On March 18, 2010 senior PDP leader and MLA Syed Basharat Bukhari asked the ruling National Conference not to fool the masses with hollow slogan of autonomy. Bukhari has reminded the chief minister of five previous NC tenures in Government in 1947, 1952, 1975, 1987 and 1996. If one adds 2009 to the list, the six tenures should be enough for any political party to answer any charge sheet and to offer its balance sheet of public good. The Government has to answer two serious allegations; one of being the ‘most cruel’ and second of fooling the people with autonomy slogan.
The two serious concerns are now in public domain and need a close scrutiny. It is over an year now, when Omar Abdullah was sworn in as the chief minister of the state and vowed that “I will faithfully and conscientiously discharge the duty upon which I am about to enter and that I will do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”. However the chief minister of the state has, so far, never been tested on this ground.
J & K Assembly has a very special place in discharging a public trust, in India-Pakistan relations and in the final dispensation of the future status of Jammu and Kashmir. It accrues a constitutional duty under article 4 to defend the territorial integrity of the State and under article 48 it has to make sure that the J&K assembly is representative of all the people. The non compliance of article 48 continues to make the present assembly deficient in its legislative character. The state assembly has been duly cautioned about this infirmity in its legislative character in UN SC resolution S/2017/Rev.1 of March 30, 1951. It has been held by the UN Security Council that “such a constituent assembly and that the area from which such a constituent assembly would be elected is only a part of the whole territory of Jammu and Kashmir”.
J&K Government has inherited obligations from its first sovereign act of signing a Stand Still Agreement with the Government of Pakistan in August 1947 and from the Instrument of Accession made with the Government of India in October 1947. National Conference has a bigger role in this regard. The sovereignty of the people of Jammu and Kashmir has been pleaded by late Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah in his address to the UN Security Council on February 5, 1948.
Chief Minister, in his present role, as chairman of Unified Headquarters of Jammu and Kashmir accrues a direct responsibility from the assurance made by his grandfather at the UN, that ‘as far as the Indian Army was concerned, he saw no reason to fear that it would interfere with the exercise of a free vote, as a Commission of the Security Council would see to it that troops would be stationed only at certain strategic points’. Omar Abdullah as the chief minister inherits the duties as a party to Accession Agreement which sets out the role of the Indian Army in Jammu and Kashmir. The entry of the army in the State is on invitation and unlike their role in many other States which have signed an Instrument of Merger is specially defined in the proposal and acceptance of the letter of accession. The failure of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to ensure the three benefits of ‘life’, ‘property’ and ‘honour’ remains a serious failure and the non performance of the role could be debated in any of the three assemblies of Kashmir at Srinagar, Muzaffarabad and Gilgit. Concerns and questions in regard to any such failure by J&K Government or violation of the terms of the provisional agreement by the Government of India could also be raised at the United Nations.
It is obvious that J&K Assembly has not addressed its role and duty under articles 4 and 48 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and other duties in regard to UN mechanism on Kashmir. The lack of knowledge and understanding of the Constitutional duties of J & K Government and the members of the Assembly in the two houses have failed to energise the debate to protect public interest agreed in the Instrument of Accession with the Government of India, and in the Stand Still Agreement with the Government of Pakistan, in J & K Constitution and the position taken by late Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah in his address at the UN Security Council on February 5, 1948.
India is a constitutional democracy and taking any issue with the Government of India within the contours of constitutional guarantees, national and international commitments should not be a cause for a common Kashmiri or a Kashmiri leader to land in prison. As long as people and their elected representatives remain uninformed about their rights, and about their ability to use these rights, at the various forums, the common man and woman would not benefit from the culture of present politics in the assembly or outside it. It would simply promote a culture of long constructed stereotype which continues to harm the people of Kashmir. Defending the rights of the people guaranteed in the Constitution or made part of any agreement empowers people is a first major step towards internal self determination. The process of life in Kashmir has to take a big leap towards a quality of life and later linked with the external self determination to complete the circle of the right as equal people to self determination. There is no need to kill people under one or the other excuse. What one needs is to follow the script of the Kashmir case in equity and in good faith.
Kashmiri leaders in the government should revisit the character of Governance shown by Sir Albion Banerjee in 1929. He resigned as the Prime Minister of Kashmir, because he could not see “a large Mohammedan population absolutely illiterate, labouring under poverty and very low economic conditions of living in the villages and particularly governed like dumb driven cattle [because] there is no touch between the Government and the people, no suitable opportunity for representing grievances...The administration has at present little or no sympathy with the peoples’ grievances”.Autonomy does not have any relevance in Kashmir dispute. It is a general and basic principle of self governance available to all units in India and to four provinces in Pakistan.
