Why the Jammu And Kashmir Instrument Of Accession had no legal standing
The official UN map for Jammu And Kashmir
On 19 June 2020 Narendra Modi publically stated on live television and then tweeted that the "Chinese have not intruded into our border" because Jammu And Kashmir is still independent under international law, UN maps and UN security council resolutions 47 and 39. This is the official UN map for Jammu and Kashmir. As you could see India, China and Pakistan are all out side its boundaries. Since the plebiscite requested by the UN security council resolutions 47 and 39, where the people of Jammu and Kashmir could decide their own future was never held, it remained independent under international law, therefore there is a major contradition between its legal status under international law and the ground reality. Narendra Modi knows that Jammu And Kashmir is still independent, that is why in the recent conflict between India and China he did not approach the UN Security Council. The Government of Indian is also in violation of many other United Nations Security Council resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir.
Narendra Modi removed article 370 from the Indian constitution so that he could change the demographics in Jammu and Kashmir in favour on India. But after the removal of Article 370 from the Indian constitution, all the contracts that India had with Jammu and Kashmir were totally broken. Additionally since India had no legal jurisdiction over the land that they forcefully occupied in Jammu and Kashmir, Narendra Modi could not challenge the Chinese at the United Nations Security Council. As a result he did not even approach the United Nations Security Council because there is a long list of United Nations Security Council resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir that the Government of India has been violating for over 70 years.
Google maps also shows the dotted lines in accordance with the UN maps. As do the maps shown by the BBC.
The international community is also familiar with the UN maps of Jammu and Kashmir.
Recently Joe Biden said that he seeks the restoration of peoples’ rights in Kashmir. Trump is of the same opinion and wanted to mediate in Jammu and Kashmir to achieve a peaceful resolution. All the diplomats around the world are aware that Jammu & Kashmiris is still an independent country under international law, as shown on the UN maps and hence no one spoke in favour of Narendra Modi.
The 57 countries in the OIC also issued a statement stating that the Kashmiris rights to self determination granted under the UN Security Council Resolutions 47 and 39 should be respected and the human rights violations need to stop.
Gulab Singh (a Hindu Dogra who worked for the Sikh Empire) betrayed the Sikhs in the Anglo-Sikh war (1845 and 1846). After the defeat of the Sikhs to pay for the war, the 7 year old Sikh Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur while he was under the control of the East India company was forced under duress to sign The Treaty of Lahore on 9 March 1846 which gave the people of Jammu and Kashmir to the East India company to tax to cover the cost of the war. This was invalid under international law. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)
The Treaty of Amritsar then gave the people of Jammu and Kashmir to Harri Singh's great grandfather Gulab Singh to collect taxes to pay for the Anglo-Sikh war. Many of the taxes were around 75%. This treaty was questioned from the very start. Arthur Brinkman argued how the entire population of Jammu And Kashmir could be sold into Slavery via the Treaty of Amritsar (1846), which violated the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 that abolished slavery in the British Empire. Arthur Brinkman in his paper "The Wrongs of Cashmere" written in December 1867, also states he "informs the reader of the wretched condition of a people we sold against their inclination, and their united cry to us."
Later the government of India said that this gave Harri Singh the authority to ask the Indian Army for assistance after the Jammu and Kashmir State Forces rebelled and removed him from Kashmir in 1947. They used this to justify their occupation on Kashmir.
But Article 7 of the Indian Independence Act 1947 stated that with the lapse of His Majesty’s suzerainty over the Indian states, all treaties agreements obligations grants, usages and sufferance’s will lapse. (Why keep the liabilities if you are giving away the assest)
Therefore all such powers and authority reverted to the sovereign authority, the people of Jammu and Kashmir and only they could decide their future through a plebiscite (referendum) as per UN resolutions 47 and 39
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf
The Treaty of Amritsar lapsed before Harri Singh asked Mountbatten
for assistance, therefore the letter that accompanied the alledged
Instrument of Accession clearly stated that it was conditional of a plebiscite being held where the people of Jammu and Kashmir could decide their own future. Lord Mountbatten's remark and the the offer made by the Government of India
to conduct a plebiscite or referendum to determine the future status of
Jammu and Kashmir never happened, therefore Jammu and Kashmir retained its previous status under international law.
In 1947 The ruler of the state of Junagadh acceded to Pakistan but the Government of India refused to accept this and the Indian army invaded and under this formula a plebiscite was held and it joined India. September 1948 the Indian Army launched Operation Polo and invaded Hyderabad. Silette was in Assam and they voted to join Pakistan/Bangladesh under Article 7 of the Indian independence act 1947. The North West Frontier Provence joined Pakistan using this formula too.
