With militancy showing no signs of receding even after elections and establishment of a “popular government” different quarters have started floating new ideas regarding solution of the Kashmir problem. One of the suggestions put forward often by pro-independence circles is to place the state under U.N. Trusteeship for some time. It is argued that the present turbulence will cool down under this arrangement and an atmosphere conducive to ascertaining wishes of the people can be created. The propounders of this suggestion feel that once under this system India and Pakistan will have to relinquish their control of the state and it will come under some sort of self-governance under U.N. supervision. It is likely to lead to opening of communications between the state and whole of the subcontinent. Both India and Pakistan will stand exposed before Kashmiris. Thus in the eventuality of a plebiscite they are likely to vote for an independent Kashmir. Both the propounders and supporters of the suggestion seem to have some misconceptions relating to the U.N. Trusteeship system and its applicability to the Kashmir problem.
Origin of the U.N. Trusteeship system can be traced back to the Mandate System of the League of Nations. With the establishment of the League in 1919, it undertook to respect and preserve the territorial integrity of its members. After this decision the first question which they had to confront related to the status of some former colonies of the defeated nations. These colonies were then in possession of the allied powers and they were in no mood of restoring them back to their former colonizers. The allied powers decided to retain these areas as mandated territories. The territories were retained under the mandate of the League of Nations. These could not be annexed but had to be administered in accordance with the conditions imposed by the Covenant of the League of Nations. To supervise the observance of these conditions a Mandate Commission was established.
As a result of the Second World War whole of the League System crumbled and the United Nations Organisation replaced the League of Nations. The mandate system of the League was substituted by the Trusteeship System under the U.N. Charter. The Mandate Commission was succeeded by the Trusteeship Council. Besides being subject to the supervision of the Trusteeship Council the administering states of non-self governing territories were duty bound to develop these territories in such a way so as to facilitate their independence.
The U.N Charter and self-assertion of the natives of these territories lead to their independence. With the freedom of US administered Republic of Palau in 1994, the Trusteeship Council has become irrelevant and is in final stages of becoming a vestigial organ of United Nations Organisation.
It is obvious from the proceeding discussion that the Trusteeship System related to some specific territories with a peculiar background. The Covenant of the League of Nations did not provide for bringing any new territories under the purview of this system. The U.N. Charter however, does provide for extension of this system to new areas of the world. Yet no new territories besides the mandated ones have been brought under its purview.
One more point that needs to be taken note of is the fact that though under this system there is possibility of U.N. administration but practically it has been U.N. supervision of a nation’s administration in respect of a trust territory. Most of the administering countries did not trample with the system, Nevertheless, South Africa at one stage claimed the trust territory of South West Africa to be its integral part and refused to cooperate with the U.N. Trusteeship Council. It was only after tremendous pressure of the world body and tedious litigation in the International Court of Justice that South West Africa got independence from the “Trusteeship” of South Africa.
Kashmir dispute is all about a despotic ruler’s accession of the State to India without consent of its inhabitants. Although such consent was not required under Indian Independence Act of 1947 yet it was Government of India which added this dimension to accession of states by refusing to accept similar decisions of the rulers of Junagud, Travancor and Hyderabad on the plea that they lacked the consent of the people of those states. Again it was India which in its complaint to United Nations regarding infiltration of the tribals in 1947 promised to seek consent of the people of Kashmir regarding accession
Kashmir was never a colony of the defeated nations of the first and the second World War. Thus it does not qualify to become a trust territory under the U.N. Trusteeship System automatically. United Nations Organisation functions under a written Charter. Under this Charter, Territories other than those detached from the defeated nations of the World Wars can be placed under the system voluntarily by the countries responsible for their administration. In case of Kashmir, India and Pakistan will have to concede it to be a non-self governing territory and relegate themselves to the position of administering states. Then they will have to conclude voluntarily a trusteeship agreement providing the terms under which the state will be administered. It will be these countries who will have to designate the new authority entitled to exercise the administration. With India and Pakistan having such sweeping powers in the trusteeship system under U.N. Charter, it is unlikely to facilitate progress towards Azadi for Kashmiris.
Origin of the U.N. Trusteeship system can be traced back to the Mandate System of the League of Nations. With the establishment of the League in 1919, it undertook to respect and preserve the territorial integrity of its members. After this decision the first question which they had to confront related to the status of some former colonies of the defeated nations. These colonies were then in possession of the allied powers and they were in no mood of restoring them back to their former colonizers. The allied powers decided to retain these areas as mandated territories. The territories were retained under the mandate of the League of Nations. These could not be annexed but had to be administered in accordance with the conditions imposed by the Covenant of the League of Nations. To supervise the observance of these conditions a Mandate Commission was established.
As a result of the Second World War whole of the League System crumbled and the United Nations Organisation replaced the League of Nations. The mandate system of the League was substituted by the Trusteeship System under the U.N. Charter. The Mandate Commission was succeeded by the Trusteeship Council. Besides being subject to the supervision of the Trusteeship Council the administering states of non-self governing territories were duty bound to develop these territories in such a way so as to facilitate their independence.
The U.N Charter and self-assertion of the natives of these territories lead to their independence. With the freedom of US administered Republic of Palau in 1994, the Trusteeship Council has become irrelevant and is in final stages of becoming a vestigial organ of United Nations Organisation.
It is obvious from the proceeding discussion that the Trusteeship System related to some specific territories with a peculiar background. The Covenant of the League of Nations did not provide for bringing any new territories under the purview of this system. The U.N. Charter however, does provide for extension of this system to new areas of the world. Yet no new territories besides the mandated ones have been brought under its purview.
One more point that needs to be taken note of is the fact that though under this system there is possibility of U.N. administration but practically it has been U.N. supervision of a nation’s administration in respect of a trust territory. Most of the administering countries did not trample with the system, Nevertheless, South Africa at one stage claimed the trust territory of South West Africa to be its integral part and refused to cooperate with the U.N. Trusteeship Council. It was only after tremendous pressure of the world body and tedious litigation in the International Court of Justice that South West Africa got independence from the “Trusteeship” of South Africa.
Kashmir dispute is all about a despotic ruler’s accession of the State to India without consent of its inhabitants. Although such consent was not required under Indian Independence Act of 1947 yet it was Government of India which added this dimension to accession of states by refusing to accept similar decisions of the rulers of Junagud, Travancor and Hyderabad on the plea that they lacked the consent of the people of those states. Again it was India which in its complaint to United Nations regarding infiltration of the tribals in 1947 promised to seek consent of the people of Kashmir regarding accession
Kashmir was never a colony of the defeated nations of the first and the second World War. Thus it does not qualify to become a trust territory under the U.N. Trusteeship System automatically. United Nations Organisation functions under a written Charter. Under this Charter, Territories other than those detached from the defeated nations of the World Wars can be placed under the system voluntarily by the countries responsible for their administration. In case of Kashmir, India and Pakistan will have to concede it to be a non-self governing territory and relegate themselves to the position of administering states. Then they will have to conclude voluntarily a trusteeship agreement providing the terms under which the state will be administered. It will be these countries who will have to designate the new authority entitled to exercise the administration. With India and Pakistan having such sweeping powers in the trusteeship system under U.N. Charter, it is unlikely to facilitate progress towards Azadi for Kashmiris.
No comments:
Post a Comment