AS a member of Malaysian civil society, I always have this feeling of sad romanticism about Kashmir.

It is seen as paradise on earth with the most beautiful-looking people. It’s so beautiful and pristine nestled in the Himalayas with temperate climate, clear rivers and lush greenery.

And yet, it is a nation occupied by India in defiance of the UN Security Council resolutions for the right of self-determination for the Kashmiris.

There are about half a million Indian troops in the biggest militarised zone in the world, controlling this piece of paradise populated by a Muslim-majority population.

This stalemate, since the Indian independence in 1947, has caused untold harm on all aspects of society in Kashmir as a whole.

Already, it is divided into three areas, each controlled by India, Pakistan and China. The effect on the socio-politics, economy, culture and psychology of the people is hard to quantify because it is so huge and mind-boggling.

The sudden and unexpected abrogation of Article 370 by the Indian Parliament led by the BJP under the leadership of prime minister Narendra Modi was a shock to us all, including civil society in Malaysia.

Many cIvil society organisations such as ABIM, MAPIM and ACCIN were enraged and demonstrated in Kuala Lumpur, demanding an immediate restoration of Article 370.

Article 370 gives the Kashmiris special rights in self governance, land rights, immigration control, priority for civil service jobs and scholarship.

The objective of India’s recent steps is to transform its occupation of Kashmir into permanent annexation, to harm the identity of Kashmiris, and to reduce the majority of the Muslim population into a minority. It is the worst form of imperialism.

According to the UN mechanism on Kashmir, India has committed a very grave offence”.

Let us be clear: Kashmir is not a land dispute between India and Pakistan. The issue is the question of self-determination of the people of the state of Jammu. Kashmir was a part of the agenda for the partition of India. The issue is not bilateral. It is not an internal matter of India. It is an international issue and is on the agenda of the UN Security Council.

As the UN continues to list Kashmir as disputed territory, its resolution is important to global peace and security.

Self-determination, despite its ambiguities, has blossomed into a pivotal element in international relations in recent times. It has proven the key to resolving long-festering disputes and unforgiving conflicts. Namibia, East Timor, Bosnia, Eritrea. Kosovo, Montenegro, Southern Sudan, etc. are examples.

In each case, self-determination was fuelled by oppressive rule, whether foreign or otherwise. It also derived strength from international law and resolutions of the United UN Security Council.

Self-determination is celebrated in the UN Charter, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and in UN General Assembly resolutions.

With these yardsticks in mind, let us turn to Jammu and Kashmir, which was one of more than 560 princely states during the long years of the British raj.

It was ruled non-democratically by a Maharaja (ruler) until 1947, subject to British control over the defense and foreign affairs. Even under the British, Jammu and Kashmir were semi-independent. 

Within Kashmir’s boundaries lived Muslims, Pandits (Hindus), Sikhs and Buddhists but a commanding majority (80%) subscribed to Islam.

It was the Islam of the Holy Prophet and the Quran that teaches that in matters of religion, coercion is unacceptable. The four religious groups in Kashmir thus lived in common neighbourhoods, forged common friendships, shared in one another’s celebrations and joys, and generally avoided religion as a point of contention, unlike in so many other places in the world.

British paramountcy over Kashmir ended on August 15, 1947. On that date, only three princely states had desisted from choosing accession to either India or Pakistan. They were Jammu and Kashmir, Hyderabad, and Junagadh. 

Under international law, all became independent on August 15. But where did sovereignty then lie? In the people of the new states, or the non-democratically selected rulers?

Then Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru subscribed to these sentiments. He declared that in cases where the religion of a princely ruler was at variance with the religious creed of the majority, then the views of the latter must prevail on all matters of sovereignty.

Nehru did not limit himself to rhetoric. It was reinforced by bayonets. In Hyderabad, the Muslim ruler had opted for independence despite presiding over a predominantly Hindu population.

The prime minister dispatched the military to ensure that the will of the Hindus that is their wish to accede to India was honoured.

A similar policy was adopted for Junagadh where a Muslim ruler had chosen accession to Pakistan against the will of his largely Hindu population.

Kashmir was a corollary case of Hyderabad and Junagadh. The majority Muslim population had been persecuted by a Maharaja for decades before August 15, 1947,  a day that included discriminatory laws, state control of mosques, backbreaking taxation, deficient educational facilities, prohibitions on arms of self-defense, the death penalty for slaughtering cows, and brutal suppression of peaceful political dissent.

An indigenous revolt was in full swing and on the verge of toppling the Maharaja when statehood arrived. Under the “Nehru doctrine”, sovereignty over Kashmir instantly devolved on the people, and not on the tyrannical Maharaja.

But Nehru cynically and opportunistically violated his doctrine. He schemed to forge an instrument of accession to India signed by the Maharaja and then dispatched troops to Kashmir to prop up his collapsing regime.

Of course, under Nehru’s theory of sovereignty, the Maharaja lacked authority either to sign the accession document or to request Indian military intervention in Kashmir.

Nehru felt initial guilt over his villainy and raced to the UN clamouring for a self-determination plebiscite in Kashmir conducted by the UN in a free and non-intimidating electoral atmosphere. 

The Security Council, with the expressed approval of both India and Pakistan, adopted twin resolutions on August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, mandating self-determination through a plebiscite in Kashmir after demilitarisation of the territory.

Nehru was soon deceived by his delusion over Indian popularity in Kashmir. When he recognised that Kashmiris would never vote for the accession to India, the idea of a plebiscite was jettisoned. 

India contrived excuse after excuse for refusing to cooperate in holding the Kashmir plebiscite.

Then, in the 1950s, the prime minister dropped all pretense of complying with the Security Council’s mandates by unilaterally proclaiming that Kashmir had fallen into India’s burgeoning sovereign orbit.

Nothing much has changed since then on the self-determination front. India has been insolently defying the Security Council’s plebiscite resolutions for more than 73 years. 

But the UN continues to list Kashmir as a disputed territory. The Secretary-General of the UN Antonio Guterres said about the situation in Kashmir on August 8, 2019, that “the position of the United Nations on this region is governed by the Charter of the United Nations and applicable Security Council resolutions”.

The people of Kashmir are the stakeholders here. No one else. Many of the disputed territories around the world in the last century was resolved by self-determination through a plebiscite. The people decide on their future.

Sufficient pressure should be put on the occupying force, India.

Launching a global campaign to enforce a political and social boycott of India should be considered.

International bodies and countries should present the case of Kashmir legally in international institutions and international courts based on UN resolutions.

Kashmir is too important to international peace, security and human rights to be left to either the ignorance of Amit Shah, the home minister, or the fanatical and whimsical ambition of Narendra Modi, the prime minister of India.

 *  Mohd Jamaludin is the CEO of the Allied Coordinating Council of Islamic NGOs Malaysia (ACCIN).

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.