Zibago
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,006
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
Between the Dominions
The difference between India''s and Pakistan’s approach to J&K can be gathered by their respective constitutions
Adv Asrar Ali
Srinagar | Posted : Sep 26 2016 1:07AM | Updated: Sep 25 2016 10:26PM
0 0 0
Representational Pic
On the eve of Indian Independence, the British Govt. made it clear that Paramountcy would lapse and whatever rights and privilege comprised paramountcy would revert to the state simultaneously with the coming into existence of the two dominions of India and Pakistan. One important issue remained unresolved:-
Whether the rights of paramountcy reverted to autocratic ruler of the state or to the people of state. This was the first stage when India played dual character, Indian leadership at that point of time was knowing it that most of the princely states have Hindu majority ruled by a Muslim Ruler as a result of which Indian Leadership pleaded vehemently that on departure of the British sovereignty vested in the King should revert to the people of the state. Though Muslim League was initially opposing it but later on compelled by the circumstances did not remain adamant on it as the Jammu & Kashmir was live example before them for doing so. So, undoubtedly the paramountcy rights after independence were reverted back to the people of every princely state as was desired by the Indian leadership, so the question arises that how come Indian leadership in one breath held it right that the people of every princely states shall be provided the rights of paramountcy and on the other hand signed an instrument of accession with the ruler of J&K which was a big hypocrisy on their part.
Very little could be done by Pakistan’s shocked Governor General M. A. Jinah whose army general Douglas Gracy preferred to act on the orders received from Governor General of India Lord Mountbatten. On the other hand the Indian Leadership were continuously hoodwinking the Maharaja Hari Singh and Sheikh Abdullah with false promises and dream of secular India that proved to be a mirage and were busy in creating the circumstances that would constrain the Maharaja to sign an instrument of Accession though for a temporary period and with a certain limitations, but India was sure that once instrument would be signed then India can forcibly retain it. And by playing fraud and deceit which is still continuing till date.
Pakistan’s good faith can be seen from the very beginning when Muslim League was in favour of the rulers of princely states by reverting them the rights of paramountcy which was vehemently denied by Indian leadership. Secondly, the good faith can be witnessed when the Pakistan signed standstill agreement with Maharaja of J&K but India did not.
The difference between India and Pakistan’s intention viz-a-viz J&K can be gathered by their respective constitutions:-
• Article 1 of J&K Constitution narrates that the state of J&K is and shall be an integral part of the union of India.
• Article 5 of J&K Constitution states that the executive and legislative powers of the state do not extend to matters except those with respect to which parliament has power to make laws for the state under the provisions of constitution of India.
While Pakistan have taken a soft stance on the issue. As per the constitution of Pakistan:-
• Article 257 utters that when the people of state of J&K decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and the state shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of the state.
• The stance of Pakistan Administered Kashmir is very much close to the reality means that Pakistan have not forced those people to carry forward the will and stance of Pakistan. The constitution of Azad J&K in its preamble enunciates as:
This shows that India is deceitful towards J&K from the very begging and the present leadership of India is carrying forward the same legacy.
Asrar Ali is practices in J&K High Court, Srinagar
http://m.greaterkashmir.com/news/opinion/story/229276.html
The difference between India''s and Pakistan’s approach to J&K can be gathered by their respective constitutions
Adv Asrar Ali
Srinagar | Posted : Sep 26 2016 1:07AM | Updated: Sep 25 2016 10:26PM
0 0 0
Representational Pic
On the eve of Indian Independence, the British Govt. made it clear that Paramountcy would lapse and whatever rights and privilege comprised paramountcy would revert to the state simultaneously with the coming into existence of the two dominions of India and Pakistan. One important issue remained unresolved:-
Whether the rights of paramountcy reverted to autocratic ruler of the state or to the people of state. This was the first stage when India played dual character, Indian leadership at that point of time was knowing it that most of the princely states have Hindu majority ruled by a Muslim Ruler as a result of which Indian Leadership pleaded vehemently that on departure of the British sovereignty vested in the King should revert to the people of the state. Though Muslim League was initially opposing it but later on compelled by the circumstances did not remain adamant on it as the Jammu & Kashmir was live example before them for doing so. So, undoubtedly the paramountcy rights after independence were reverted back to the people of every princely state as was desired by the Indian leadership, so the question arises that how come Indian leadership in one breath held it right that the people of every princely states shall be provided the rights of paramountcy and on the other hand signed an instrument of accession with the ruler of J&K which was a big hypocrisy on their part.
Very little could be done by Pakistan’s shocked Governor General M. A. Jinah whose army general Douglas Gracy preferred to act on the orders received from Governor General of India Lord Mountbatten. On the other hand the Indian Leadership were continuously hoodwinking the Maharaja Hari Singh and Sheikh Abdullah with false promises and dream of secular India that proved to be a mirage and were busy in creating the circumstances that would constrain the Maharaja to sign an instrument of Accession though for a temporary period and with a certain limitations, but India was sure that once instrument would be signed then India can forcibly retain it. And by playing fraud and deceit which is still continuing till date.
Pakistan’s good faith can be seen from the very beginning when Muslim League was in favour of the rulers of princely states by reverting them the rights of paramountcy which was vehemently denied by Indian leadership. Secondly, the good faith can be witnessed when the Pakistan signed standstill agreement with Maharaja of J&K but India did not.
The difference between India and Pakistan’s intention viz-a-viz J&K can be gathered by their respective constitutions:-
• Article 1 of J&K Constitution narrates that the state of J&K is and shall be an integral part of the union of India.
• Article 5 of J&K Constitution states that the executive and legislative powers of the state do not extend to matters except those with respect to which parliament has power to make laws for the state under the provisions of constitution of India.
While Pakistan have taken a soft stance on the issue. As per the constitution of Pakistan:-
• Article 257 utters that when the people of state of J&K decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and the state shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of the state.
• The stance of Pakistan Administered Kashmir is very much close to the reality means that Pakistan have not forced those people to carry forward the will and stance of Pakistan. The constitution of Azad J&K in its preamble enunciates as:
This shows that India is deceitful towards J&K from the very begging and the present leadership of India is carrying forward the same legacy.
Asrar Ali is practices in J&K High Court, Srinagar
http://m.greaterkashmir.com/news/opinion/story/229276.html
