INDIA’S Foreign Minister Jaishankar’s latest statement on Kashmir is India’s fascist attempt at distorting histo-legal truth on Kashmir.
The Pakistan Foreign Office (FO) has condemned Indian FM’s recent remarks on Kashmir.
The Pakistan’s continued stance against India’s position on the region, viewing it as a violation of international norms and UN resolutions.
The true perspective of Kashmir upholds its status as a universally recognized disputed territory between India and Pakistan.
Whereas, India unjustifiably views it as an integral part of its territory, Pakistan rightly considers it a disputed region whose future should be determined by the people, often citing UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite via upholding Kashmiris’ right to self-determination.
While attempting to distort historical facts, Jaishankar said: “After the Second World War, the longest standing illegal presence and occupation of a territory by another country pertains to India, what we saw in Kashmir.
Now we went to the UN, 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 and [the] USA.”
And yet seen from a historical and international law context, Jaishankar’s Kashmir assertion holds no truth.
India’s assertion of complete sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir is absolutely fallacious.
Needless to say, the historical arguments revolving around the circumstances of the state’s accession to India in 1947, intrinsically support Kashmir as a disputed territory.
Additionally, the principle of self-determination, as enshrined in international law, is often invoked to question the legitimacy of India’s control, particularly given the unresolved status of the region.
India’s unjust occupation, annexation of Kashmir is largely attributed to its settler colonialism of Kashmir, which is universally condemned under the international treaties and the UN resolutions, Needless to say, several international treaties and conventions address aspects of settler colonialism, although few explicitly condemn it by name.
The Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) is relevant as it prohibits the transfer of an occupying power’s population into occupied territory, which is applicable to some instances of settler colonialism in both Israel and India.
The 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) includes provisions that could apply to certain acts associated with settler colonialism, particularly regarding war crimes.
Additionally, various UN resolutions and declarations, such as those concerning self-determination and human rights, condemn settler colonialism by affirming the rights of indigenous populations and condemning the denial of those rights.
Moreover, the UNGA’s resolution 1514 passed in 1960 holds a universal voice against settler colonialism , which is premised on the state’s recruitment of a class of settlers whose goal is to not only occupy the land of the Indigenous but also to eliminate the Indigenous who stand in their way.
This is what has been the fascist attempt of Narendra Modi to abrogate and revoke article 370 and 35-A from the Indian Constitution.
As per the United Nations’ Charter, indigenous communities do, in fact, have rights recognized by the law.
“[T]aking up the struggle for freedom,” particularly around the framework of settler colonialism, is a fundamental way for Kashmiris to “assert [their] international identity as people protected by international law.
The truth upholds: ‘’Whether India or other settler colonial states heed activism, their sovereignty, “inherent in every people,” will continue to exist regardless of whether India or the international order is willing to recognize them at this moment.
By all means, the right of self-determination is arguably the most crucial element for release from a settler colonial regime.
The fascist pursuits– of degrading its importance in law are entailed by political expediencies adopted by the so-called imperatives of western geopolitics –seem opposing international peace, justice and human rights.
Though the right to self-determination toes ’’the line between respecting the rights of subjugated people and upsetting utipossidetisjuris, the preference for the territorial status quo in the name of stability, international law still emphasizes the principle of self-determination as the pivot to fundamental human right protected under the UN’s Charter.
True, in 1948, India referred the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations, leading to the UNSC resolutions 38 and 47.
The core issue was the accession of Kashmir to India, disputed by Pakistan.
India sought UN intervention to address Pakistani involvement and prevent further conflict.
The resolutions called for a ceasefire, demilitarization and a plebiscite to determine Kashmir’s future, a process that was never fully implemented due to disagreements over demilitarization and the nature of the plebiscite.
And more pertinently, the Simla Agreement signed in July 1972 also forbids unilateral action to change the status of the occupied state.
‘’Clause 1(ii) of the agreement specifically states that neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation.
Clause 6 further emphasizes that both the countries should discuss modalities for a final settlement of the issue through diplomatic means.
’’ Make no mistake, revoking Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, the Modi government facilitates a settler-colonial regime.
The Modi government’s actions are therefore interpreted as a means of control and demographic engineering, favoring a specific political agenda.
This perspective emphasizes the potential for disenfranchisement of the native Kashmiri population.
Thus, an emboldened historical truth on Kashmir proclaims that being worried with the seemingly outcome of the plebiscite—that Kashmiris will chose to align with Pakistan, the then Indian Premier, Jawaharlal Nehru, skillfully used his clandestine diplomacy to topple the credo of the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir and until today, India has illegally occupied the Muslim majority territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
—The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also an expert in Conflict and Peace Studies (with special focus on Palestine, Kashmir), is member of European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR), including the Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law. (rizvipeaceresearcher@gmail.com)
