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given, and the Maharaja has supported it not only to the people of Kashmir but the world. We will not, and cannot back out of it. We are prepared when peace and law and order have been established to have a referendum held under international auspices like the United Nations. We want it to be a fair and just reference to the people, and we shall accept their verdict. I can imagine no fairer and juster offer.”

November 3, 1947
TELEGRAM FROM NEHRU TO PAKISTAN PM LIAQAT ALI KHAN

Nehru’s reiteration of plebiscite pledge: excerts from the telegram:

“I wish to draw your attention to broadcast on Kashmir which l made last evening. have stated our Government’s policy and made it clear that we have no desire to impose our will on Kashmir but to leave final decision to people of Kashmir. l further stated that we have agreed on impartial international agency like United Nation’, supervising any referendum.”

November 25, 1947
Mr Nehru’s address to the Constituent Assembly of India, stated:

“Further we made it clear that as soon as law and order had been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders, the question of the State’s accession should be settled by reference to the people.”
He added: “In order to establish our bonafides we have suggested that when the people are given the chance to decide their future this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations Organisation.“

Historical, Moral and Constitutional Perspectives – contd:

Professor Pranawa C. Deshmukh

On Jan. 1, 1948, India, an infant country facing armed aggression, complained to the UN Security Council under the provision of Article 35 of the UN Charter.

The UN, regarded as the guardian of world order was itself a fledgling organization, and took eight months to have the United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolution tabled on August 13, 1948.

The issue before UN under Article 35 was Pakistan’s aggression against India, and not the legality of the Instrument of Accession.
The latter has never been questioned by anybody, including UN legal experts, yet the world is made to believe that it is the accession that is under dispute!

January 1, 1948
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA’S LETTER TO THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL

Excerpts from the letter:

“6. The grave threat to the life and property of innocent people in the Kashmir Valley and to the security of the State of Jammu and Kashmir that had developed as a result of the invasion of the Valley demanded immediate decision by the Government of India on both the requests. It was imperative on account of the emergency that the responsibility for the defence of Jammu and Kashmir State should be taken over by a Government capable of discharging it.
But, in order to avoid any possible suggestion that India had utilised the State’s immediate peril for her own political advantage, the Government of India made it clear that once the soil of the State had been cleared of the invader and normal conditions restored, its people would be free to decide their future by the recognized democratic methods of a plebiscite or referendum which, in order to ensure complete impartiality, might be held under international auspices.

“7. The Government of Indian felt it their duty to respond to the appeal for armed assistance because:

“(1) They could not allow a neighbouring and friendly State to be compelled by force to determine either its internal affairs or its external relations;

“(2) The accession of Jammu and Kashmir State to the Dominion of India made India really responsible for the defence of the State.

KashmirhistoryIndiaPakistanpropagandahuman rights

continued as kashmir myths: india refuses a plebiscite – 2