Terrorism in India: The Challenge for the Global Anti-terrorism coalition

G.S. Edwin Management Consultant Jakarta

The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. sent a shudder through the spines of most people on this planet. Fortunately, only a few are bent on perpetrating terrorism, while most are keen that it should be eradicated.

India has been battling terrorism since 1971, to no avail. Expecting Pakistani's Gen. Musharaff to control cross-border terrorism is not the way to put an end to terrorism in India. It is the issue of Kashmir that needs to be resolved.

The global anti-terrorism coalition, treading with more caution than purpose, has advised India and Pakistan to resume their talks. So far, the talks have reached deadlock. India says, "let us talk, but Kashmir is not negotiable". Pakistan says, "let us talk, Kashmir should be the only agenda".

India should break the stalemate and invite Pakistan for talks with this agenda: to accept the present Line of Control as the international border between India and Pakistan, and to restore all the special provisions on Kashmir figuring in the Constitution of India, which was adopted on Jan. 26, 1950.

Talks, even if they have a solution-oriented agenda, will not yield any results because the 1948 United Nations Resolution says the outcome of a plebiscite should decide the fate of Kashmir. So, to make meaningful progress, the 1948 U.N. resolution must be annulled forthwith.

It is indeed a drastic step, but necessary. First, the resolution is more than 51 years old, yet the U.N. has still not got around to implementing it. Second, the U.N., not being a sovereign body, cannot set aside the sovereign act of the Maharaja of Kashmir in acceding his kingdom to India in 1948, an act which was legitimate, final and irrevocable, and substitute in its place, a plebiscite. A plebiscite was not provided as a means to transfer power from the crown to the people of India, upon the granting of independence in 1947. Third, it has made Kashmir a playground for terrorists, who have hounded Kashmir relentlessly to death and destitution. More than 60,000 people have died. India and Pakistan have fought three wars and the world is threatened with a nuclear war - all because of a resolution that will remain in limbo forever and go on preventing a settlement.

In the absence of legal competence, the basis of the resolution, however tenuous, was the consent given by India, agreeing to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir in 1948. The reasons for giving this consent were historical and sentimental.

Pakistan, through a proxy invasion, occupied about 40 per cent of Kashmir territory, which subsequently became Indian territory by virtue of accession. India had two options: Fight with Pakistan or approach the U.N. to regain its territory peacefully. India, a votary of non-violence, chose the latter in good faith, and expected the U.N. would hold a plebiscite in 1948 or soon thereafter, which in the light of the context then existing, would have been a walkover for India.

The plebiscite did not take place because Pakistan did not keep its side of the bargain to quit the occupied Kashmir territory, a precondition for holding the plebiscite. However, India went ahead and adopted its constitution on Jan. 26, 1950, which proclaimed in no uncertain terms that Kashmir is an integral and inseparable part of India. It is pertinent to note that in the Indian Constitution, there is no provision for ceding territory. This means that no part of India, including Kashmir, can be taken away, except by conquest. Conquest means war. In the U.N.'s books, no resolution that makes war a possibility should exist.

More importantly, the consent given by India does not survive because a plebiscite, which suggests the boundary of India is not final, is inconsistent with the constitution and compromises the sovereignty of India. If the consent doesn't survive, the resolution cannot survive either. Therefore, the resolution should be annulled by the U.N.

Whether the U.N. does it or not, the task before the global anti-terrorism coalition is clear. It should initiate steps to annul the 1948 U.N. Resolution and help both India and Pakistan resolve the issue on the lines proposed above.

The proposed settlement would benefit everybody, particularly Kashmir and its people. It would achieve full autonomy and political stability, see an end to terrorism on its soil, and a peace dividend to make Kashmir prosperous. Its CEO would get back his original and coveted title of prime minister.

The anti-terrorism coalition could claim its first real success. The end of terrorism in Kashmir would make its global anti-terrorism drive more visible. Pakistan could help the coalition openly, to take care of the terrorists lurking in Afghanistan, and by shedding its image of associating with terrorism, which could contribute to end the copycat terrorism taking place in the Philippines.

Above all, the end of terrorism in Kashmir means communal amity and bonding between India and Pakistan, a plus factor for the South Asian subcontinent.