We have the accession documents. so it remains an Indian state
Although, at first glance, India’s claim to Kashmir appears consistent with international law, a more thorough analysis suggests otherwise !!
1) International law clearly states that every treaty entered into by a member of the United Nations must be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations.
"The Instrument of Accession" was neither presented to the United Nations nor to Pakistan. Hence India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.
2) The legality of the Instrument of Accession may also be questioned on grounds that it was obtained under coercion. The International Court of Justice has stated that there
"can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void."..... India’s military intervention in Kashmir was provisional upon the Maharaja’s signing of the Instrument of Accession. More importantly, however, the evidence suggests that Indian troops were pouring into Srinigar even before the Maharaja had signed the treaty. This fact would suggest that the treaty was signed under duress.
3) The Maharaja had no authority to sign the treaty, hence the Instrument of Accession can be considered without legal standing . The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was hardly in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Hari Singh was in flight from the state capital, Srinigar. And it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power .....
Thus, an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Instrument of Accession shows that the accession of Kashmir to India was neither complete nor legal, as Delhi has vociferously contended for over sixty years.
Alastair Lamb (in his book, Kashmir - A disputed legacy 1846-1990) points out that the Instrument of Accession could not have been signed by the Mahrajah on 26th October as he was travelling by road to Jammu (a distance of over 350 Km). There is no evidence to suggest that a meeting or communication of any kind took place on 26th October 1947. In fact it was on 27th October 1947 that the Mahrajah was informed by his MC Mahajan and VP Menon (who had flown into Srinagar), the the Instrument of Accession had already been negotiated in Dehli. The Mahrajah did not in fact sign the Instrument of Accession, if at all, until 27th October 1947. This sheds doubts on the actions of the Indian regime
Moreover, further shedding doubt on the treaty`s validity, in 1995 Indian authorities claimed that the original copy of the treaty (letter of accession) was either stolen or lost !!!
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), based in Geneva, passed a resolution in 1993 proclaiming Kashmir's accession to India as bogus and null and void.
Kashmir: not an integral part of India - thenews.com.pk
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Kashmir: The origins of the dispute
http://icj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/...hmir-fact-finding-mission-report-1995-eng.pdf
Therefore, letter of accession is lost, if not lost, null (declared by ICJ, UN Resolutions and PM Jawaharlal Nehru), if not null, void by the very people its supposed to serve. Even if its not void, the provision of the letter of accession lets the people of J&K decide their fate (according to PM Jawaharlal Nehru)
In his broadcast to the nation over All India Radio on 2nd November, 1947,
Pandit Nehru said,:
"We are anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide ------ And let me make it clear that it has been our policy that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that state. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir".
ha haa... read UNSC security council resolution on kashmir and state the pre-requisites for plebiscite....
Your claim that Pakistan halted the process is simply wrong . The whole world knows that it was India who halted the process .
Here is the resolution (resolution 98) :
3.
Notes that agreement on a plan of demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not been reached because the Governments of India and Pakistan have not agreed on the whole of paragraph 7 of the twelve-point proposals
4.
Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3,000 and 6,000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line and between 12,000 and 18,000 armed forces remaining on the India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952;
Pakistan agreed But India refused to reduce the number of troops , And this is what halted the process .... Demilitarization would have followed once terms and conditions had been settled ... But India was never serious in conducting a plebiscite in Kashmir , fearing that the Muslim Majority of J&K would vote against India
Remember, UNCIP chief blamed India for the halt of the plebiscite process in Kashmir. That's who should know whose fault it was.
The London Economist stated that "the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [the Kashmiri people]...has been obstructing a holding of an internationally supervised plebis-cite." Sir Owen Dixon, the United Nations Representative to the UNCIP, reported to the Security Council that,
In the end, I became convinced that Indias agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled.
In this regard, Indias apparent efforts to obstruct the holding of a plebiscite in Kashmir stand in violation of international law. !!
And then the reasons :
The matter of fact is Nehru was not serious in holding a plebiscite in Kashmir from Day 1 .... He was only trying to fool the people of Kashmir and the international community ...
Writing to the Chief Minister of West Bengal, B.C. Roy on 29 June 1953,
Nehru confided
“If there was a plebiscite, a great majority of Muslims in Kashmir would go against us.” They had “become frightened of the communal elements in Jammu and in India.” He had “this feeling of our losing grip in Kashmir.” [
Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 22, pp.204-5]
In 1996 was published a Note Nehru had written to Sheikh Abdullah on 25 August 1952 from Sonamarg in Kashmir. It is a document of cardinal importance. It laid bare Nehru’s entire approach to the questions; his strategy and tactics. He revealed that “towards the end of 1948” he concluded that “there were only two possibilities open to us, continuance of the war in a limited way; (2) some kind of a settlement on the basis of the existing military situation”. He had accepted the UNCIP resolutions to get a ceasefire; not to hold a plebiscite. “We are superior to Pakistan in military and industrial power,” With the passage of time Pakistan will “accept a settlement which we consider fair, whether in Kashmir or elsewhere”.
He was not bothered about what “Pakistan did or what the United Nations might do.” But he was “worried to find that the leaders of Kashmir were not so clear in their minds about the present or the future.” He was not worried about the wishes of the people either. They were “not what are called a virile people. They are soft and addicted to easy living.” Like Indira Gandhi, he felt that they were interested in “an honest administration and cheap and adequate food. If they get this, then they are more or less content.” The State would retain its “autonomy in most respects.” The leaders must shed doubt as doubt “percolates to their followers.” His recipe was clear. “Make the people think that the association of Kashmir State with India is an accomplished and final fact, and nothing is going to undo it.”
[Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 19, pp.322-330. ed. S. Gopal, Nehru Memorial Fund, OUP, Second Series.]
what were your election figures in KPK, Balochistan and fata? but then again democracy isn't a strong suite in pakistan to begin with so my question is a moot point.
And how is that related to elections held in an "internationally recognized disputed territory" ??
India itself promised right of self determination for the people of Kashmir in UN . But now :
1) India claims that Kashmir is an integral part of India
2) India claims that elections in Kashmir are an alternative to the "plebiscite"
UN rejects Indian claims .......
And a low election turnout proves that Kashmiris also reject the Indian claims ...
Your words sounds like pot calling the Kettle black.
:
