Bharatiya Pragna - Dr. Th Chowdary

Hadith, and now increasingly followed in Pakistan,
which calls on the faithful to wage war
against the infidels who cannot strike back effectively,
and crush them. This is why the
Kashmiri Hindu Pandits were driven out in the
first place.
The struggle for Kashmir by the
jihadis thus is not just for independence. By their
own declaration, they instead want a Darul Islam
there and for the state to become a part of the
Caliphate. We cannot allow in our national security
interest such a state in our frontier to emerge.
Hence the question of parting with Kashmir cannot
arise. We have to go all out instead to retain
Kashmir as a part of India wherein Hindus and
Muslims can live in peace and harmony, if possible,
or without that if necessary.
Pakistanis often
quote the UN resolutions
on Kashmir to argue
for a plebiscite. This
obfuscates the fact of
accession of the state to
India. The legality of the
Instrument of Accession signed in favour of India
by the then Maharaja of J&K, Hari Singh, on
October 26, 1947, has to prevail anyway. To disregard
it will create a plethora of legal issues including
what will become the status of the Maharaja
if we abrogate this Instrument and reopen
the question of Partition itself. Will therefore, for
example, Dr Karan Singh, the son of Maharaja
Hari Singh, have then a claim to be regarded again
as an independent and sovereign King of J&K ?
In the Junagadh issue, Pakistan had held the Instrument
once signed is “final, irrevocable, and
46
not requiring the wishes of the people to be ascertained”.
That is the correct legal position. But
the Junagadh Nawab after signing the Instrument
in favour of Pakistan, invaded the neighbouring
princely states, states which had acceded to India.
This violated the terms of the Indian Independence
Act (1947) enacted by the British Parliament.
So when the Indian Army was moved by
Patel to defend these areas, the Nawab fearful
of the consequences ran away to Pakistan. His
subjects mostly Hindu and abandoned, then welcomed
the Indian army to Junagadh.
Furthermore, on what legal basis can we de novo
seek to ascertain the wishes of the people of
J&K as Pakistan asks, when the Indian Independence
Act makes no provision for the same? After
all it was this same Act which created a legal
entity called Pakistan,
carved out from the
united India. India under
the Act was a settled
and continuing entity out
of which the British
Parliament made a new
entity called Pakistan.
Never in previous history was there ever a country
called Pakistan. The concept itself was conceptualized
as recently as in 1940 and legalised only
in 1947.
Never in previous history was
there ever a country called Pakistan. The
concept itself was conceptualized as recently
as in 1940 and legalised only in 1947.
By what mechanism can then Pakistan
today seek to amend or even disregard the Act
without unwittingly undermining the legal status
of Pakistan itself? That is, if the Instrument of
Accession is called into question, will not Partition
itself be subject to challenge as without legal
basis on the same consideration?
November & December 2008 Bharatiya Pragna