My column

[Guest guest]

>My column

>3 Aug 2002 06:40:41 -0000

>

>

>Please have a look at my column in 'opinion' section of

>www.outlookindia.com

>

>Ram Madhav

>

>Ram Madhav

>Joint Spokesman, RSS

>Keshavkunj, Jhandewallan

>D.B. Gupta Marg, New Delhi - 110055

 

"It is time India made it clear to the

world powers that as far as J&K is concerned

it is not even a bilateral issue as there is

nothing to discuss about it with any other country,

least of all with Pakistan."

 

Neither International Nor Bilateral

The RSS joint spokesman is more than peeved at

Colin Powell calling Kashmir an "international"

issue, and brings up the annexation of Texas by the USA.

 

RAM MADHAV

Mr. Powell wants to re-write history. His assertion

that the J&K issue is an "international" issue smacks

of some sinister design. Is the USA trying to fish in

the troubled waters of Indo-Pak relations? Is Powel

trying to give further credibility to the utterly

discredited regime of Musharraf? If so, for what end?

 

It is now certain that the US priorities

have shifted to West Asia where it is

trying to combat another anti-America

warlord Saddam Hussain. It is also clear

that the US wants to enlist the support

of as many Muslim nations as

possible in its upcoming fight against

Saddam so as to give an impression

that their fight is not against Islam

but primarily against certain tyrants only.

 

Also, Pakistan, with an acquiescent leader

like Musharraf, is a prize catch for America.

It will serve America’s political, war and

economic interests well to have control over

the region. American oil lobby, of which the

American president George Bush is a loyal

servant, can now complete its dream project

of the pipe line through Afghanistan and

Pakistan from Central Asian oil rich countries.

Political and war interests are too

well known to repeat here.

 

Mr. Powell’s statements have to be looked at from this

perspective. This reversal from their previous

declared position that the dispute is bilateral

is essentially aimed at placating Musharraf.

Mr. Powell’s fondness for Musharraf is nothing

new. He is the one man in the entire American

administration who has displayed unambiguous

support and adulation for the Pakistani dictator from the beginning.

 

J&K ceased to be an international issue the day

Shimla Agreement was signed in 1972. This position

was accepted by the UN as well. Mr. Kofi Annan,

Secretary General of the UN, also concurred with

this position when he admitted that the

issue should be resolved bilaterally

under the Shimla Agreement. Mr. Bush’s

administration has time and again taken

this position publicly. Even Mr. Jack Straw,

the British Secretary of State, in his

statement in the British Parliament

on 10 June 2002 declared emphatically,

"The dispute between India and Pakistan

is at root a bilateral matter which

can only be resolved by direct dialogue

between the parties."

 

By making a U-turn now, the US administration

is adding fuel to the fire that

is burning South Asia for quite some time.

 

It may be pertinent here to remind the world

about the 1994 unanimous resolution of

the Parliament of India in which it

was made clear that the only outstanding

issue between India and Pakistan that

needs discussion is the status of the

Pak occupied Kashmir. The Parliament had,

with one voice, rejected the idea that India

needs to entertain dialogue with Pakistan over J&K.

 

The accession of Jammu & Kashmir State

to Indian Union is total and unconditional.

The Instrument of Accession signed by the

Maharaja of Kashmir was in no way different

from the ones executed by over 535 other

Indian States. "It was unconditional, voluntary

and absolute", opines noted jurist and former

Chief Justice of India Justice J.S. Anand.

 

It was Mr. Mountbatten who tried to raise

the issue of ‘wishes of the people’

in his letters subsequent to the

accession. The Maharaja never accepted

Mountbatten’s view. "The finality,

which is statutory, cannot be made

contingent on conditions imposed

outside the powers of the statute.

Any rider which militates against

the finality is clearly ultra vires and

has to be rejected", notes Meher

Chand Mahajan,

the then Prime Minister under the Maharaja.

 

 

 

In fact it was Mir Liyaqat Ali Khan,

the then premier of Pakistan who

called the Accession ‘a fraud’.

Although Mr. Nehru took the dispute

to the UN in 1949, the core issue

at that time was not the Accession

but the Pakistani invasion and

illegal control of some parts of the State.

The 1994 resolution of the

Indian Parliament had reiterated that position.

 

By terming the J&K issue ‘international’

Mr. Powel is toeing the line taken by

successive Pak leaders starting from

Mir Liyaqat Ali Khan up to Musharraf.

As far as India is concerned, J&K is

an integral part of India. Section 3

of the J&K Constitution, which was

adopted unanimously by the State’s Constituent

Assembly in 1956, clearly states this.

 

By calling the J&K issue international,

Mr. Powel is questioning the validity

of the very fundamental issue of

Accession of the State to Indian Union.

 

In fact students of American history

would remember the way Americans had

annexed the State of Texas in 1845.

Texas, along with Mexico, was a part

of the Spanish empire from which they

secured independence in 1844. Texas

became an integral part of the new

State of Mexico. But Texas revolted

against Mexico and established its Independence.

The US and many European powers immediately

recognized the new State of Texas.

 

Peeved Mexicans tried to regain control over

Texas through incursions. The Government of

Texas then urged the US to annex it in the

US and protect from Mexico, which the US did

promptly by passing a joint resolution in

American Congress in March 1945.

Subsequently the US army was sent to

push back the Mexican incursions.

 

When Mexico protested against the violation

of the US of its sovereignty, the reply given

by the US was: " The Government of United States

did not consider this joint resolution as a

violation of any of the rights of Mexico, or

that it offered any just cause or offense to

its Government; that the Republic of Texas as

an independent power, owing no allegiance to Mexico,

and constituting no part of her territory or rightful

sovereignty and jurisdiction."

 

Why doesn't Mr. Powell apply the same yardstick to J&K?

Is Texas issue international? Can there be a dialogue

with Mexico over that? Then why over J&K with Pakistan?

 

While American annexation of Texas can still have certain

question marks over its legality and finality, there was

no such thing at all in the accession of J&K. In Mission

with Mountbatten, Allen Campbell-Johnson writes:

"Indeed, the State’s Ministry, under Patel’s

direction, went out of its way to take no action

which could be interpreted as forcing Kashmir’s hand

and to give assurances that accession to Pakistan

would not be taken amiss by India".

 

It is time India made it clear to the world

powers that as far as J&K is concerned it

is not even a bilateral issue as there is

nothing to discuss about it with any other country,

least of all with Pakistan.

 

(The writer is Joint Spokesman of the RSS)