Kashmir: Modi's asses' bridge

Narendra Modi, the most authentic "Hindutva’s proponent", the new icon of nationalism, the rising star on the Indian political firmament, speechifying wildly enthused masses, a man of pyknic stature, who articulates with laboured ponderous speech to convert BJP into Sardar Vallabhai Patel’s rifled Congress, who repeatedly asseverates that Hindutva is the only way forward, is now soon going to find Kashmir an irresoluble asses’ bridge. Hindutva has polarized India as never before as Hindu population considers it essential to revival of India’s past glory and non-Hindus across the board considers it a gross and rank doctrine of wickedness. Narendra Modi is a day dreamer who still believes that Pakistan is not a reality. Sardar Patel hated Nehru from his guts because Nehru, a political Tartuffe, was a pragmatist. So was Gandhi and both realised that Kashmir was an impassable barrier to further progress in Indo-Pak bonhomie. Sheikh Abdullah, like a devious salesman, was utilised by Nehru for party plan, selling of ‘secularism to Kashmiri analphabetic masses, to maintain an equilibrium called partition coefficient between India and Pakistan’.

How will Narendra Modi homogenise the immiscible solvents? First Narender Modi has to answer the question, why India could ‘without clamour assimilate Hyderabad although Nizam never signed an Instrument of Accession with India and Maharaja Hari Singh executed an instrument of Accession with India under his own hand and seal, yet the United Nations Security Council blatantly rejected the instrument of Accession but accepted the proviso to Mountbatten’s letter to Maharaja Hari Singh and by a majority passed a resolution for plebiscite in Kashmir’. Does Narendra Modi have the mental capability and ability to apprehend the core of western diplomacy towards the emerging situation in contemporary South Asia? The very fact of the strategic location of Pakistan fetters Indian aspiration to gain traction in Afghanistan and Iran. Chahbahar gas pipeline may not be as advantageous in reality as it seems in calculated Indian estimations. As such, without normalising relations with Pakistan, India cannot aspire to become a semi-super power in South Asia. This is the most glaring reality.

Modi is politically inadequate to apprehend the real politic of this region that requires understanding the ratiocination that Sardar Patel was a political anticipator who imagined that Pakistan will implode economically within two and a half months. Pakistan has not exploded ethnically for the past six decades and rather has become a frontline sate for Chinese hegemony. U.S. still will be willy nilly dependent on Pakistan for next full decade in manipulating Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai finds himself a miserable pye-dog in wilderness. Narender Modi has become an icon of Hindu nationalism, but he has little understanding of the brewing Tamil nationalism. The polarization is creeping in the Indian politics at a fast pace. How would Narender Modi negotiate with the local satraps like Mamta Banerjee, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Lalu Prasad, Karunanidhi and the party of the highly conservative rightist DMK, the Akali Parkash Singh Badal only time will tell.

The way Gen. Bikram Singh accepting an award from U.S. was received with strained courtesy in India obviates the necessity of straining the pint that with Narendra Modi as prime minister of India, the process of reviviscence of armed struggle in Punjab will be sparked off in a rewardful character. Government, of India should have celebrated Gen. Bikram Singh’s glory and not paid him a left handed compliment. The bane of Indian politics is its revolvency that always obstructs the way forward.

My point is that Narendra Modi is politically deaf to hear the domestic popping turmoil that will topsy turvy the entire Indian polity The danger is from within, the Maoist discontent is becoming increasingly prodigious. The recent elections in Nepal are a pointer to indicate that Maoists may reignite a gory armed struggle, infiltrating Sikkim and Arunachal Pardesh. The border dispute between India and China is increasingly acquiring the character of irresolubility. Hamid Karzai wants India to incur heavily the military burden of Afghanistan. The political kaleidoscope in South Asia is presenting an ever changing montage. The Bangladesh politics is soon going to shift ground, and the Jammat Islami Bangladesh is now set upon a steady course to forge adamantine links with Indian Mujahideens in near future. Subversion of Sheikh Hasina’s regime in Bangladesh is now inevitable. India’s efforts to gain access to oilfields in Iran are not only going to antagonise Saudi Arabia, but is going to queer the pitch for India in its relations with Persian gulf countries including Israel. Hindutva concept is behind schedule with contemporary events in South Asia. Modi in politics will have to spell baker, something for which this sheer rhetorician is totally inadequate.

Getting back to brasstacks, I advert to Narendra Modi’s counsel to people of Kashmir including members of parliament to debate the utility character of Article 370. "Pioneer" wrote a leader, advocating Modi’s Counsel to the people. Modi is not aware of the consequential aftermath. First Kashmir’s instrument of Accession is quintessentially a treaty between Kashmir and India in the eye of international Law. Second, Article 370 is an instrument of Ratification. Third, this treaty was never registered with the United Nations, hence is not binding upon any other country of the world, but is imperatively binding upon the executants. Fourth, India referring the Kashmir dispute to U.N. Security Council is in the eye of international law an act of deliberate, premeditated waiver of this treaty that is supported by a plethora of case law, especially international Arbitration Awards, a topic discussed in detail in the author’s forthcoming book now under publication. Fifth and foremost, rights of the people flow from this treaty in view of the majority judgment of the United States Supreme Court in the popular ruling "Askura v/s City of Seattle" that adumbrated that a city ordinance denying totally Pawn Bookers License to non citizens of United States violated the treaty with Japan, as per the core of subjects assented to by high contracting parties, obliterating the distinction between U.S. citizens and others. The court gave full recognition to the comprehensiveness of the various clauses of this treaty. So the domestic legislation to the contrary offered nullification. Some other remarkable U.S. judgments have clarified this position. Needless to mention that the judgments of Court of Appeal in England, also in recent years, have clarified that the domestic law should be in conformity with international law. So that variance between domestic law and international law will allow domestic courts to follow domestic law, may be not applicable to law of treaties. Abrogation of Article 370 by an executive order is legally an impossibility and its countermanding by a constitutional amendment will only confer limited territorial validity, a question of substantial law for the international court of justice to decide.

The whole exercise would generate the wider question, the right of the people to appeal to the International Court of Justice. International law is not fossilised but in the process of constant evolution. The author invites the legal luminaries of the BJP to join issue on this subject and air their views on this highly convoluted intricate and vexed question. An informed public opinion alone can make-the right choices in this behalf.