On 26th Oct. 1947, Hari Singh the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir is alleged to have written a letter to Lord Mountbatten Governor General of India asking for help from Indian Dominion. It was indicated in the letter that as help would not be sent without his state acceding to India, therefore the Instrument of Accession was allegedly attached with the letter and it was also stated that if state is to be available at Srinagar.

Lord Mountbatten replied Hari Singh's letter on 27th Oct. 1947 by saying that keeping in View the special circumstances, his Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir state to Dominion of India but in consistence with their policy that in case of any state where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the state and as such it is his government's wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir, the question of state's accession should be settled by reference to the people. He was also informed that military aid has been sent to Kashmir today on 4th Nov. 1947 Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru sent a telegram to Liaqat Ali Khan informing him that:
"We are anxious to restore peaceful conditions in Kashmir and we invite your co-operation again to this end. This can only be done after withdrawal of raiders from state territory. As soon as raiders are withdrawn there would be no necessity for keeping out troops there.

I wish to draw your attention to broadcast on Kashmir which I made last evening. I have stated our government's policy and made it clear that we have no desire to impose our will on Kashmir but to leave final decision to people of Kashmir. I further state that we have agreed on impartial interna-tional agency like United Nations su-pervising any referendum.

This Principle, we are prepared to apply to any state, where there is a dis-pute about accession. If these Principles are accepted by your government, there should be no difficulty in giving effect to them."

In reply to Liaqat Ali Khan's tele-gram dated 6th Dec. 1947. Pt Jawahar Lal Nehru, while referring to the pro-posal of Governor General of Pakistan dated 1st Nov 1947, stated on 8th Nov 1947 that "our proposal which we re-peatedly stated are:
1. That government of Pakistan should publicly undertake to do their utmost to compel the raiders to with-draw from Kashmir.
2. That gov-ernment of India should repeat their declaration that they will withdraw their troops from Kashmir soil as soon as raiders have withdrawn and law and or-der are restored; and
3. That gov-ernment of India and Pakistan should make a joint request to UNO to under-take a Plebiscite in Kashmir at the earliest possible date."

On 1st Jan. 1948, representative of India at the United Nations P. P. Pillai sent a letter to the President of Security Council transmitting a telegraphic com-munication from the government of India dated 31st Dec. 1947 lodging a complaint with the security council of India under Article 35 of UN charter and on 15th Jan 1948, Pakistan while replying the complaint, annexed therewith three documents, stating its case and requested the security coun-cil to deal with its complaint at the ear-liest. Before proceeding further, it is es-sential to reproduce article 34 and 35 of UN Charter which read as under:

ARTICLE 34
The security council may investigate any dispute or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute in order to deter-mine, whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endan-ger the maintenance of international peace and security.

ARTICLE 35
1. Any member of the United Na-tions may bring any dispute referred to in article 34 to the attention of the Security Council or of the general as-sembly.
2. A state which is not a member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the security council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party, if it accepts in ad-vance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligation of pacific settlement provided in the present charter.
3. The proceedings of the General Assembly in respect of matters brought to its attention under this ar-ticle will be subject to the provisions of article 11 and 12.

On 17th Jan. 1948, the Security Coun-cil approved by nine votes its first resolution (S/651) on Kashmir submit-ted by Van Langenhor as the repre-sentative of Belgium. Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the USSR ab-stained from voting on the resolution which recognised the urgency of situ-ation and requested the two govern-ments to take measures to improve it and appealed them to report to the council any material change, occur-ring or impending in the situation.

Immediately after the Security Coun-cil had adopted the resolution, Noel Baker, British delegate proposed that the President should meet the repre-sentatives of the two governments to find common ground on which the structure of a settlement may be built. The suggestion was unani-mously approved.

