Mohammad Zainal Abedin: India got upset seeing the resolution on India-Occupied Kashmir (IOK) adopted at the end of the 57 th OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) Foreign Ministers’ conference (CFM) held on November 27-28 at Niamey city of Niger. Whatever the expansionist illegal Indian occupiers outwardly shouted to boost the psyche of common Indians, inwardly they became terrified comprehending the weight of the strong-worded resolution which was unanimously passed. What made India, particularly worried and wondered, is how such a strong worded resolution unanimously adopted in presence of the most powerful and influential OIC member-countries Saudi Arabia and
United Arab Emirates, whom India propagated and disseminated around the
world as its most trusted allies.
Pointing to the resolution India media quoted the statement of Pakistan
foreign ministry, which in brief, says: “The [OIC] Resolution demands that
India cancel the issuance of domicile certificates to non-Kashmiris as well as
other unilateral and illegal actions, including ‘Jammu & Kashmir
Reorganization Order 2020’, ‘Jammu & Kashmir Grant of Domicile
Certificate Rules 2020’, ‘Jammu and Kashmir Language Bill 2020’ and
amendments to the land-ownership laws.”
However, the same paper, perhaps, intentionally missed many other vital
aspects of the resolution that Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood
Qureshi mentioned in his statement. He said, the resolution categorically
condemned the state-sponsored terrorism and crimes against humanity
committed by Indian occupation forces against the Kashmiri people.
It denounced extrajudicial killings during fake ‘encounters’ and ‘search-and-
cordon’ operations and demolition of houses and private properties as a form
of collective punishment.
The unanimous resolution condemned the renewed use of pellet guns by
Indian occupation forces against innocent civilians, condemned the
harassment of Kashmiri women by Indian troops and deplored that India had
callously exploited the current Covid-19 crisis to intensify its military
crackdown and further advance its unlawful occupation.
The resolution asked India to adhere to its international human rights
obligations and allow the OIC Special Representative on Jammu and
Kashmir and the OIC Fact-finding Mission to visit occupied Kashmir and
implement recommendations of the two reports of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights on Jammu & Kashmir.
It asked the international community to review its engagements with India as
it was violating and disregarding the international law, the international
humanitarian law, and international resolutions.
The OIC recognized that IOK as the core dispute between Pakistan and
India, and its resolution indispensable for realization of the dream of peace
in South Asia.
The CFM noted that the people of Jammu and Kashmir are the principal
party to the dispute, and stressed that they should be included in any peace
process for resolution of the dispute.
It affirmed that any political or electoral process held under foreign
occupation cannot be a substitute to the exercise of the right to self-
It is really a great victory for Pakistan, particularly for the virtually
imprisoned people of IOK where about two million Indian security forces
including regular military, paramilitary of different names, irregular and
retired troops, police, secret agents and informers, armed civilian Hindus and
secret killers are deployed to annihilate them.
But the resolution undoubtedly appeared as a new headache for Indian
occupiers. They have already started to feel the weight of the resolution.
Observers opine, the latest resolution undoubtedly carries some awesome
messages for India. OIC this time seems to be more proactive to end Indian
games in IOK and OIC obviously needs to do something positive in light of
Hundreds of such types of resolutions have so far been adopted on Kashmir,
not only by OIC, but also UN, to facilitate the Kashmiris to decide their fate
whether they opt to join Pakistan or India. India so far faces no viable
pressure either from UN or OIC that dares it to defy the resolution. This is
the reason, which allows India to keep its illegal occupation in Kashmir and
deny minimum human rights to the people living therein.
Observers strongly believe if Kashmir were not a Muslim territory, its
people would have got out of Indian occupation far earlier. Still, at least,
OIC could easily compel India to end its illegal occupation in Kashmir, if its
member-countries, particularly the rich ones, could ask India either to
implement OIC and UN resolutions or face the expulsion of its hundreds of
thousands of working citizens on whom Indian economy heavily depends. If
such a pressure could be applied, India would bend down within a week.
OIC shouldn’t prove itself as a paper tiger. It should show and prove its solid
unity and strength. It should fix a timetable for India either to comply with
its commitment on Kashmir resolutions mentioned above or face stern
Comprehending the impacts of the OIC resolution Indian policymakers opt
to keep the morale of the Indians high, who are already frustrated and
shivering seeing the Chinese dragon at their door that prompted Indian
foreign policymakers to mock at the resolution.
An Ex-diplomat Zikrur Rahman said, hundreds of such resolutions are
passed by the OIC and have little overall impact. “This is neither the first nor
the last time that Kashmir will be the talking point at the OIC,” he added.
Indian foreign ministry derided and warned OIC in a harsh language. “We
have always maintained that OIC has no locus standi in matters strictly
internal to India, including that of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir,
which is an integral and inalienable part of India,” an Indian foreign ministry
statement said. “We strongly advise the OIC to refrain from making such
references in future,” it added.
