Kashmir was never part of India: Mian Qayoom

Kashmir dispute has been discussed in some of the top forums of the world including the United Nations and European Parliament. But rarely has it reverberated in highest judicial body of occupied Kashmir, the High Court.
The President of High Court Bar Association, Mian Abdul Qayoom, presenting its arguments in delimitation case, said that the court that Jammu and Kashmir was never part of India, and plebiscite in accordance with the United Nations’ resolutions was yet to take place in JK.
The other points of his arguments are as follow:
The Bar President termed the demand for fresh delimitation, as sought by the petitioner, Bhim Singh of Panthers Party, a move by the government of India to change status quo of Jammu and Kashmir through its stooge governments in the occupied territory and to avoid final settlement of the Kashmir dispute according to the UN resolutions.
Mian Abdul Qayoom, quoting judgments of the Indian Supreme Court argued that postponing delimitation till 2026 was not violation of the democratic rights, as it didn’t affect elections. He said the Delimitation Commission constituted in 1981 submitted its report in 1995 and till then three elections were held in the territory without delimitation of assembly constituencies.
The Bar President said the so-called legislature of occupied Kashmir passed amendments in Section 47 of its constitution and the People’s Representation Act in 2002, and Bhim Singh was party to these amendments. “But in 2007 all of a sudden Singh filed petition to challenge the amendments ostensibly to garner support and popularity in a section of people in Jammu,” Qayoom said, terming the petition malafide and politically motivated.
Qayoom then quoted resolutions of the UN on Kashmir. He said that convening of the Constituent Assembly by the National Conference on October 1950 was the biggest fraud played on people of Jammu and Kashmir. The NC had convened the constituent assembly to determine the future shape and affiliations of the Jammu and Kashmir. He said that the Security Council resolutions explicitly say that the decisions of the constituent assembly would have no bearing on the Kashmir dispute.
The Bar President then quoted Article 253 of Indian Constitution, which says consent of the J&K government has to be obtained in event of its final disposition. “Therefore this is implicit recognition of the UN resolutions and the international dimension of the issue,” Qayoom said, adding the final settlement of the dispute is yet to take place.
Mian Qayoom argued the government of Jammu Kashmir doesn’t mean the government of Jammu and Kashmir in its present form that is being formed through farcical election process to carry administrative work. “JK government in its present form has to conduct day-to-day business and it can’t take decision to determine the future of people of Jammu and Kashmir. The Article 253 indicates about a separate government to be specially created to look how the plebiscite would be conducted in JK under UN,” he said.
The Bar President said the so-called assembly of occupied Kashmir ratified the accession when Sheikh Abdullah, who sold Kashmir to India, was in jail, and another stooge, Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad, the then prime minister, was in charge. ”Various agreements between India and Pakistan on Kashmir indicate that Kashmir is disputed territory and people have not been given their right to exercise the plebiscite, he argued.
Mian Qayoom pointed out that the present state of Jammu and Kashmir was disturbing where draconian acts like Armed Forces Special Powers Act and Disturbed Areas Act were in force. He said there was no democracy in the territory and elections were being held in one part and curfew was clamped in the other.
Referring to the discrimination part agitated by Bhim Singh in his petition, Qayoom took back the Court to the Treaty of Amritsar of 1846 when Kashmiris were sold along with land and animals to Dogra Maharaja. He said the rule of Dogra Maharajas was tyrannical. He said Kashmiris have been ousted from bureaucracy and police, and now by seeking readjustment of seats an attempt was being made to gain political power to change the status quo of JK to stall its final settlement.
The petitioner Bhim Singh, Bar President said, describes in the petition that he speaks on behalf of people of Jammu and Kashmir. “He represents, if at all he really represents, only a certain section in Jammu,” He concluded his argument by asking for dismissal of the petition.
In April 2002, the National Conference administration had brought a constitutional amendment in section 47 of the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and in the Peoples Representation Act that explicitly says it was not necessary to readjust the assembly seats till 2026.
The Panthers Party President Bhim Singh filed petition in the Indian Supreme Court against the amendment, but withdrew it after he was told to approach an appropriate forum. Then he filed a petition in the High Court, claiming present composition of Assembly was highly biased against Jammu region, which was allocated only 37 seats against 46 seats for Kashmir region.”
Earlier, the division bench comprising Chief Justice, Justice Barin Gosh and Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir heard senior counsel Zaffar Ahmed Shah who was speaking on behalf of the Bar on the issue. On last hearing the Chief Justice Barin Gosh had observed the Court would like to hear whether the amendment was destroying basic structure of the democracy or not. “If it does affect the democracy then it has to be explained how, and if it doesn’t that too has to be elaborated,” the Chief Justice had observed.
Zaffar Ahmed Shah answering the question said a constituency is determined on the basis of population, not on the basis of electors. “It is possible that within a population the electors can be less or more as compared to the population of other constituencies. The amendment doesn’t destroy the identity of the constitution and it continues to be democratic,” he said.
Shah said, “For readjustment of the constituencies census is necessary. The legislature has deferred the census till 2026 for the purpose of creation as well as re-adjustment of the constituencies.” He said in JK creation and alteration of the constituencies has nothing to do with the population. Describing the petition as mixture of politics, he said it was not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the petition.