Article 370 in the Indian constitution was the last line of defence that the Indian Government had for station hundreds of thousands of troops in Jammu and Kashmir and even that was broken by Narendra Modi in August 2019 as he broke the Indian side of the bargain in the alleged Instrument of accession.
The Kashmiris have been asking the Indian Army to leave for over 70 years. The General Assembly Resolution No.2625/1970 "declaration on principles of international law friendly relations and co-operation among states in accordance with the charter of the united nations UN" also applies to Jumma and Kashmir which states "Convinced that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a major obstacle to the promotion of international peace and security, Convinced that the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples constitutes a significant contribution to contemporary international law, and that its effective application is of paramount importance for the promotion of friendly relations among States, based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality".
https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/3dda1f104.pdf|title=declaration
As history informs us, at the time of partition of British India, Jammu and Kashmir was a Princely State that, by not joining the dominions of India or Pakistan by August 15 1947 was totally independent.
Article 370 in the Indian constitution was the last line of defence that the Indian Government had for station hundreds of thousands of troops in Jammu and Kashmir and even that was broken by Narendra Modi in August 2019 as he broke the Indian side of the bargain in the alleged Instrument of accession.
The Kashmiris have been asking the Indian Army to leave for over 70 years. The General Assembly Resolution No.2625/1970 "declaration on principles of international law friendly relations and co-operation among states in accordance with the charter of the united nations UN" also applies to Jumma and Kashmir which states "Convinced that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a major obstacle to the promotion of international peace and security, Convinced that the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples constitutes a significant contribution to contemporary international law, and that its effective application is of paramount importance for the promotion of friendly relations among States, based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality".
https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/3dda1f104.pdf|title=declaration
As history informs us, at the time of partition of British India, Jammu and Kashmir was a Princely State that, by not joining the dominions of India or Pakistan by August 15 1947 was totally independent.
Many scholars have questioned the dates on the alledged instrument of accession.
https://www.andrewwhitehead.net/full-text-a-mission-in-kashmir.html
In the book "Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, 1846-1990" Alastair Lamb also questioned the dates on the Instrument of accession stating that Harri Singh had not been in Jammu on that date and a signed copy was not presented to the UN until the 1960s.
https://www.academia.edu/35488886/A_DISPUTED_LEGACY_ALASTAIR_LAMB
As early as 1948, the legal validity of the Instrument of accession was questioned by the legal advisor to the British Foreign Office, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice. (He was also a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration between 1964 and 1973 and a Senior Judge of the International Court of Justice between 1967 and 1973, before becoming a Judge of the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg in 1974.)
He wrote in his legal opinion that accession was not capable of finally settling the status of Kashmir. It was because: (1) the Maharaja was not a free agent at the time of the accession to India (October 26 1947) as his actions were inconsistent with Kashmir’s obligations to Pakistan, because the Maharaja had signed the Standstill Agreement with Pakistan via telegrams dated August 12 and 15 1947; (2) he was not in proper control of his state as there were uprisings against his rule and as such he could not, as he had undertaken to do, ensure that due effect was given to the accession in his State; and (3) the acceptance of accession by Mountbatten was conditional to a decision of the people.
In 1947 Ram Chandra Kak (a Kashmiri Hindu also known as Pandit Kak) the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir REFUSED to join India and wanted it to remain independent or join Pakistan (as 75.97% of the population was Muslim) but his arrest by Indian agents on 11 August 1947, kicked this off.
The Kashmiri Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and Sikhs had no issues with each other and wanted to remain independent. For the last 70 years they have been asking all the armies to leave before there is world war 3 over high altitude killer glaciers.
Under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) the Indian Army can not be prosecuted for the rapes and the murders they commit. Indian officers are known to be promoted based on the number of people they kill. Therefore incidents of fake encounters where civilians are killed and arms planted on them are very common. The Indian Chief of Defence Staff Bipin Rawat has been at the centre of this policy.
The list of human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir is extremely long
https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ASA2018742015ENGLISH.PDF
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0063/
He wrote in his legal opinion that accession was not capable of finally settling the status of Kashmir. It was because: (1) the Maharaja was not a free agent at the time of the accession to India (October 26 1947) as his actions were inconsistent with Kashmir’s obligations to Pakistan, because the Maharaja had signed the Standstill Agreement with Pakistan via telegrams dated August 12 and 15 1947; (2) he was not in proper control of his state as there were uprisings against his rule and as such he could not, as he had undertaken to do, ensure that due effect was given to the accession in his State; and (3) the acceptance of accession by Mountbatten was conditional to a decision of the people.
