The election process is not a substitute to self-determination |
The election process in the divided land and the right of the people to self-determination. by Afzal Tahir
The participation in the election process, in any part of Jammu Kashmir, whether Indian side or Pakistani side, is not a substitute to the right to self-determination. The elected representatives must use their capacity to further the cause by using all the democratic means and legal tools available to them. The election process in Indian Administrative part of Jammu Kashmir, presently for Indian Parliament, stimulated a debate, reflecting on the point that whether by participating in the subject election would legitimize and testify the Government of India’s official position. This debate in fact started in the last election of J&K Assembly. The phrase used time and again that the election within the frame work of Indian Constitution is not acceptable to the People of J&K without elaborating the treaty-based-relations and the constitutional development. This point of view forcefully raised by those (APHC, JKLF) has been actively participants in the campaign to end the forcibly division and restoration of the unity and territorial integrity of the State. There were others, of the opinion that participation in the subject election, by any standard of legal and constitutional norms in the proper historical context of J&K, would not be a substitute to the rights protected by bilateral Treaty that had been witnessed, testified and recognised by the World Institutions.The final authority to decide the future out-come, is the people of the State. The reunification of the state as it was before 1947, free of violence and militancy is pre-condition. The Government of India under the Provisional Treaty of Accession is, responsible to achieve these objectives by using all means including UN. This is the reason that Pakistan’s ex-Foreign Secretary while addressing Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars said “Pakistan is not in favour of giving international colour to Kashmir problem” (daily Jang London 28/1/09). There fore, it is not a rocket science to understand that question in hand is not to give colour of any nature. Pakistan’s constant hang-on it’s occupation and India’s failure to full-fill its legal and constitutional obligation to the state is an international problem. There fore, by using lame excuses, the government of India would not be able to escape it’s legal and constitutional obligation. It would be better that sooner than later, the government of India convince Pakistan, for the withdrawal of its troops, so that people of United Jammu Kashmir without any fear and intimidation to elect their representatives under UN observers. The elected representatives of the people of all parts, that is Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, Baltistan, Gilgit and Poonch would prepare the draft constitution for the future status of the State, its internal political system, State relation with India, Pakistan or other neighbours (sharing sovereignty). There fore a direct vote by the people on the constitutional matters is more appropriate that enhance stability in a society. This was and is the only way-forward and also a democratic, legal and constitutional answer to the question. Further more it would be a logical answer to all stake holders and contestants of the conflict. The participation of the masses for an election, whether for local bodies, Jammu Kashmir Assembly, Indian Parliament, Azad Kashmir Assembly or Gilgit Baltistan Council, is, a, part of a democratic struggle and behaviour, an alternative to the politics of anarchism, terrorism and theo-fascism. The people are the final authority under the system that had agreed and accepted for the decolonization, hence, can not be deprived of their participation under any circumstances. The call for boycott is also a part of a democratic process. They, too, by putting one of the alternative thinking, stimulate the thought-process of the masses, enabling them for a matured and collective wisdom. It would be the failure on the part of the political class to not educate masses. In my opinion, it is the only way to counter the evil designs of covert-forces, who express their will through the guns, yet, accountable to no one. The history bear witness the fact that the promoter of terrorism, fascism, anarchism and theo-fascism, always brought death and destruction all across the world and played in the hands of authoritarian and dictatorial regimes as well as anti-social, anti people under-world conspirators and profiteers. The violence both by state and non-state actors discourage the trends of socio-cultural, socio-economical and socio-political changes and improvement in a society resulting poverty, lawlessness and hardship. In this situation the most vulnerable would be the maximum victim. There fore, it is the responsibility for the elected representatives to advance national cause in these institutions. We all know that both the governments, not only playing cat and mouse game with the people of the state but also with their own people. The pro-boycott and pro-election forces in Jammu Kashmir are the patriotic forces and contributing in their own way of interpreting the question to strengthen the democratic rights of the people and must be encouraged. The renowned writers and journalists of India, especially after the mass protest in Kashmir; raised their concern of the hardship and miseries faced by the people, and, not ready to buy the stereo-type rhetoric of an official-version of the events. The elected representatives can work effectively on this front to further their cause. For example, Vir Singhvi wrote: “It’s clear now that the optimism of the last few months – all those articles telling us that normalcy