CorCom shares thoughts on Art 370, CAB-I
Source: The Sangai Express

Imphal, September 08 2019: While sharing their thoughts and observations on the abrogation of Article 370 and the vigorous push for the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB), the CorCom has condemned in the strongest term the alleged complete annexation of Jammu & Kashmir by India.

A statement issued by the CorCom publicity committee asserted that Kashmir was a sovereign independent kingdom according to Section 7(1)(b) of the Indian Independence Act (IIA).

Kashmir signed a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan on August 22, 1947.But Pathan tribes of Pakistan invaded Kashmir.

To defend his kingdom, Kashmiri king Hari Singh sought help from the Dominion Government of India (DGOI), and Kashmir signed an Instrument of Accession (IOA) with DGOI on October 26, 1947 which defined the relationship shared between India and Kashmir temporarily.

Since then the IOA remained a bilateral agreement or treaty between Kashmir and the DGOI, now Union of India (UOI).

According to the IOA, UOI can make laws for Kashmir only in three areas namely; defence, external affairs and communication.

All laws not related to the three areas should be framed by the J&K legislature.

In case, UOI must make laws for Kashmir which are not related to defence, external affairs or communication, it should take prior consent of the J&K legislature, the CorCom said.

One key point of the IOA stated that it did not mean J&K should subscribe to the Indian Constitution just because it was signed between king Hari Singh and the DGOI.

IOA only determined the temporary relationship shared between J&K and UOI.

The signing of the IOA did not mean J&K had lost its independence or sovereignty.

This arrangement of J&K was known as Associate State as per international laws.

All the points of the IOA were incorporated in the draft Indian Constitution under Article 306A which later became Article 370 after the Indian Constitution was finalised.

Clause 3 of the Article 370 says that prior consent of the J&K Constituent Assembly should be obtained if the UOI decides to abrogate the particular article either in parts or totally.

As such, the President of India has no authority to issue any notification about abrogation of Article 370 without obtaining prior consent of the J&K Constituent Assembly, the CorCom asserted.

The J&K Constituent Assembly took a decision on November 17, 1957 to sustain the bilateral relationship shared between J&K and UOI as defined by the IOA.

If the circumstances compel modification or amendment of the Article 370, it is mandatory to take consent of the J&K Legislature.

Otherwise, Article 370 cannot be touched, reads the CorCom statement.

Since 1948, the United National Security Council (UNSC) adopted 18 resolutions regarding Kashmir.

On April 21, 1948, the UNSC adopted a resolution to hold a plebiscite to resolve the Kashmir issue.

Another resolution says that India and Pakistan should work together to resolve the Kashmir issue.

As such, neither India nor Pakistan has any authority to take any unilateral decision on matters related to J&K.The Kashmir issue is not an internal matter of either India or Pakistan but a bilateral issue.

India has no legal authority to take the Kashmir in its hands by abrogating the Article 370 .

India violated international laws when it abrogated the particular article, it alleged.

As testified by the IOA of 1947 and Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, J&K never surrendered its sovereignty to UOI.

It remained only an Associate State of UOI.

For all these reasons, people of Kashmir have the right to form transitional Government or a Government in exile.

The transitional Government or the Government in exile has the right go to the International Court of Justice to redeem the independence of J&K as per clauses 2 and 3 of Article 35 of the ICJ statute, it claimed.

At the same, Pakistan, being a party to the bilateral issue, can take the case of J&K to the ICJ.

But today India has violated all the bilateral treaties and international laws and forcibly taken over J&K completely, it alleged.

Comment