No one in his senses can ever think of advocating removal of the very legal basis, the raison d’etre of the freedom movement unless he has got baptized to status quistic position and pawned his conscience to “whistle-blowers”. It is not have to plead our case anew at International forum and get it endorsed from international community. Already that part of our struggle has been one for us by the country that made ‘reference to peoples will’ as the basis of accession.
Addressing to Nation over All India Radio on Nov 2, 1947 Prime Minister of India Pandith Nehru said: we are anxious not to finalize anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide. And let me make it clear that it has been our policy that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either dominion (half India and Pakistan ), the accession must be made by the people of that state’. In a letter on November 21st, 1947 addressed to Pakistan Prime Minister Liyaqat Ali Khan, Nehru said: ‘I have repeatedly stated that as soon as peace and order have been established, Kashmir should decide accession by plebiscite or referendum under International auspices such as those of United Nations’. In a statement in the constituent assembly on November 25, 1947, Nehru declared: ‘In order to establish our bona fide we have suggested that when the people are given the chance to decide their future, this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the UN.
The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked forces should decide the future or the will of the people’. Again in the constituent assembly on March 5, 1948, the Indian Premier said: ‘even at the moment of accession we went out of our way to make a unilateral declaration that we would abide by the will of the people of Kashmir as declared in a plebiscite or referendum. We have adhered to the position through out and we are prepared to have a plebiscite with every protection of fair voting to abide by the decision of the people of Kashmir ’. Pandith Nehru told the parliament on June 26, 1952: ‘if the people of Kashmir said we do not want to be with India , we are committed to accept it though it might pain us. We will not send our army against them. We will accept that however hurt we might feel about it. We will change the constitution, if necessary’. On March 31st, 1955 the same PM of India stated in the parliament: ‘Kashmir is perhaps most difficult problem between India and Pakistan . We should also remember that Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied between India and Pakistan but it has a soul of its own and individuality of its own. Nothing can be done without the goodwill and consent of the people of Kashmir ’.The height of irony is same country backed out from its promises it pledged with Kashmiris and international community.
But such reneging on its commitment in no way can erode the significance of Security Council resolutions, much less nullify legal basis it provides to K-issue. They stand there as strong testimony to the right of Kashmiris to shape their destiny themselves. A reminder to the world that unresolved Kashmir is threat to peace and places entire South Asia on nuclear volcano. The resolutions stand as strong barriers against Indian ambition of securing a permanent membership in Security Council. The violation of council resolutions and candidacy for permanent seat are incompatible. The balancing act lies in negotiated settlement New Delhi have had to make with Kashmiris. ‘Kashmir unreconciled’, says Nikhil Chakravarthy, ‘should be Achill ’s heel for Indian republic’. And till the time these resolutions remain intact Kashmiris would gain added vigor to aim at this republic’s heel. They are thus defence shields against any maneuvering aimed to integrate Kashmir legally and morally with Indian union.