BLUNT BUTCHER
JAMMU: Plebiscite, Azadi, Autonomy and Self-Rule are most abused terms in Kashmir, which are used by their proponents as per their political exigencies just to test the nerves of Indian leaders. Having become house-hold slogans in the Valley, these terms are conveniently being used to blackmail the Centre and coerce it for submission to whims and fantasies of separatists and ‘mainstreamists’.
It is different that even after two and a half decades turmoil and turbulence in Kashmir, its so-called champions and conscious keepers are clueless as to what they actually want-Azadi, Pakistan or to remain with India. Wishful as these options may be, the root cause of the problem continues to be the UN Resolution. Ironically, this option had been volunteered by the first Prime Minister of India.
Plebiscite, as they used to describe the UN Resolution in common parlance in the Valley, remained guiding spirit behind Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference, which got abandoned in the wake of Indira-Sheikh Accord of 1975. Sheikh Abdullah summed up his years between 1952 and 1975 as Siyasi Awaragardi or political wilderness. Post 1975 witnessed Kashmir polity changing its dynamics.
The slogan of plebiscite got submerged in the din of Azadi, Self-Rule and Greater Autonomy. Late eighties saw dimensions of Kashmir ‘imbroglio’ changing with trigger happy Jihadis and their vast support base in the Valley glamourising ‘Azadi’, which was against the spirit of UN Resolution, which had only two options. Therefore, the other rants like Self-Rule or Greater Autonomy (raised by so-called mainstream parties which believed and practiced electoral politics after six years chaos in the Valley from 1990 till 1996) were not any options either in terms of the UN Resolution. Despite divergence in approach for resolving ‘Kashmir’, there has been intriguing convergence between the so-called mainstream political parties and separatist outfits, which, in one or the other manifestation, revolves around plebiscite or UN Resolution.
Before exploding and exposing the hypocrisy of all school of thoughts (Azadi, Pakistan, Self-Rule and Greater Autonomy) let us have a realistic position of the Resolution No 47 of United Nations Security Council, which was passed under Chapter VI of UN Charter. Ironically, Resolutions passed under this Chapter are considered non-binding, having no mandatory enforceability as against the resolutions passed Under Chapter VII.
In November 2010 the United Nations removed Jammu and Kashmir from its list of disputed territories. In a major setback to Pakistan’s efforts to internationalise the Kashmir issue, the United Nations excluded Jammu & Kashmir from its list of unresolved international disputes under the observation of the UN Security Council (UNSC), notwithstanding Islamabad’s representative in the UN lodging a strong protest.
Earlier, in March 2001, the then Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan during his visit to India and Pakistan had remarked that Kashmir resolutions are only advisory recommendations and comparing with those on East Timor and Iraq was like comparing apples and oranges, since those resolutions were passed under chapter VII, which make it enforceable by UNSC. So much so, the then Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf had also announced that Pakistan was willing to back off from demand for UN resolutions for Kashmir. His government had also sent such feelers to the United States. As per declassified cable of the US State Department, Pakistan was willing to low-key this Resolution to better ties with India as it had understood futility of hostility.
This being the background and standing of the UN Resolution on Kashmir why do the mainstream and separatist-outfits in the Valley harp on this resolution quite frequently? In all their discourses, reference to the promise made by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and the UN Resolution finds special and emphatic mention, even though they hardly believe in its (UN Resolution) efficacy in the changed situation.
The reminder on UN Resolution by Kashmir intelligentsia and the political class seems to be just a ploy to seek concessions and gratifications. The resolution is serving as an effective tool to blackmail New Delhi and make it to submit, no matter which political party remains at helm in New Delhi. The tool has been cleverly and effectively used by Sheikh Abdullah and all his successors from time to time-the only difference being that some have made its use quite mildly and many very brazenly. The objective of them all has been to milk India as much as they could.
(To be concluded)