On 20th Jan 1948, the resolution (S/654) moved by representative of Belgium and supported by UK, Canada, France, Syria, China and Co-lumbia was agreed by the par-ties. In terms of this resolution, a three member commission was constituted to investigate the complaints of two countries concerning Kashmir, exer-cise mediatory influence to smooth dif-ficulties and investigate matters other than Jammu and Kashmir listed in the Pakistan Complaint, when the secu-rity council so directed. One mem-ber each of the commission was to be chosen by India and Pakistan Czechoslovakia was later chosen by India and Argentina by Pakistan, while the USA was designated as the third member by the council on the failure of Argentina and Czechoslo-vakia to select a member of their choice.

On 22nd Jan 1948, India objected to a change in the agenda from "Jammu and Kashmir Question" to "India and Pakistan Question." India's contention was that the Jammu and Kashmir Question should be dealt with first. Subse-quently the change was approved on the understanding that Kashmir question would be discussed first as a particular case of the general India - Pakistan dispute though this would not mean postponement of other issues in the Pakistan complaint until completion of discussion Kashmir question.

At the meetings of the Security Council on 23rd and 24th Jan, 48 charges and counter charges were levelled by Pakistan and India against each other. As a result of conversation with President of Security Council India and Pakistan submitted proposals for the settlement of issues. While India proposed immediate cessation of hostilities and withdrawal of tribesmen, restoration of normal conditions in the state (in about six months time) during which period those who had left the state should be allowed to return and convening of national assembly to form national government to conduct plebiscite on the issue of accession, Pakistan proposed immediate formation of an impartial administration in Kashmir, return of all troops from Kashmir, return of refugees and conduct of a free and impartial plebiscite, with all measures to be undertaken by UN commission.

Various draft resolutions were moved in the Security Council between 27th Jan, 1948 to 21st April, 1948 and ultimately council approved its resolution (S/726) on 21st April 1948 increasing the membership of commission and listing the measures necessary to secure a free and impartial plebiscite in Kashmir, on the question of accession.

On 3rd June 1948 the Security Council approved a Syrian resolution (S/819) enlarging the terms of reference of the commission so as to include therein other matters listed in Pakistan complaint and directing it to proceed to sub continent at once. The commission which came to be known as United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, for short UNCIP, consisted of five members, two nominated by India and Pakistan and three by the Council with one chairman.

On 13th Aug. 1948, the United Nations commission after careful consideration to the points of view expressed by India and Pakistan regarding the situation in Kashmir resolved to submit a proposal to the governments of Pakistan and India in effecting a final settlement of the situation. Part I of the proposal related to the ceasefire of all forces in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, Part II envisaged a truce agreement and Part III reaffirmed the wish of governments of India and Pakistan, that the future status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of truce agreement both governments to agree to enter into negotiates/consultations with the commission to determine fair and equitable conditions, whereby such free expression will be assured.

Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru in terms of his letter dated 20th Aug. 1948 to chairman of the UN commission for India and Pakistan conveyed the government of India's acceptance to the plebiscite proposal as under:

"5 Finally you agreed that Part III, as formulated, does not in any way recognise the right of Pakistan to have any part in plebiscite.

In view of this clarification, government, animated by a sincere desire to promote the cause of peace and thus to uphold the Principles and prestige of the United Nations, have decided to accept the resolution."

On 5th Jan, 1949, the UNCIP, adopted resolution (S/1196) after receiving communications dated 23rd Dec. and 25th Dec from the governments of India and Pakistan, to the principles supplementary to the commission's resolution dated 13th Aug. 1948. These principles also envisaged that the question of the accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite. It was also agreed that the secretary general of the United Nations will in agreement with the commission, nominate a plebiscite administrator, who shall be a personality of high International standing and commanding general confidence and will derive confidence and will derive from the state of Jammu and Kashmir the powers, he considers necessary for organising the free and impartial plebiscite. All authorities will undertake to ensure, in collaboration with the plebiscite administrator that there is no threat, intimidation, bribery or undue influence on the voters in the plebiscite.