In 1947 Ram Chandra Kak (a Kashmiri Hindu also known as Pandit Kak) the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir REFUSED to join India and wanted it to remain independent or join Pakistan (as 75.97% of the population was Muslim) but his arrest by Indian agents on 11 August 1947, kicked this off.
The Kashmiri Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and Sikhs had no issues with each other and wanted to remain independent. For the last 70 years they have been asking all the armies to leave before there is world war 3 over high altitude killer glaciers.
Under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) the Indian Army can not be prosecuted for the rapes and the murders they commit. Indian officers are known to be promoted based on the number of people they kill. Therefore incidents of fake encounters where civilians are killed and arms planted on them are very common. The Indian Chief of Defence Staff Bipin Rawat has been at the centre of this policy.
The list of human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir is extremely long
https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ASA2018742015ENGLISH.PDF
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0063/
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23198%20
https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/07/10/kashmir-un-reports-serious-abuses
Every day for the last 70 years the Kashmiri Muslims, Hindis, Buddhists
and Sikhs have been killed by shelling on the line of control LOC that
divides their villages and towns in Jammu and Kashmir. The shells travel
30 miles each way. Almost every child has injuries. Hundereds of thousands of
Kashmiris have been killed. Millions of Kashmir Muslim refugees in Pakistan, UK and the US. And over a hundred thousand Kashmiri Hindu refugees in Jammu and in India. They all want the armies to leave. There are
3 nuclear powers in active conflict in Jammu and Kashmir the whole
world is in danger.
Many scholars have written on these treaties over the last 150 years, for example Alistair Lamb disputed the validity of the Instrument of Accession in his paper 'The Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU & KASHMIR –– A REAPPRAISAL'
Where he writes "While the date, and perhaps even the fact, of the accession to India of the State of Jammu & Kashmir in late October 1947 can be questioned, there is no dispute at that time any such accession was presented to the world at large as conditional and provisional. It was not communicated to Pakistan at the outset of the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, nor was it presented in facsimile to the United Nations in early 1948 as part of the initial Indian reference to the Security Council. The 1948 White Paper in which the Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharajah: instead, it reproduces an unsigned form of Accession such as, it is implied, the Maharajah might have signed. To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharajah has been produced: though a highly suspect version, complete with the false date 26 October 1947, has been circulated by the Indian side since the 1960s. On the present evidence it is by no means clear that the Maharaja ever did sign an Instrument of Accession.
Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the State’s affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947
It is now absolutely clear that the two documents (a) the Instrument of Accession, and (c) the letter to Lord Mountbatten, could not possibly have been signed by the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. (The Kashmir State Army divisions and the Kashmiri people had already turned on him and he was on the run and had no authority in the state). His new Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight, and where their presence was noted by many observers. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the travelling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October; and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Minister’s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day. The key point, of course, as has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that these documents could only have been signed after the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir on 27 October 1947. When the Indian troops arrived at Srinagar air field, that State was still independent. Any agreements favourable to India signed after such intervention cannot escape the charge of having been produced under duress. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)"
Due to the resentment against the high taxes; there were numerous rebellions against Dogra rule. This is also mentioned in the census of Jammu and Kashmir 1910 held at the British Library in London. There was also the 1931 Kashmir agitation. Under these volatile conditions, it did not take much for the Gilgit Scouts and the Jammu and Kashmir State Forces to rebel against the Maharaja. There was also the 1947 Poonch rebellion. In the book THE GILGIT REBELLION 1947 By William A. Brown writes extensively about these events. The Maharaja was on the run. It has been stated that the prevailing international practice on the recognition of state governments is based on the following three factors: first, the government’s actual control of the territory; second, the government’s enjoyment of the support and obedience of the majority of the population; third, the government’s ability to stake the claim that it has a reasonable expectation of staying in power. The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was not in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and was fleeing for his life and almost all of Kashmir was under the control of the Kashmiri people and the Kashmiri Army that had rebelled against him. His own troops had turned on him. With regard to the Maharaja’s control over the local population, it is clear that he enjoyed no such control or support. The people of Kashmir had been sold by the British Empire and he charged them high taxes therefore the Kashmir Muslims, Hindus Pandits and Buddhists hated him. Furthermore, the state’s armed forces were in total disarray after most of the men turned against him and he was running for his life. Finally, it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power without Indian military intervention. This assumption is substantiated by the Maharaja’s letters.
