Kashmir conundrum
Kazi Anwarul Masud
| August 18, 2019 00:00:00
On August 11, following Narendra Modi-Amit
Shah's constitutional coup for bifurcating Jammu and Kashmir and integrating
them into Union territory, father of Pakistan's atomic weapons Dr Abdul Quader
Khan's irresponsible utterance that Pakistan can reduce Delhi in five minutes
has astounded the world and created tension in South Asia. Dr. Quader's
statement implied nuclear war that would damage India and obliterate Pakistan
from the face of the earth. Though Pakistan's reaction has predictably been
short of sabre-rattling and instead opted for diplomatic and trade sanctions,
the unfolding drama is yet far from over. The world at large has been mute to
the highhandedness of the BJP government over Jammu and Kashmir (except China
who has promised to stand by Pakistan). The London Observer has commented,
"It is a lawless world where the rules no longer apply, where pacts and
treaties are bypassed or torn up, where nations blindly pursue perceived
self-interest and where minorities, however defined, are mocked, ignored and
exploited." The Observer went on to add, "Not a word of public
criticism of Modi's high-handed behaviour. Not a thought, apparently, for the
dire implications for the UN's authority, international law and the so-called
rules-based global order. Not an iota of understanding that India's enhanced
military occupation may revive a conflict that weaponises religion, race and
identity in place of democratic dialogue and inclusion".
Years back, American South Asian affairs
specialist Stephen Cohen had described the region as one of the most dangerous
places in the world. Noted lawyer and writer A. G. Noorani in his long article
(Murder of Insanyat and India's solemn commitment to Kashmir-13-08-2019) has
written, "The President's order under Article 370 made on August 5, 2019,
the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill and the two resolutions passed this
week by parliament were conceived in malice and executed in deceit. They reduce
Kashmir to India's colony." A. G. Noorani's main contention has been that
the abolishment of article 370 has been illegal and unconstitutional as the
revocation of the article requires consent of the state assembly which does not
exist at the moment and the Governor appointed by the Centre cannot assume upon
himself the mantle of the "state assembly". Mr. Noorani further
argues that "Clause (3) is relevant for the issue of amendments.
It says: "(3) Notwithstanding anything
in the forgoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public
notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be
operative only with such exceptions and modifications and form such date as he
may specify: provided that the recommendation of the constituent assembly of
the state referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President
issues such a notification." Article 368 on parliament's power to amend
India's constitution does not apply to J&K unless the amendment is applied
to the state by the president under Article 370. Once the constituent assembly
of Jammu and Kashmir was "convened", to use the exact word in Article
370, the state government lost its interim power to accord its concurrence. And
when this body dispersed on January 27, 1957 after adopting the state's
constitution, there vanished also the President's powers - under Article 370 -
to add more legislative powers to the Centre in respect of J&K or extend to
the state any other provision of the constitution of India".
While the legality of the abrogation of
article 370 and allied measures will depend on the judgement delivered by the
Indian Supreme Court which for the moment has reserved its opinion due to the
prevailing situation in Kashmir, the US on August 7 called for urgent dialogue
between India and Pakistan to reduce tension in the area. The call was rejected
by India as she considers the whole situation as the internal affair of India.
It also has to be recalled that unlike other princely states Kashmir acceded to
but did not merge with the Union of India and secured autonomy in all matters
except defence, foreign affairs and communication. Additionally, under Article
35A, added to the Indian constitution in 1954, Kashmiri citizens were afforded
additional special rights and privileges, including with regard to property
ownership and government jobs. The valley remains cut off from the rest of
India and the world due to restrictions imposed by the Centre. Stephen Sacker's
Hard Talk interview on August 14 of a former IAS officer who had topped the
list of candidates in the year he sat for the IAS examination revealed the
seriousness of the situation when he spoke of Indian governments' betrayal of
his grandfather's generation, his father's generation and now his generation
reducing young Kashmiris to be either "stooges" of the Centre or
"separatists". Ramesh Thakur in an op-ed in the
Project Syndicate on August 9, 2019
apprehended that "government, ruled by Modi's Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP), threatens to transform the country into a kind of Hindu
Pakistan. The BJP government's religious chauvinism, together with its handling
of the Kashmir conflict, has severely damaged India's reputation".
In conclusion, one may hesitate to
pronounce a definitive opinion as the situation is still evolving and hopefully
Pakistan would not try to play with fire by increasing the activities of the
separatists and jihadists and the BJP government will recognise that Bikash
(development) is not the sole wish of the Kashmiris and also consider the
legality and constitutionality of the abolition of article 370 and ponder why
from Pandit Jawharlal Nehru to other Indian leaders did not do what the BJP
government has done. Chest thumping and electoral wins aside, India's national
security and the peace and prosperity of South Asia should also be considered.
Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary
and ambassador.
kamasud23@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment