The special status of Kashmir enshrined in Art. 370 (and 35A) of the Indian constitution, already hollowed out over many years and under successive governments, was revoked by New Delhi on August 5, 2019 illegally and without any consultation with the Kashmiri population.
Six political parties in occupied and illegally annexed Jammu and Kashmir have put out a declaration resolving to fight against the revocation of IOJK’s special constitutional status. They are the National Conference (NC), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the Indian National Congress, the J&K Peoples Conference (JKPC), the CPI(M) and the Awami National Conference (ANC).
The declaration is being branded Gupkar 2 and presumably follows Gupkar Declaration 1 which was put out on August 4 by the parties, a day before New Delhi raided and revoked Art. 370. Gupkar refers to a famous road in Srinagar where Farooq Abdullah’s house is situated.
The declaration castigates New Delhi’s decision to alter the region’s status as “grossly unconstitutional” and a “measure to disempower” Kashmiris and reiterates the resolve of the parties that there can be “nothing about us without us”.
In essence, Gupkar 2 flows from Gupkar 1 of August 4, 2019 wherein the parties had unanimously resolved:
So, what should one make of this?
Short answer: it’s the political equivalent of click-bait.
Let’s get to the longer answer.
First, Art. 370: As A G Noorani, the eminent Indian lawyer and writer, has shown, in his book, Article 370: A Constitutional History of Jammu and Kashmir, most provisions regarding J&K’s special status had already been much eroded over many years. And this erosion was done in collaboration with Kashmiri politicians, a bunch similar to the ones who today want the hollowed-out Article 370 restored. One cannot over-emphasise this point enough. The politicians who claim to speak on behalf of the Kashmiris are quislings who have played a role worse than India by actively collaborating with the colonists.
Second, Art. 370 flowed from deliberations by politicians, notably Sheikh Abdullah, who had accepted the dubious instrument of accession signed by Hari Singh, even though Hari Singh had lost effective control of many areas in his territory at the time he allegedly signed the instrument of accession. Those areas are what we call liberated areas and constitute Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. The significance of Art. 370 never lay in its being an instrument acceptable to Kashmiris as a final settlement but as an interim arrangement in an occupied territory pending final settlement and as a guarantee against any excesses by India.
Consequently, disputing the revocation of Art. 370 does not mean accepting Art. 370 as the ultimate destiny of occupied Kashmir. Instead, contesting that revocation is intended only to further highlight the violation by India of the UN Security Council resolutions as well as the violation of bilateral arrangements with Pakistan and China (as indicated by Beijing on the issue of Line of Actual Control in eastern Ladakh).
Third, Gupkar 2 states that “The series of measures undertaken on 5th August 2019 were grossly unconstitutional.” This is a deceptive statement because while it refers to the Indian constitution by using the term “grossly unconstitutional”, it conveniently ignores that the action by New Delhi is also in contravention of the provisions of UN Security Council resolutions adopted on January 24, 1957, and then December 2, 1957. In other words, by agitating the point with reference to India’s constitution, the adopters of Gupkar 2 deny J&K’s status as territory occupied by India and in fact reiterate that they are Indians, Kashmir is an Indian territory and must, therefore, be treated constitutionally.
This is nonsense. Kashmiris have made clear that they do not consider themselves Indians and have no desire to be ruled by New Delhi and its local acolytes whether within the framework of Art. 370 or outside it.
Fourth, the Security Council has not only affirmed (in 1951) the principle that “the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations” but had further resolved (in 1957) that resolutions and actions by the supposed constituent assembly “would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle.”
Fifth, since memories are notoriously short, Dr Farooq Abdullah, his son and other quislings in Occupied Kashmir would do well to recall Sheikh Abdullah’s arrest and incarceration following the Kashmir Conspiracy Case. The Sheikh, most responsible for tying Kashmir’s future with India through a special status arrangement, had become so disappointed with New Delhi by 1953 that he openly began advocating the right of self-determination for Kashmiris and patronised what came to be called the Plebiscite Front. He was dismissed, arrested and incarcerated while New Delhi then, as now, tried to run the affairs of the state through another set of quislings.
Narendra Modi’s government tried to cut the Gordian knot by revoking Art. 370. It apparently thought that breaking that taboo would work to its advantage, that time was on its side. But it miscalculated. By detaining even those who collaborated with India over the past decades, it has lost everyone in occupied Kashmir — at least to the extent of support for its action on August 5. But since these politicians are looking for relevance through restoration of Art. 370, New Delhi could use restoration of the earlier position as a bargaining chip through these discredited politicians. New Delhi could also sell this to world capitals that, while being disconcerted by India’s actions subsequent to August 5, continue to avoid the centrality of the problem. In fact, chatter shows that it might be in the process of doing this, at least to test the waters.
It would be a huge mistake for anyone, especially Pakistan and the Kashmiris to allow India this space. Art. 370 is of no use anymore, except as a reminder of India’s perfidy when it comes to dealing with Kashmir. Also, the collaborating politicians who are now trying to present themselves as fighting for Kashmir are catching at the straw of Art. 370, trying to make themselves relevant. The irony is that they still cannot — or choose not to — get the full measure of public sentiment.
Pakistani policymakers would do well to appreciate these moves on the chessboard. Let New Delhi not use restoration of Art. 370 as a means to deflect world opinion from the central, fundamental issue, namely the right to self-determination for Kashmiris under the relevant UNSC resolutions.
That is the real point of agitation. The rest is irrelevant.
The writer is a former News Editor of the Friday Times. He reluctantly tweets @ejazhaider
Six political parties in occupied and illegally annexed Jammu and Kashmir have put out a declaration resolving to fight against the revocation of IOJK’s special constitutional status. They are the National Conference (NC), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the Indian National Congress, the J&K Peoples Conference (JKPC), the CPI(M) and the Awami National Conference (ANC).
The declaration is being branded Gupkar 2 and presumably follows Gupkar Declaration 1 which was put out on August 4 by the parties, a day before New Delhi raided and revoked Art. 370. Gupkar refers to a famous road in Srinagar where Farooq Abdullah’s house is situated.
The declaration castigates New Delhi’s decision to alter the region’s status as “grossly unconstitutional” and a “measure to disempower” Kashmiris and reiterates the resolve of the parties that there can be “nothing about us without us”.
In essence, Gupkar 2 flows from Gupkar 1 of August 4, 2019 wherein the parties had unanimously resolved:
- That all the parties would be united in their resolve to protect and defend the identity, autonomy and special status of J&K against all attacks and onslaughts whatsoever.
- That modification, abrogation of Articles 35A, 370, unconstitutional delimitation or trifurcation of the State would be an aggression against the people of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.
- That the parties participating in the meeting resolved to seek audience with the President and Prime Minister of India and the leaders of other political parties to apprise them of the current situation and make an appeal to them to safeguard the legitimate interests of the people of the State with regard to the guarantees given to the State by the Constitution of our country. (italics added)
So, what should one make of this?
Short answer: it’s the political equivalent of click-bait.
Let’s get to the longer answer.
First, Art. 370: As A G Noorani, the eminent Indian lawyer and writer, has shown, in his book, Article 370: A Constitutional History of Jammu and Kashmir, most provisions regarding J&K’s special status had already been much eroded over many years. And this erosion was done in collaboration with Kashmiri politicians, a bunch similar to the ones who today want the hollowed-out Article 370 restored. One cannot over-emphasise this point enough. The politicians who claim to speak on behalf of the Kashmiris are quislings who have played a role worse than India by actively collaborating with the colonists.
Second, Art. 370 flowed from deliberations by politicians, notably Sheikh Abdullah, who had accepted the dubious instrument of accession signed by Hari Singh, even though Hari Singh had lost effective control of many areas in his territory at the time he allegedly signed the instrument of accession. Those areas are what we call liberated areas and constitute Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. The significance of Art. 370 never lay in its being an instrument acceptable to Kashmiris as a final settlement but as an interim arrangement in an occupied territory pending final settlement and as a guarantee against any excesses by India.
Consequently, disputing the revocation of Art. 370 does not mean accepting Art. 370 as the ultimate destiny of occupied Kashmir. Instead, contesting that revocation is intended only to further highlight the violation by India of the UN Security Council resolutions as well as the violation of bilateral arrangements with Pakistan and China (as indicated by Beijing on the issue of Line of Actual Control in eastern Ladakh).
Third, Gupkar 2 states that “The series of measures undertaken on 5th August 2019 were grossly unconstitutional.” This is a deceptive statement because while it refers to the Indian constitution by using the term “grossly unconstitutional”, it conveniently ignores that the action by New Delhi is also in contravention of the provisions of UN Security Council resolutions adopted on January 24, 1957, and then December 2, 1957. In other words, by agitating the point with reference to India’s constitution, the adopters of Gupkar 2 deny J&K’s status as territory occupied by India and in fact reiterate that they are Indians, Kashmir is an Indian territory and must, therefore, be treated constitutionally.
This is nonsense. Kashmiris have made clear that they do not consider themselves Indians and have no desire to be ruled by New Delhi and its local acolytes whether within the framework of Art. 370 or outside it.
Fourth, the Security Council has not only affirmed (in 1951) the principle that “the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations” but had further resolved (in 1957) that resolutions and actions by the supposed constituent assembly “would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle.”
Fifth, since memories are notoriously short, Dr Farooq Abdullah, his son and other quislings in Occupied Kashmir would do well to recall Sheikh Abdullah’s arrest and incarceration following the Kashmir Conspiracy Case. The Sheikh, most responsible for tying Kashmir’s future with India through a special status arrangement, had become so disappointed with New Delhi by 1953 that he openly began advocating the right of self-determination for Kashmiris and patronised what came to be called the Plebiscite Front. He was dismissed, arrested and incarcerated while New Delhi then, as now, tried to run the affairs of the state through another set of quislings.
Narendra Modi’s government tried to cut the Gordian knot by revoking Art. 370. It apparently thought that breaking that taboo would work to its advantage, that time was on its side. But it miscalculated. By detaining even those who collaborated with India over the past decades, it has lost everyone in occupied Kashmir — at least to the extent of support for its action on August 5. But since these politicians are looking for relevance through restoration of Art. 370, New Delhi could use restoration of the earlier position as a bargaining chip through these discredited politicians. New Delhi could also sell this to world capitals that, while being disconcerted by India’s actions subsequent to August 5, continue to avoid the centrality of the problem. In fact, chatter shows that it might be in the process of doing this, at least to test the waters.
It would be a huge mistake for anyone, especially Pakistan and the Kashmiris to allow India this space. Art. 370 is of no use anymore, except as a reminder of India’s perfidy when it comes to dealing with Kashmir. Also, the collaborating politicians who are now trying to present themselves as fighting for Kashmir are catching at the straw of Art. 370, trying to make themselves relevant. The irony is that they still cannot — or choose not to — get the full measure of public sentiment.
Pakistani policymakers would do well to appreciate these moves on the chessboard. Let New Delhi not use restoration of Art. 370 as a means to deflect world opinion from the central, fundamental issue, namely the right to self-determination for Kashmiris under the relevant UNSC resolutions.
That is the real point of agitation. The rest is irrelevant.
The writer is a former News Editor of the Friday Times. He reluctantly tweets @ejazhaider