By a resolution adopted at its meeting held on 14th March, 1950 the Security Council decided to appoint a United Nations representative to take over the functions of the UNCIP and called upon India and Pakistan to make immediate arrangements without prejudice to their rights, to prepare and execute, within a period to five months a programme of demilitarization. The UN representative was asked to assist in the preparations and supervision of demilitarization programme and further to place himself at the disposal of governments of India and Pakistan and to place before these governments of the security council any suggestions which in his opinion are likely to contribute to the expeditious and enduring solution to the dispute which has arisen between the two governments in regard to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. He was also to arrange at the appropriate stage of demilitarization for the assumption by the plebiscite administrator of the functions assigned under agreement between the parties.

On 12th April 1950, Security Council appointed Sir Owen Dixon as the UN representative. After completing his journeys, inspection and enquiries, the UN representative remarked that the situation presents a strange feature. The parties had agreed that the fate of the state as a whole should be settled by a general plebiscite but over a considerable period of time, had failed to agree on any of the preliminary measures which was clearly necessary to take, before it was possible to set up an organization to take a plebiscite.

Dixon, with all the factors in mind, decided to explore a fresh approach to the entire problem and came out with an idea which came to be known "Regional Plebiscite". Pakistan protested against the course proposed as it involved breach of agreement by India to settle the destiny of Kashmir through a single plebiscite for the whole of state. Nehru, however at Sir Owen's request, agreed to inform him of India's views.

The Indian authorities, after consideration, informed the U. N representative that the Prime Minister would be writing to attend a conference with him the possibility of settlement on certain principles coinciding with the Sir Owens second plan of confining the plebiscite only to uncertain areas, with the qualification that demarcation should have due regard to geographical features and to the requirements of an international boundary. India also agreed to include a term therein about not diverting the waters of Chenab River or substantially reducing its flow except that "she might construct canals for irrigation within the state."

Nehru's suggestions of attending a conference with Pakistan premier were turned down by Pakistan, primarily on the ground that the fate of the state as a whole should be decided by an over all plebiscite and the attending the conference for discussing an alternative, it might be considered that Pakistan has abandoned its claim.

In his report dated 15th Sep, 1950 to the President of council, after narrating his experience in the sub-continent Sir Owen Said that if there is any chance of settling the dispute over Kashmir by agreement between India and Pakistan it now lies in partition and in some means allocating the valley rather than an overall plebiscite.

He was not prepared to recommend any further course of action but asked the Security Council to press the parties to reduce the military strength and holding ceasefire line to normal protection of a peace time frontier.

On 30th March 1951, the Security Council decided to appoint a new UN representative for affecting demilitarization of the state of J&K on the basis of UNCIP resolutions dated 13th Aug 1948 and 05 Jan 1949. According a UK- US backed resolution (S/2017) was adopted and India and Pakistan were asked to accept the resolution.

The resolution also referred to the more of the J&K National Conference to convene a constituent Assembly for deciding the accession issue and affirmed that any action taken by it would not constitute disposition of the state in keeping with the UNCIP resolutions, accepted by the party. B. N. Rao, of India, assured the council in a speech on 29th March 1951 that "while the constituent assembly may express an opinion on the accession issue by it could take no decision on it. He also asserted that "the constituent assembly cannot be physically prevented from expressing an opinion on this question, if it so chooses but this opinion will not find my government or prejudice the position of this council"

On 20th April 1951, the States Ruler Yuvraj Karan Singh issued a proclamation for the purpose of convening a constituent assembly, the relevant portion of which runs thus.

"I Yuvraj Karan Singh do hereby direct as follows:
A constituent assembly consisting of the representatives of the people elected on the basis of adult franchise shall be constituted forth with for the purpose of framing a constitution for the state of Jammu and Kashmir."