Author is London based Secretary General of JKCHR – NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations. Email dr-nazirgilani@jkchr.com
The two serious concerns are now in public domain and need a close scrutiny. It is over an year now, when Omar Abdullah was sworn in as the chief minister of the state and vowed that “I will faithfully and conscientiously discharge the duty upon which I am about to enter and that I will do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”. However the chief minister of the state has, so far, never been tested on this ground.
J & K Assembly has a very special place in discharging a public trust, in India-Pakistan relations and in the final dispensation of the future status of Jammu and Kashmir. It accrues a constitutional duty under article 4 to defend the territorial integrity of the State and under article 48 it has to make sure that the J&K assembly is representative of all the people. The non compliance of article 48 continues to make the present assembly deficient in its legislative character. The state assembly has been duly cautioned about this infirmity in its legislative character in UN SC resolution S/2017/Rev.1 of March 30, 1951. It has been held by the UN Security Council that “such a constituent assembly and that the area from which such a constituent assembly would be elected is only a part of the whole territory of Jammu and Kashmir”.
J&K Government has inherited obligations from its first sovereign act of signing a Stand Still Agreement with the Government of Pakistan in August 1947 and from the Instrument of Accession made with the Government of India in October 1947. National Conference has a bigger role in this regard. The sovereignty of the people of Jammu and Kashmir has been pleaded by late Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah in his address to the UN Security Council on February 5, 1948.
Chief Minister, in his present role, as chairman of Unified Headquarters of Jammu and Kashmir accrues a direct responsibility from the assurance made by his grandfather at the UN, that ‘as far as the Indian Army was concerned, he saw no reason to fear that it would interfere with the exercise of a free vote, as a Commission of the Security Council would see to it that troops would be stationed only at certain strategic points’. Omar Abdullah as the chief minister inherits the duties as a party to Accession Agreement which sets out the role of the Indian Army in Jammu and Kashmir. The entry of the army in the State is on invitation and unlike their role in many other States which have signed an Instrument of Merger is specially defined in the proposal and acceptance of the letter of accession. The failure of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to ensure the three benefits of ‘life’, ‘property’ and ‘honour’ remains a serious failure and the non performance of the role could be debated in any of the three assemblies of Kashmir at Srinagar, Muzaffarabad and Gilgit. Concerns and questions in regard to any such failure by J&K Government or violation of the terms of the provisional agreement by the Government of India could also be raised at the United Nations.
It is obvious that J&K Assembly has not addressed its role and duty under articles 4 and 48 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and other duties in regard to UN mechanism on Kashmir. The lack of knowledge and understanding of the Constitutional duties of J & K Government and the members of the Assembly in the two houses have failed to energise the debate to protect public interest agreed in the Instrument of Accession with the Government of India, and in the Stand Still Agreement with the Government of Pakistan, in J & K Constitution and the position taken by late Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah in his address at the UN Security Council on February 5, 1948.
India is a constitutional democracy and taking any issue with the Government of India within the contours of constitutional guarantees, national and international commitments should not be a cause for a common Kashmiri or a Kashmiri leader to land in prison. As long as people and their elected representatives remain uninformed about their rights, and about their ability to use these rights, at the various forums, the common man and woman would not benefit from the culture of present politics in the assembly or outside it. It would simply promote a culture of long constructed stereotype which continues to harm the people of Kashmir. Defending the rights of the people guaranteed in the Constitution or made part of any agreement empowers people is a first major step towards internal self determination. The process of life in Kashmir has to take a big leap towards a quality of life and later linked with the external self determination to complete the circle of the right as equal people to self determination. There is no need to kill people under one or the other excuse. What one needs is to follow the script of the Kashmir case in equity and in good faith.
Kashmiri leaders in the government should revisit the character of Governance shown by Sir Albion Banerjee in 1929. He resigned as the Prime Minister of Kashmir, because he could not see “a large Mohammedan population absolutely illiterate, labouring under poverty and very low economic conditions of living in the villages and particularly governed like dumb driven cattle [because] there is no touch between the Government and the people, no suitable opportunity for representing grievances...The administration has at present little or no sympathy with the peoples’ grievances”.Autonomy does not have any relevance in Kashmir dispute. It is a general and basic principle of self governance available to all units in India and to four provinces in Pakistan.
Author is London based Secretary General of JKCHR – NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations. Email dr-nazirgilani@jkchr.com
No comments:
Post a Comment