But history doesn’t testify that Kashmir is “an integral and inalienable part
of India.” When the subcontinent was divided to create India and Pakistan,
Kashmir, a princely state, with an overwhelming Muslims majority, opted to
remain independent out of India and Pakistan. (If a referendum were held in
Kashmir, it would have become a territory of Pakistan.) Such princely states
were given an option either to remain independent or merge with either of
the country. In case of merger with any of these two countries, the
king/queen of these princely states were asked that they must consider the
demographic character, people’s hopes and aspirations and the geographical
proximity of concerned states/states.
According to Indian Express (December 30, 1981) in Jammu and Kashmir
(J&k) Muslims were 72.4% while the Hindus were 24.4%. After 40 years in
1981 Muslims were reduced to 64.19% while Hindus increased to 32.24%.
In 2011, after 70 years, Muslims were 68.31% and Hindus were 28.43%.
Still the Muslims retained their overwhelming Majority.
Hurriyat Conference supporters shout slogans during a protest after Friday prayers in
Srinagar. (AP Photo)
Now let us see the geographical proximity of J&K. To get the real
information, (which could be believable to Indians) of its geographical
proximity let me borrow from Raktim Majumdar, an Indian bloggar, who
wrote: “In 1947 the communication and transport channels between
Pakistan and Kashmir were much more robust than on the Indian side. It was
only due to some last moment maneuvering by Lord Mountbatten (who was
biased to and lured by Nehru-gang to make the first governor general of
India) that the Gurdaspur district of Punjab fell into India’s side of the
border (three tahsils of the district conspiringly given to India had Muslim-
majority). Gurdaspur provided the only viable land link between mainland
India and Jammu; without it Kashmir would have been effectively cutoff
(from India). Subsequent connectivity to valley and onwards to Ladakh was
treacherous and possible through high altitude passes like Banihal, Pir Panjal
and Zoji La which became inaccessible during winter months.”
It means, India got road connection to J&K at the cost of those three
Muslim-dominated tahsils of (East Punjab), which were supposed to be
within Pakistan. On the other hand, Pakistan had common borders with J&K
from three sides. Joining India King Hari Singh, a Hindu, directly violated
the above three basic factors (demographic character, people’s sentiment and
aspiration and state’s geographic proximity). So his accession to India was
Contemporary analysts question how and when New Delhi got the so-called
instrument of accession signed by Hari Singh within hours in those days
when communication was not so swift what we see today. Their view is that
India took the signature of the king after Indian forces occupied Kashmir.
They allege India used the so-called will/wish of the King to occupy
Kashmir ignoring his Muslim subjects, their sentiment or its geographical
Analysts alleged India violating the all the basic principles set by the British
government deliberately occupied Muslim-dominated princely state
Kashmir. Here India used the so-called ‘will’ of the king, but not the ‘will’
of the people, which was mandatory for the king before merging to either
India or Pakistan. So India's occupation in Kashmir is historically, factually
and ethically illegal and unacceptable.
Nehru raised Kashmir issue
If Kashmir was “an integral or inalienable part of India” why Nehru, even
before raising the Kashmir issue in the UNSC, in a radio broadcast to the
Indian nation on November 2, 1947 said, “Let me make it clear that it has
been our policy all along that where there is a dispute about the accession of
a State to either Dominion, the decision must be made by the people of the
State. It was in accordance with this policy that we added a proviso to
the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir .” (White Paper on Jammu and
Kashmir, p. 45)
In his broadcast on All India Radio, he added, “We have declared that the
fate of Kashmir ultimately has to be decided by the people. That pledge we
have given, and the Maharaja (Maharaja Hari Singh) has supported it, not
only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not, and cannot,
back out of it.”
Prior to this, Nehru had assured the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali
Khan, on October 31, 1947, that India’s pledge to hold a plebiscite in
Kashmir on whether it should accede to India or Pakistan “is not merely a
pledge to your government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the
Nehru made such commitments as he knew that accession of Kashmir to
India was not valid and lawful and it was done violating the basic principles
set by the British government regarding accession of any princely state
before joining either of the Dominion.
Conversely, facing mass-revolt Nehru on January 1, 1948 raised the issue
before the UN Security Council (UNSC) and sought its mediation? UN
carefully studied the gravity of the (Kashmir) issue and adopted a unanimous
resolution No. 47 on April 21, 1948 along with the following comments:
“noting with satisfaction that both India and Pakistan desire that the question
of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir should be decided through the
democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.”.
Nehru welcomed the UNSC resolution and repeatedly pledged to implement
So none, even Indian foreign ministry or the entire Modi government, can
claim Kashmir is an integral territory of India. India’s genocide in IOK or its
cunningness of branding local elections as a supplement to plebiscite will
only uncover its ugly face further, but will help India little to legalize its
illegal occupation in Kashmir.*
Mohammad Zainal Abedin is a Bangladesh-origin American journalist &
Dated: Dec. 8, 2020.