Pakistan lodged strong protest on 4th May and 8th May, 1951 on state ruler's aforesaid proclamation and the Security Council sent a message on 29th May, 1951 to the two parties reminding them of its resolution of 30th March 1951 and urging them to ensure that the authorities in Kashmir did not disregard the council and further expressing the view that the Pakistan protests, if based on correct reporting, "would involve procedures in conflict with the commitment of the parties regarding plebiscite. "Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru in a communication (S/2182) to the council however said that he had nothing to add to B. N Rao's statement. Later he assured Dr. Graham, who was appointed UN representative by the council on 30th April, 1951 that "India not only stood by plebiscite" but was anxious to bring about conditions, as early as possible, for it to "determine Kashmir's future."

Dr. Frank P. Graham arrived on the sub-continent on 30th June 1951. He had been given three month time by the Security Council to complete his mission. He however continued his efforts of affecting demilitarization of the state till 27th March, 1953 with subsequent authorisation from the council.

Dr. Graham began his efforts by presenting twelve proposals to the two governments. Both governments accepted the first four proposals dealing with the affirmation of the parties will to "settle the Kashmir question through a plebiscite". Disagreement however, arose in regard to the quantum and imposition of troops and in appointment of plebiscite administrator. The UN representative reported his failure to the Security Council on 27th March 1953. Stressing the need and value to early settlement of Kashmir for India and Pakistan and also the world, Graham said, "Instead of UN representative's continuing to report differences to the Security Council, may the leadership of over 40 crore people, with the goodwill and assistance of the United Nations, join in negotiating and reporting an agreement of Kashmir and thereby light a torch along the difficult path of the people's pilgrimage towards peace".

In June 1953, common wealth conference was held in London. It thus provided an opportunity to the Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India to have an informal discussion on the issue of Kashmir, Earlier in June the new Pakistan Prime Minister Mohammad Ali and Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru had also publicly expressed the desire of early settlement of their outstanding disputes.

From 25th and 27th July 1953 both Prime Ministers met at Karachi and declared that early resolution or their disputes was essential and expressed the hope that the Pakistan Prime Minister would visit New Delhi in the near further to continue these talks. Sheikh Abdullah the premier of sate was dismissed on 9th August 1953 on the allegations of conspiring with foreign powers to carve out an independent state of his won and also having forfeited the confidence of his cabinet. The new premier made was Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, who was hitherto a close confident of the Sheikh. The New Delhi meting took place on 17th and 20th Aug 1953, at the end of which a joint communiqué was issued in which the two prime Ministers reiterated that Kashmir issue "should be settled in accordance with the wishes of the people of the state with a view to promoting their well being and causing the least disturbance to the life of the people of the state" and that "the plebiscite administrator should be appointed by the end of April 1954".

On 15th Feb 1954 the constituent assembly of the state of the state passed a resolution adopting the report of the drafting committee and the annexure thereto, which reads as under:

"Resolved that a) having adopted the report of the drafting committee this day the 15th Feb 1954 and b) having thus given its approval to the application of the provisions of constitution of India in the manner indicated in the annexure to the aforesaid report, this assembly authorise the government of the state to forward a copy of the said annexure to the government of India for appropriate action".

On 12th May 1954 the communication of resolution passed by the constituent assembly was received by the government of India and Pakistan in pursuance thereof, the constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) order 1954 was passed on 14th May 1954.

It is appropriate to mention here that the constitution of India was adopted and enacted by the constituent assembly of India on 26th Nov 1949. In terms of Article I of part I of the constitution of India, India is a union of states and the states and territories thereof are specified in first schedule. According to entry 15 of first schedule it is only part of Jammu and Kashmir territory which immediately before the commencement of the constitution of India viz 26th Now 1949 was comprised in the "Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir". Since the area, which is under the occupation of Pakistan and "Azad Kashmir" was not comprised in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir", on 26th Now. 1949, immediately before the commencement of Indian constitution therefore, legally speaking, it is deemed to be out of Indian Political Prowess as the people of that part of Jammu and Kashmir territory, which immediately before the commencement of the constitution of India was under Indian occupation, had not exercised their right of self determination upto 26ht Now. 1949 therefore, the forefathers of Indian constitution inserted article 370 in the Indian constitution to assure them of its sincerity of determining the future of state through Plebiscite.