had returned to Kashmir – was misplaced. Nothing has really changed since the 1990s” (Hindustan Time 16/8/08). Though he had raised very forceful questions for the Indian establishment but failed to recognise the correct position of the conflict. Burkha Dutt wrote: “I remember doing a television report on how greater autonomy, across all its regions, may be the antidote to alienation in the state. The mere suggestion evoked general indignation. My report mentioned that the state has its own flag and constitution to underline its unique place in the federal structure. This was not opinion; it was fact. Even so, whether from ignorance or denial, everything I said was received with outrage and resistance”. She further noted that Indian politicians are using security challenge to sweep the issue under the carpet. “Our politicians need to stop treating Jammu and Kashmir like a security challenge”. (Hindustan Time 22/8/08) The most senior and respected writer and Journalist, both in India and abroad Mr. Kishwat Singh, wrote: “It is time we took a good look at the ground realities, however unpalatable they are, and found a solution that will be acceptable to all three regions as well as to India and Pakistan”. (Hindustan Time 15/8/08). The historical Indian attitude may be explain by “the psychoanalytic theory”, resulted first between law and desire, is a system which can stand only by maintaining a hectic-gallop and depend on constantly renegotiating disorder. The flawed may be because an individualist order is inherently formless. The powers those are shaping it, have to be foisted arbitrarily on to it. There fore an imposed order is always the most precarious. The media out-lets in the sub-continent have to dig-on more to keep an effective check on their governments and explore the ingredients that contributed in the hands of covert-forces resulting in a dead-blow to the very fabric of the civil society. Mr. LK Advani was of the opinion that the Jammu verses Kashmir protest is a “clash of nationalists and separatists”. It is obvious that by nationalists he meant Indian Nationalism. In the words of Terry Eagleton, the nation is immortal, indivisible, invisible yet all-encompassing, without origin or end, worth of our dearest love and the very ground of our being. Like God, too, its existence is a matter of collective faith. Mr. Advani, have to educate us more on the subject. Thousands of years ago, Egypt, Sindh and Kashmir along with many more had been conquered and effectively lined-up for integration. One can see that after thousands of years of history, they are still very much visible and no sign to diminish once for all. Mr. Advani need to revisit the history of Kashmir to see the balance between Indian Nationalism and Kashmiri Nationalism. In my opinion, the protest in Jammu verses Kashmir was an internal national expression for the national rights rather than Indian nationalism verses separatism. This is the reason, we are putting forward the idea of USK. Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, the President of ruling Congress Party reacted with the same old slogan of UP boy “Jammu Kashmir is an integral part of India”. There were twenty of old-wise men (Senior Journalists, Retired Bureaucrats and Spy Masters) fixed themselves in Sonia’s shoe only added that Pakistan must vacate the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The term integral is problematic because after two hundred years of British rule, India was still not integral part. The term “integral part” is not very common usage in political expression. The relation between Jammu and Kashmir and India based on Treaty of Accession. It is very similar to that of non-founding members of European Union. Italy, for example, is not the founder member but joined the Union by Treaty of Accession. European Union, still a treaty based organisation where member states share the sovereignty (transfer of sovereignty) through Treaty of Accession. The marriage contract do not deprive the wife of her right to self determination not to consent for sex with her husband and the latest example is a judgement on this subject by a South Korean court of law. I raised the question to Pakistani High Commissioner in a meeting held last month in the British Houses of Parliament for the compliance of UN resolution and withdrawal of Pakistani troops. His reply was “whom to handover, you want us to handover to terrorists”. I don’t want them to handover to terrorists. In fact, to maintain law and order, there is a sufficient police force already maintaining law and order in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. The change would be that police in Muzafarabad and Gilgit would coordinate with Srinagar police. The Government of Pakistan officially denying any terrorist infrastructure in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. The fact of the matter is that, there has been and still going on terrorist infrastructure. The subject terror infrastructure is an integrated part of Pakistan Army. Different names in public domain such as LeT, Jash-e-Mohammad, HM and JM etc are all part of Pakistan Army recruitment. There fore withdrawal of Pakistan army doesn’t mean to change proper army uniform and put on turban. This will not help to solve the problem in fact would create further complications and hardship to the people. The twenty old-wise men would agree that what ever interpretation one might try to conclude, the pre-conditions that all the citizens of the state from all of it’s parts must have a free access without any interference, fear and intimidation to express themselves. There fore, the elected representative do not carry any mandate in order to settle the sovereign status of the State. End
|
1 comment :
|
|
Make A Comment:
| Visitor Counter: | |||||||
 |  | |  | |  | ||