India’s External Affairs Minister is perhaps the highest Indian official in decades to have said something very bluntly. Participating in the Raisina Dialogue, S. Jaishankar pointed out how global rules on issues pertaining to sovereignty and territorial integrity were never applied uniformly.
India’s top diplomat was talking about what, according to him, are flaws in the existing world order. In this context, he cited Pakistan’s illegal occupation of a part of Jammu and Kashmir.
“The attacker and the victim were put on par,” he said, adding, “After the Second World War, the longest standing illegal…presence, occupation of a territory by another country pertains to India. What we saw in Kashmir.”
Elaborating further, he said, “We went to the United Nations. What was an invasion was made into a dispute. So, the attacker and the victim were put on par. Who were the culpable parties? The UK, Canada, Belgium, Australia, the US. So, pardon me, I have some question marks on that old order…A strong global order must have some basic consistency of standards.”
If Jaishankar mentioned the UK, Belgium, Canada, Australia, etc., it is apparently due to the fact these countries in the United Nations dealt with Jammu and Kashmir after it was invaded by Pakistan in 1947.
Post Partition of undivided India in 1947, the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) was acceded to India by then ruler of J&K, Maharaja Hari Singh, through an Instrument of Accession (IoA) signed on October 26, 1947, soon after Pakistan invaded his kingdom. The Pakistani mercenaries killed thousands of men, women, and children. Lakhs of people were made to flee from their homes to save their lives.
Reportedly, in Mirpur itself, out of a total population of 25,000 of the village, around 18,000 people were brutally killed, and 3,500 were seriously injured in the three-day carnage from 25th-27th November 1947. According to some estimates, 70-80% of the population was brutally murdered by Pakistani invaders.
The Pakistani invaders first prepared for the carnage in Abbottabad. Then, a tribal militia of 5000 Pakistani men and army men waged war against the innocent people of Kashmir led by Maj Gen Akbar Khan, who was identified with the name “Gen Tariq” of the Pakistan Army.
The onslaught on the masses was perpetuated by the Pakistani army, who infiltrated J&K and managed to usurp a major portion of it – Bhimber, Mirpur, Kotli, Muzaffarabad, Deva Batala, Gilgit, Baltistan, and parts of Poonch.
As many experts have pointed out, the U.K., the former colonial master of India, played a very dirty role here. In fact, there is a school of thought that says the British conspired to invade and capture J&K through Lord Mountbatten (Governor General of independent India), Robert McGregor MacDonald Lockhart (Commander-in-Chief of Indian Army), and Douglas Gracey (Commander-in-Chief of Pakistan army), keeping Nehru in the dark and Jinnah in the picture.
India Has A Valid Point
Jaishankar has a very valid point that the United Nations failed in repelling the Pakistani aggression in Kashmir. It only succeeded in drawing a ceasefire line (CFL). However, it was supposed to be temporary, and Pakistan was to withdraw all its troops from the occupied areas before the people of J&K were to express themselves on the question of accession to India.
Even in 1965, when Pakistani soldiers crossed the CFL and the matter went to the U.N., the world body did not act upon the findings of its own Observers Group (UNMOGIP) that there was large-scale infiltration of armed men across the CFL (ceasefire line) from the Pakistan side commencing on August 5, 1965. And the findings were duly endorsed by the Secretary-General.
An open battle between the armies of India and Pakistan erupted only on September 1, when the Secretary-General brought it to the Council’s attention. In fact, the Council did acknowledge the infiltration in its resolutions of September 6 and 20, when it urged withdrawal “to the positions held by them before 5 August 1965.”
As well-known scholar Rehmutullah Khan has argued, the date had no meaning if it was not an acknowledgment of infiltration, and the call to withdraw all armed personnel back to positions held before that date had no meaning if the “all armed personnel” clause was not to include the irregular armed infiltrators, mujahids, etc.
A dispute brewed on the above obvious interpretation, Pakistan denying any responsibility over armed infiltrators and India insisting that it own up to such responsibility.
As Professor Khan has pointed out, if one juxtaposes the two situations of 1948 and 1965, they are more or less similar.
In 1948, there was a tribal invasion supported by the army; in 1965, there was an armed infiltration. The names of the personnel, of course, differed: Faridies, Mujahids, etc. But the pattern of aggression was the same.
Only the 1965 action (Operation Gibraltar) was conducted on the more scientific guerrilla technique, and the 1948 assault relied more upon the ‘jehad’ (the Islamic concept of holy war) fervor.
In 1948, India was not prepared; it intervened only after accession, by which time Kashmir had lost a huge chunk of its territory. In 1965, India exhibited resolve and determination to meet indirect and direct aggression.
The two events, however, underscored the United Nations’ ineffectiveness as a promoter of peace and security.
It is because of this ineffectiveness that though the original State of J&K, which comprised 2,22,236 sq km and independent India’s border in the northwest touched the Wakhan Corridor of Afghanistan and border to the north with China Occupied Tibet (COT) (Pakistan had no border with China), today Pakistan has been in illegal occupation of approximately 78,000 sq. km. of Indian territory in Jammu and Kashmir.
In addition, under the so-called China Pakistan ‘Boundary Agreement’ signed between China and Pakistan on March 2, 1963, Pakistan illegally ceded 5,180 sq. km. of Indian territory in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir to China.
It is a different matter that China-occupied Kashmir (COK) consists of 37,555 sq km of Aksai Chin plus 5,180 sq km of Shaksgam and territory nibbled over the years, totaling 42,735 sq km. However, there is now credible speculation that Pakistan is considering leasing Gilgit-Baltistan (72,971 sq km) to China for 50 years. Therefore, today, India has a Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan and a Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China.
In 1970, Pakistan divided the Erstwhile POJK (Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir) into two parts: Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan (Northern Areas). It is essential to note here that only Pakistan claims it as AJK. Otherwise, there is no Azadi or freedom, not even according to international laws.
Initially, the so-called Azad Kashmir was said to be a self-governing State under Pakistani control with a President, Prime Minister, and Legislative Assembly, whereas the northern areas, including the Gilgit and Baltistan regions, were made into autonomous self-governing bodies under Pakistani control.
The Interim Constitution Act of 1974 has left the “AJK” government with very little power. The real power rests with the “AJK Council,” chaired by Pakistan’s Prime Minister. Gilgit-Baltistan has a Governor appointed from Islamabad and a Chief Minister.
In 2009, the region was granted limited autonomy through the Self-Governance Order signed by then-Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari. Scholars say this move was a sham, with the governor’s real power resting with him and not with the chief minister or elected assembly.
Unfortunately, unlike their counterparts in India, the people of Jammu and Kashmir under Pakistan’s occupation are facing political, economic, and social exploitations.
In his book “The Two Kashmirs: A Comparative Analysis,” Sheikh Khalid, Secretary General of the International Centre for Peace Studies, provides hard data on life expectancy, literacy, healthcare, and education that clearly proves that the people of the so-called AJK have been oppressed. Their fundamental rights have been denied. Of the four million people who inhabit the region, nine out of 10 live in extremely impoverished conditions in rural areas.
An effective and impartial UN could have avoided all these miseries for the people of AJK and northern areas. Jaishankar is right that we need not only a strong but also a fair U.N.