Article 1 and 370 are the basic provisions governing relations between the state of J&K and union of India. The policy underlying Art. 370 of the constitution of India is apparent from the article itself. The policy of constitution of India, as appears from Art. 370 is that it has been framed for the entire union of India but its provisions will not apply to the territories of Jammu and Kashmir unless and until President of India makes an order, in consultation and with the concurrence of the government of the state. The effect of article 370 is to clothe the Indian Parliament with Jurisdiction to make laws for the state of J&K on matters specified on the instrument of accession. How this article was misused and misinterpreted by all and sundry is another story, which requires a separate debate.

The direct negotiations between the two Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India continued till 21st Sep 1954, when Pakistan Prime Minister told Nehru that his attitude had left no chance for settlement and that the case must revert to the security council

The direct negotiations between India and Pakistan consumed about two years and when the negotiations failed, the Indian attitude also changed. The India Prime Minister, in a statement in the Parliament on 29th March 1955 declared that "Pakistan is out of court because it has failed to honour the obligation enjoined on it by UNCIP resolution of 13th Aug 1948 of withdrawing its forces from the state". He also indicated his opposition to plebiscite and his Home Minister soon thereafter declared that Kashmir is an integral Part of India. Kashmir constituent Assembly also adopted a constitution on 17th Nov. 1956 to be enforced 26 Jan 1957. Along with these developments, Mirza Afzal Beigh, Revenue Minister in Abdullah cabinet formed Jammu and Kashmir plebiscite front to advocate the settlement of Kashmir issue through a free and fair plebiscite.

It was in this background that security council of the UN met on 16th Jan 1957 to continue its consideration of Kashmir issue and on 24th Jan 1957, the council passed another resolution affirming its stand by plebiscite to determine the future of Kashmir and declared that any action by the Kashmir assembly and its support by any party would not constitute disposition of the state in keeping with that principle.

In course of the debate from 16th Jan to 21st Feb 1957 the Security Council requested its President G. Jaring to examine with the two governments any prospects likely to promote settlement of Kashmir issue, having regard to the earlier resolutions of the council. Pakistan charged India with flouting her International commitments and brutally repressing the agitation for plebiscite in Kashmir. It accused India of lashing a reign of terror in the state and of putting leaders of "Plebiscite Front" political conference, "Kashmir Democratic Union" and the "End Kashmir Dispute Committee" in detention without trial. It urged the council to "spell out the obligation of the parties" and arrange for plebiscite in Kashmir.

Dr. Jarring, visited India and Pakistan from 14th March to 11the April 1957 and submitted a report to the council on 29th April 1957 affirming therein that "the parties were still desirous of finding a solution the problem." The report also revealed that he had inquired from both the countries whether they would be prepared to refer the question to arbitration, for implementing the UNCIP resolution and while as Pakistan had accepted the suggestion India had shown its reservation.

He also reported that India was not against the Principle of arbitration as a method of conciliation and had indeed agreed to this procedure to arrive at a solution of certain other problems outstanding between their country and Pakistan but they felt that arbitration even on an isolated part of the resolution might be interpreted as indication that Pakistan has a locus standi in the question.

After saying so, he concluded his report by saying that as the parties are desirous of finding a solution to the problem, the council should act speedily.

The debate on Jarring's report began in the Security Council on 24th Sep 1957 with the opening address of Pakistan, accusing India of "malafide action in evading plebiscite in Kashmir" and holding Indian Muslims a "hostage" for the purpose. It was also stated that the plebiscite issue was not a religious issue and enjoyed the support of Hindus of Kashmir and India, as well.

