Kashmir Affairs - Security & Conflict Analysis of Kashmir

Kashmir, Humanitarian Crisis- A Measured Response
Fozia Lone
University of Aberdeen
22 August 2008

On 18 August 2008, I circulated an appeal concerning the extreme humanitarian crisis that was sustained in Kashmir Valley through the economic blockade. The Hindu extremist parties imposed this economic blockade after the Government of Kashmir revoked the land transfer order to the Hindu Organisation, Shri Amarnath Shrine Board. These parties responded by blocking the Srinagar-Jammu Highway, which is the only land route of Kashmir with the rest of the world. The blockade resulted in severe shortages of food, medicine and other essential commodities in Kashmir Valley. The food shortage was so severe that the local people pooled food items and cooked in Langers (Community Kitchens). (See, Greater Kashmir <http://www.greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=18_8_2008&ItemID=22&cat=1>) . This was no situation of natural calamity but battle of India against the unarmed people of Kashmir who are left to starve and die.

During the blockade the Indian troops (700,000) used indiscriminate force against Kashmiri people during the peaceful demonstrations. The people become victims of Indian force’s bullets and grenades. In just five days death toll in Kashmir reached more than 40 and 1000 people were injured. In connection to the lifting of economic blockade hundreds of peace-loving Kashmiris presented the memoranda to the United Nations Militarily Observers Group stationed in Kashmir. (See, <http://www.greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=18_8_2008&ItemID=43&cat=1>)

I received a mixed response to my appeal some were comforting as they showed their solidarity with the Kashmiri people. However, others were outbursts rather than replies and were not only shocking but based on the concocted facts. I was disheartened to come across Hindu extremist, apparently educated people’s remarks that called for a considered response. Some argued that the Government of India was not involved in economic blockade of Kashmir. However, it was not explained why lorry drivers were beaten to pulp and their merchandise destroyed on the Jammu-Kashmir Highway despite the fact that Indian forces were supposedly on the high security alert. How far, was there a covert acquiescence of the Government of India, merits an enquiry? Was it meant to teach people across Banihal Pass a lesson to give up their claim of self-determination? In answering questions about justifying demands by the Hindu extremists for restoring forest land to Shrine Board, one can only empathise with share void in these slogans. Restoring forest land to the pilgrims would not be of any benefit to them. As an example, the whole world descends on the Vatican for a glimpse of the Pope. If everyone sought a piece of land, the Pope will have nowhere to live!

The Hindu extremist’s demand of restoration of land transfer to Shrine Board is illegal and would result in the flagrant violation of Article 370 of Indian Constitution. It will also infringe the important laws forbidding allocation of forest land and wild life habitat to private agencies. One must not forget that all territories of Jammu and Kashmir, including Gilgit and Baltistan, are internationally recognised as disputed and therefore no asset like land can be bartered away even if the domestic laws instituted by occupation regimes may have permitted this practice. India has incorporated the territory of Kashmir into its union, which is in direct conflict with the Security Council Resolutions (SCRs) on Kashmir. The domestic laws like the Article 370, the Delhi Agreement 1952 including the international accords like Simla Agreement are in direct disagreement with the legal position of the international community that has been shaped by the SCRs on Kashmir. This assertion is reinforced by the Article 103 of UN Charter that states:

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

It is; therefore, clear that the incorporation process accomplished by India through the domestic laws cannot change the nature of Kashmir question, which is an international issue rather than a domestic problem.

A statement is often made that lot of money has been pumped into Kashmir to appease Kashmiris so they do not raise the bogey of ‘freedom or merger with Pakistan’. It is true that the total gamut of administration to rule Kashmir by India is maintained at high cost, a million strong intelligence and deployment of high alert armed forces. However, there is very little to demonstrate for development of industry or infrastructure compared to other India States. This argument, however, confesses that people of Kashmir are not content with the Indian rule and need appeasement. It has been stated that people in Kashmir must look up to secular India and not to a failed State like Pakistan for their future. My simple response is, for everyone to give credit to people in Kashmir for making their own decisions and judgments especially if evidence of treatment meted out to them from the last 61 years is steering them in the face. No one has the right to put words into the mouth of Kashmiris; it should be their decision and they should be given a chance to consider their future for their posterity.

I must stress the need for an absolute precision of the Kashmir question. As an introduction it may be suffice, to say that accession of Kashmir to India does not stand up to legal scrutiny nor does the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution 1957 have any credibility to resist official scrutiny and support the incorporation of Kashmir into Indian Union. International community, including India and Pakistan have a settled legal position on Kashmir, which is framed into the SCRs. It is a fact that the State of Kashmir is an undecided polity and a final verdict from the local people is decisive. In the absence of any evidence of Kashmir having associated, merged, federated or acceded to India, the State remains in political limbo waiting to establish its future relations with the rest of the world. The waiting has been enforced upon the people by Indian occupation and evasion to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir.

In the face of this background, political blips like land transfer or local elections or import of draconian laws will have a legal consequence and people of Kashmir will react to such changes. The Hindu extremists will always find a way to impose their agenda even if that takes militant methods, like late Dr Shyama Prashad Mukherjee, used. In one defiant rally through Jammu streets, he destroyed the phantom of autonomy even though he was not in power. The beginning was made, the permits required by Indian entrants into Kashmir were abolished and a train of laws was imported on the back of Article 370, what was the edifice of Abdullah-Nehru flirtations.

There is a whole host of other arguments that will stand firm in favour of the plaint from the people of Kashmir and the share force of their case will win them freedom with honour. Recent events in Kashmir have teleological pointers to important changes that are imminent, even the Indian are thinking the unthinkable to let people of Kashmir decide their future. [See. S. S. A. Aiyar, ‘Independence Day for Kashmir’ The Times of India, 17 August 2008].

Finally, the remarks that I received were the outburst of bigotry that the Hindu extremists have against the Kashmiris. These comments made it clear it is not possible for the Kashmiris to live within India, even though she has forcefully integrated Kashmir within its fold. Integration laws although can frustrate conduct of a plebiscite, they cannot change the international status of the Kashmir question. It is clear Hindu extremist have made the Indian integration process illogical as it was not able to change the heart and mind of fanatic elements. In absence of such transform, Kashmir can never truly be a part of India, even if latter tries for another 61 years.