Modi’s colonial, imperialist agenda of Kashmir
RECENTLY, India denied entry of the Pakistan Foreign Office delegation— at the SCO seminar held in New Delhi merely on the grounds that why Pakistan had indicated the illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir as disputed territory, and not a part of the Indian Union. It is a shameful Indian act that must be condemned by the international community. In doing so, India has clearly shown its disdain for international law vis-à-vis the territorial dispute– thereby unjustly replicating the application of the doctrine of paramountcy once practiced during the British rule in India. It is clear that Modi has an evil agenda on Kashmir.
In the eyes of international law, Kashmir never belonged to India and till today, its sovereignty belongs to the people of Kashmir—clearly manifested by the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir in 1948. The so-called Treaty of Amritsar via which the Maharaja of Kashmir had done a mala fide deal– on Kashmir has had no validity in the domain of international law. Truth upholds that the Kashmir accession to India ever remained a disputed and controversial affair.
Kashmir—a British colonial agenda: “As or a Company such as the Dutch East India Company and native princes or chiefs of people not recognized as members of the community of nations, they are not, in the International Law sense, treaties or conventions capable of creating rights and obligations such as may in International Law, arise out of treaties. But, on the other hand, contracts of this nature are not wholly void of indirect effects on situations governed by International Law; if they do not constitute titles in International Law, they are nonetheless facts of which that law must in certain circumstances take account.” (2 R 1 AA, P 858).
The reason for not being considered as having “international capacity” to make treaties, according to Lord McNair, is that native chiefs and tribes are neither States nor International Organizations. He further stated that the official British view upon the status of the Indian native States until after the Indian Independence Act, 1947, was that they possessed no International Status and that the relation of them and their rulers with the British Crown was regulated by the doctrine of paramountcy and by agreement, custom and usage”. (International Law Opinions, (1956) Vol 1 P 64).
The moribund colonial doctrine of paramountcy: In this regard, the discourse around the colonial fashion of occupation and annexation can rightly be understood by the then, customary rights of possession and claims to political autonomy in Northeast India conventionally traces the postcolonial protectionist legislation for ‘tribes’ to various acts passed under the late colonial state, the most significant precursor being seen as the Government of India Act, 1935. Actually, the invention of customary law and traditional authority in Northeast India under East India Company rule was impelled by the Company’s demands for revenue and security. Over the course of the 19the Century, the strategies of imperial control first introduced in the region were reproduced across the rest of Northeast India.
Fair enough to understand that Narendra Modi is unjustly following the staggering colonial doctrine of paramountcy adopted by the then imperialist British rulers in the East India Company, auguring that they had the right to occupy and annex the Indian land. This fossilized argument holds no footing. The revocation of Articles 370 & 35/A in 2019 by the Modi regime is an offence under international law. The sane voices of constitutional law do argue that the very 1947 Agreement (known as the Instrument of Accession) under which the Maharaja of Kashmir decided to join India as one between two sovereign states via the Treaty of Amritsar, was a temporary arrangement, and hence the incorporation of Article 370. Arguably, by revoking Article 370, the Indian Government can be reckoned as returning Kashmir to its pre-agreement status as a sovereign state. It is further argued that the revocation of Article 370 is tantamount to reopening the logical possibility of a plebiscite in Kashmir to decide its future. This is endorsed by UN resolutions upholding Kashmiris’ right to self-determination following the first war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir in 1948.
Modi extends his colonial agenda in Kashmir: with an unlawful and unethical backing of the international establishment, India’s premier Narendra Modi is extending a colonial agenda in Kashmir. Amid the rising trend of Hindutva, the Modi-led regime is capitalizing on anti-Muslim sentiment in order to further its agenda in Kashmir. Although Islamabad has had accordingly condemned India’s action in revoking Article 370 as illegal and immoral, as it has called on the international community to pay heated attention to this issue, the response of the western world is highly disappointing. Under current circumstances– endorsed by the geopolitical cross- currents of this issue– the Kashmir dispute remains a nuclear flash point between India and Pakistan.
The plight of the Kashmiri people: After revoking the constitutional clause 370-35A, the hapless Kashmiris are redefined as non-natives thereby losing their right as the permanent settlers. Conversely, the non-native Hindus are allowed to buy land and hold local government jobs in Kashmir. Modi’s government callously introduced a fast-track domicile system. By means of changing demography of native Kashmiris, Modi’s Hindutva-led government is engaged in sponsoring an agenda of ethnic cleansing of the Muslim Kashmiris.
As a result, a large number of non-native Hindu Indian citizens have unjustly obtained residency in the predominantly Muslim region in a short period of time. Several laws have been incorporated to gain this objective. Many Kashmiris rightfully perceive this policy as “demographic terrorism” meted out by the Modi Government. It can be fairly argued that because of its geopolitical and geo-economic interests, the international establishment is unjustifiably supporting Modi’s Kashmir agenda.
The HRW in its latest report criticising India, while warning Australia, Japan, Canada, the UK, the European Union and the US, said, “deepening ties with India without pressure on Prime Minister Narendra Modi to respect rights squanders valuable leverage to protect India’s increasingly endangered civic space”. Make no mistake, in its flagrant transgression of International Laws and UN resolutions, Modi’s ultranationalist, imperialist, unilateral, unconstitutional and undemocratic moves in IIOJK are not only a serious breach of human rights but also a scowling threat to regional peace and stability. Thus, a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute is the order of the day.
-The writer, an independent ‘IR’ researcher-cum-international law analyst based in Pakistan, is member of European Consortium for Political Research Studies, also a member of Washington Foreigen Law Society and European Society of International Law. He deals with the stratigic and nuclear issues.
Email:rizvipeaceresearcher@gmail.com