Krishna Menon, the India's Defence Minister termed the Pakistan charge as untrue and said "India stood by the two UNCIP resolutions and the Security Council resolutions." He however stressed that Pakistan should first withdraw its troops and vacate her aggression, to which Pakistani representative countered by saying that Pakistan was prepared to withdraw every soldier from its side of the case-fire, if an adequate UN force was stationed there.

The main discussion revealed growing support for the idea of a UN force for Kashmir and the need for demilitarization of state. During the debate, Dr. Jarring suggested reference to International court of Justice for opinion on article I of constitution of India but the proposal made little head way. On 2nd Dec. 1957, the Security Council requested the UN representative for India and Pakistan to make any recommendations to the parties for further appropriate action with a view of making progress towards the implementations of UN resolutions and to visit the sub continent for the purpose. On 28th March 1958, Dr. Graham UN representative submitted a report to the security council in which he mentioned as to how he had tried to bring round, India and Pakistan on his five Proposals and had impressed upon them that if progress had to be made in the "settlement of India Pakistan question", there was need for an early agreement between the two governments on the interpretation that should be place on part III of 13th Aug 1948 resolution and those parts of 5th Jan 1949 resolution which provide for a plebiscite. It also called the attention to the communiqué of both the Primes of India and Pakistan, issued following their meeting at New Delhi in Aug 1953 which recognized that a plebiscite had been agreed to, and expressed the opinion that a resolution should be sought "causing the least disturbance to the life of the people of the state."

Dr. Graham, after referring to the India's non-acceptance of this proposal informed the council that India is keen and anxious to promote and maintain peaceful relations with Pakistan and that they stated that they finally held the view and belief that there should be a constructive and peaceful approach to every problem and they are ready to adhere to their determination to pursue paths of peace while placing their faith in the United Nations and its charter. In keeping with this spirit of India, he suggested to the council of holding a high level conference for finding a way of settlement, which should contribute to "progress towards the implementation of the resolutions of UN Commission for India and Pakistan of 13th Aug 1948 and 5th Jan 1949.

Before proceeding further it is relevant to mention here that in terms of article 253 of the institution of India, Parliament has power to make laws for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention or any decision made at international conference, association or body.

Article 253 empowers the parliament to legislate for giving effect to International agreements. "Read in the light of Kashmir dispute and obligations assumed by India under the UNCIP resolutions, this article makes the accession of Kashmir to India provisional and by implication, provides for even her secession from the union." Says P. N. Lakhanpal in his book "Essential documents and notes on Kashmir Dispute. "These provisions virtually invalidate section 3 of state constitution adopted on 17th Nov. 1957", Says he further.

According to United Nations charter the purposes of the United Nations are; to maintain international peace and to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and to bring about by peaceful means and conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which may lead to a breach of peace. It also envisages the development of friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and "Self determinations of the people" and for taking other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace. All members of the United Nations are required action, to carry out the decisions of security council for the maintenance of international peace and the United Nations have also to join their hands in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the security council. A member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the principles contained in the United Nations charter is liable to expulsion from the organisation.

The Universal declaration Human Rights, 1948 also says that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. It also says that recognition of inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. Also emphasis the need of protecting the human rights of the man so as not to compel him to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression.

The international covenant on civil and Political Rights 1966, also recognises the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of human family as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. It says that all people have the "right to self determination" and by virtue of that right they are fee to determine their political status and pursue freely their economic, social and cultural development. It enjoins on all parties to the covenant "to promote the realization of the right of self determination" and to respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the United Nations charter.

The international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights 1966, also envisages that all people have the "right of self determination" and by virtue of that right to determine freely their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development. It also stipulates that all parties to the covenant shall promote the realization of right of self individually and through international assistance and cooperation, to achieve the rights recognized by the covenant.

India which has acceded to these covenants is bound by what is stipulated therein, not with standing the fact that in denying the right of self determination to the people of Kashmir, it has all along nurtured a notion that the right of self determination, in its application to India means the people under "foreign domination and that these rights do not apply to sovereign independent states or to a section of people or nation.