The area west of the River Indus was not even in the The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846). The Gilgit Agency was independent at the time. In the book THE GILGIT REBELLION 1947 By William A. Brown writes extensively about this area. It had separate treaties of accession when it joined Pakistan.
There is a lot of documentation on Jammu and Kashmir in the UN archive
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/jammu-and-kashmir/
Many UN resolutions apply to Jammu and Kashmir including:
Where he writes "While the date, and perhaps even the fact, of the accession to India of the State of Jammu & Kashmir in late October 1947 can be questioned, there is no dispute at that time any such accession was presented to the world at large as conditional and provisional. It was not communicated to Pakistan at the outset of the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, nor was it presented in facsimile to the United Nations in early 1948 as part of the initial Indian reference to the Security Council. The 1948 White Paper in which the Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharajah: instead, it reproduces an unsigned form of Accession such as, it is implied, the Maharajah might have signed. To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharajah has been produced: though a highly suspect version, complete with the false date 26 October 1947, has been circulated by the Indian side since the 1960s. On the present evidence it is by no means clear that the Maharaja ever did sign an Instrument of Accession.
Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the State’s affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947
It is now absolutely clear that the two documents (a) the Instrument of Accession, and (c) the letter to Lord Mountbatten, could not possibly have been signed by the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. (The Kashmir State Army divisions and the Kashmiri people had already turned on him and he was on the run and had no authority in the state). His new Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight, and where their presence was noted by many observers. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the travelling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October; and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Minister’s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day. The key point, of course, as has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that these documents could only have been signed after the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir on 27 October 1947. When the Indian troops arrived at Srinagar air field, that State was still independent. Any agreements favourable to India signed after such intervention cannot escape the charge of having been produced under duress. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)"
Due to the resentment against the high taxes; there were numerous rebellions against Dogra rule. This is also mentioned in the census of Jammu and Kashmir 1910 held at the British Library in London. There was also the 1931 Kashmir agitation. Under these volatile conditions, it did not take much for the Gilgit Scouts and the Jammu and Kashmir State Forces to rebel against the Maharaja. There was also the 1947 Poonch rebellion. In the book THE GILGIT REBELLION 1947 By William A. Brown writes extensively about these events. The Maharaja was on the run. It has been stated that the prevailing international practice on the recognition of state governments is based on the following three factors: first, the government’s actual control of the territory; second, the government’s enjoyment of the support and obedience of the majority of the population; third, the government’s ability to stake the claim that it has a reasonable expectation of staying in power. The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was not in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and was fleeing for his life and almost all of Kashmir was under the control of the Kashmiri people and the Kashmiri Army that had rebelled against him. His own troops had turned on him. With regard to the Maharaja’s control over the local population, it is clear that he enjoyed no such control or support. The people of Kashmir had been sold by the British Empire and he charged them high taxes therefore the Kashmir Muslims, Hindus Pandits and Buddhists hated him. Furthermore, the state’s armed forces were in total disarray after most of the men turned against him and he was running for his life. Finally, it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power without Indian military intervention. This assumption is substantiated by the Maharaja’s letters.
The area west of the River Indus was not even in the The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846). The Gilgit Agency was independent at the time. In the book THE GILGIT REBELLION 1947 By William A. Brown writes extensively about this area. It had separate treaties of accession when it joined Pakistan.
There is a lot of documentation on Jammu and Kashmir in the UN archive
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/jammu-and-kashmir/
Many UN resolutions apply to Jammu and Kashmir including:
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/PK/KashmirUpdateReport_8July2019.pdf
United Nations Security Council Resolution 47
United Nations Security Council Resolution 39
Cashmere Misgovernment By Robert Thorp 1868
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dNPFmgEACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Book
The wrongs of cashmere By Arthur Brinkman
and
THE GILGIT REBELLION 1947 By William A. Brown. There is a link to the text in this book at the bottom of this page
https://hisamullahbeg.blogspot.com/2010/12/gilgit-rebellion-1947-by-william-brown.html
United Nations Security Council Resolution 47
United Nations Security Council Resolution 39
Cashmere Misgovernment By Robert Thorp 1868
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dNPFmgEACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Book
The wrongs of cashmere By Arthur Brinkman
and
THE GILGIT REBELLION 1947 By William A. Brown. There is a link to the text in this book at the bottom of this page
https://hisamullahbeg.blogspot.com/2010/12/gilgit-rebellion-1947-by-william-brown.html
At this uncertain time it is critical that the Kashmiri Muslims, Pandits, Sikhs and Buddhists stick together
Comments
Post a Comment