Demographic changes in IIOJ&K: Implications
BASED on the constitutional amendment introduced by the Modi government and passed by India’s parliament, on 5 August 2019, the Modi-led government repealed Articles 370 and 35-A of the Indian Constitution, ended the autonomous status of the Indian Illegal Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJ&K) and divided the disputed region with Pakistan into two union territories of India. This was done despite the fact that the Jammu and Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India had been recognized by the UNSC vide its 1948 resolutions.
The UNSC resolutions had asked for resolving the dispute by holding the plebiscite under UNSC’s supervision, to determine whether the people of Jammu and Kashmir State wanted to join Pakistan or India. Both, Pakistan and India, had accepted the aforementioned UNSC resolutions. Later, Pakistan and India had also agreed to resolve the Kashmir dispute by holding bilateral discussions. However, since 1948, India used delaying tactics and failed all UNSC efforts of holding the plebiscite in J&K, and India also never discussed the Jammu and Kashmir dispute with Pakistan during bilateral talks.
Article 370 of the Indian Constitution granted special autonomous status to the occupied Jammu and Kashmir, and allowed the region to have its own flag, freedom to make its own regulations for permanent residency, ownership of property and fundamental rights. Article 35-A had barred outsiders, including Indian nationals from other states, from settling and claiming government jobs to maintain the demographic balance in the region. After 5 August 2019, the Modi government has enacted a new demography law for Jammu and Kashmir which allows some categories of Indian Hindus to get Jammu and Kashmir’s citizenship.
According to an article titled “India’s residency law in Kashmir amplifies demographic fears”, printed in the AP dated 5 August 2020, the new law, introduced in May 2020, makes it possible for any Indian national who has lived in the region for at least 15 years or has studied for seven years and taken certain examinations, to become a permanent resident in Jammu-Kashmir. The Indian government is ensuring that the process is fast-tracked and has introduced a fine of 50,000 rupees ($670) to be deducted from the salary of any official in the territory who delays the process.
Those receiving domicile certificates include Hindu refugees from Pakistan following the 1947 partition of the subcontinent, Gurkha soldiers from Nepal who had served in the Indian army, outside bureaucrats working in the region and some marginalized Hindu communities. About 400,000 people have been given domicile certificates in over a month, Pawan Kotwal, a top Indian official was quoted by the Tribune, a north Indian English-daily.
According to Al-Jazeera news dated 5 August 2020, the people of Jammu and Kashmir strongly feel that the move of scrapping Articles 35 (A) and 370 of the Indian Constitution on 5 August 2019, has drawn parallel to the occupied West Bank, because this has raised fear of the beginning of demographic changes in the Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir, which, according to a census conducted by India in 2011, comprised 12.5 million total population, 68.31% Muslims and 28.43% Hindus.
According to the Stand with Kashmir newspaper, India is systematically paving the way for settler colonialism in occupied J&K by forcing demographic change, institutionalizing a system of domination over indigenous population and obviating the people’s exercise of their right to self-determination. These changes are a clear violation of international human rights and humanitarian law as well as India’s international and domestic obligations.
According to the Middle East Eye (MEE), Kashmir’s oldest and main pro-India political party, the National Conference, slammed the move as a mission for a “major land grab” that could “turn the entire region into a military establishment.” India allowing outsiders to become residents, many worry such a move could alter the results of a plebiscite if it were to ever take place, even though it was promised under the 1948 United Nations resolutions that gave Kashmir the choice of joining either Pakistan or India.
The MEE further said, “Whereas the Indian authorities had billed the G-20 summit as a way to showcase the developments that had taken place in the region since Delhi revoked Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status and imposed central rule on the region, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt declined to attend the G-20 meeting, held from 22 to 24 May 2023, due to the reason that India was holding the meeting in a disputed territory, i.e., “Occupied Jammu and Kashmir.” G-20 meeting without the presence of these countries is likely to be seen as a failed diplomatic attempt to normalize its hold of the disputed territory”.
The above-mentioned laws have angered the region’s people, as the people of Jammu and Kashmir want a plebiscite to be held under the UNSC supervision as promised, so that they could vote in favour of joining the Jammu and Kashmir State with Pakistan. Saiba Varma, an Assistant Professor of Cultural & Medical Anthropology at the University of California, San Diego said, “There are efforts to destroy the local, distinctive cultural identity of Kashmiris and forcibly assimilate Kashmiri Muslims into a Hindu, Indian polity.
In view of the above discussion, it is suggested that the Pakistan government should consistently highlight the issue of changing the demography of Jammu and Kashmir State by India at all world forums, such as the OIC, SCO, EU, ASEAN and the UNGA/UNSC. In this context, it would be better if Pakistan takes up this matter with the UNSC, with a view that the UNSC should pass a resolution calling India to stop issuing domicile/citizenship in 0ccupied Jammu and Kashmir, being the disputed territory between India and Pakistan. Likewise, Pakistan should also plead in the UNSC that bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories by India was illegal and a direct violation of the UNSC resolutions, and that India should restore Jammu and Kashmir’s original status of being an autonomous state.
—The writer is also a former Research Fellow of IPRI and Senior Research Fellow of SVI Islamabad.
Email: [email protected]