The Vienna declaration and programme of action 1993, which was adopted in the world conference on Human Rights held in Vienna from 14th and 25th June 1993, to review and assess the progress in the field of Human Rights also reaffirms the solemn commitment of all states to fulfil their obligation to promote universal respect for observance and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedom for all, in accordance with the charter of the United Nations, other instruments relation to human rights and international law. The declaration also envisages that human rights and fundamental freedoms are the birth right of all human beings and their promotions and protection is the first responsibility of every government. It also states that all people have the "right to self determination and by virtue of that right they are entitled to determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

India calls itself to be a democratic state. Democracy is based on the "freely expressed will" of the people, to determine their won political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all respects of their lives. Democracy, development and respect for human rights are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Where people are subjugated and a reign of terror is let loose on them, it can't be termed democracy. There promises are made and blatantly broken and with impunity, democracy is gone. Where international commitments are ruthlessly subverted, democracy is buried. Mere enactment of laws is not enough. It is the spirit which matters. United Kingdom has lived without a constitution but it has followed conventions and traditions in all spheres of life and have progressed. It is not correct to suggest that if international commitments are asked to be fulfilled, it will amount to sedition. Even the very definition of sedition given by the India penal code does not suggest so. Sedition brings into its fold something which brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law. A country which is signatory to international covenants and proclaims itself to be a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic can't be brought into hatred or disaffection, when people to whom it has given a solemn commitment of exercising their right of self determination, both at the national and international level, ask it to do so. Elections are no substitute to the right of self determination and when the democracy itself has said so how can it wriggle out from that.

It is also enjoined on the parliament of India, to do what it can. Article 253 of the constitution, permits it to make laws for the implementation of any treaty, agreement or conventions or any decision made at international conference, association or other body. IT has no power to make a law or pass a resolution which runs contrary to an international covenant or resolution. Thus passing a resolution that entire Jammu and Kashmir including Pakistan administered Kashmir is an integral part of India is contrary to article 253 of the constitution of India as well as against article I thereof. Kashmiris for their struggle are not totally dependant on Pakistan. It is an indigenous movement and Pakistan, repeatedly says it has given only moral and political support to the cause. The behaviour of government of India during the past 57 years has no doubt been that of engaging the Kashmiris and world community in false details and during this period they have tried their utmost to suppress the voice of people. They have tried Bakhshies, Sadiqs, Abdullahs and now Muftis in their endeavour to burl the people but they have succeeded in bullying them on. In his book "Kashmir through the ages" Gwasha Lal Koul, a journalist writes:

"Bakshi diagnosed the disease which was eating into the vitals of society like a cancer. The disease was scarcity and high price of food stuffs, small pays, growing taxes, costly education debts, mujwazas and what not. Sheikh Mohd Abdullah probably wanted to use mass discontent as a trump card in favour of independence. Bakshi turned the corner. But armies of India and Pakistan are still facing each other at the cease-fire line as they have been since 1948. Kashmir is an apple of discord. What is coming ahead baffles even surmise…."

There is unanimity of opinion in regard to the settlement of Kashmir through a plebiscite in Pakistan. However in India, because of illiteracy, poverty and bias, it is not so. There is however a growing realization among the intelligentsia of the huge financial drain on India's resources owing to the dispute and the need for its early end. IT is his realization, which has brought India and Pakistan, now close to each other.

Considering that both parties have gone nuclear and a war will be disastrous, they have decided to work together and find out ways and means to sort out all their differences including Kashmir. I suppose the only big difference between the two countries is Kashmir land once settled in accordance with the wishes of the people, everything well be settled. The settlement of Kashmir has however to be on the basis of international covenants, commitments and resolutions and without Kashmiris, a solution found at Delhi or Islamabad would do not good to the problem.