The Kashmir Resolutions - Explanations

[roadrunner]

Right, here we are. I said I'd get back to you on this. Here are the UN resolutions. Here is what happened. Here is why India has ignored binding resolutions. Starting with something of historical significance, going through the process 1 by 1. Long read, but will clarify things, so no Indian can cause mischief and twist words.

The history
Kashmir was sold to the a man by the name of Gulab Singh in 1846, when the British defeated the Sikhs for Rs. 7.5 million under the Treaty of Amritsar to pay for their war debts (even though the majority population of Kashmir was Muslim). For another hundred years Kashmir remained in the hands of the Mahrajah's successors. In 1945 however, the British could not hold onto India and they decided to leave whilst reaching agreement under the "two nation theory" to generate a state of Pakistan for those who wanted it. This led to several states including those of modern day Pakistan, and modern day Bangladesh wanting to join the Pakistani Union. However, there remained a state which hesitated about which country to join. No doubt this was because the leader, a Sikh, did not represent the religious culture if you like of his subjects, the majority of who were Muslim. There followed a chain of events which can be summarized in the following letter to Viceeroy Mountbatter from Maharajah Hari Singh (ruler of Kashmir in 1947) :-

The letters
Letter from Maharaja Hari Singh to Lord Mountbatten on Pak invasion of J&K in 1947

My dear Lord Mountbatten,

I have to inform Your Excellency that a grave emergency has arisen in my State and request the immediate assistance of your Government. As Your Excellency is aware,the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not acceded to either the Dominion of India or Pakistan. Geographically my State is contiguous with both of them. Besides, my State has a common boundary with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and with China. In their external relations the Dominion of India and Pakistan cannot ignore this fact. I wanted to take time to decide to which Dominion I should accede or whether it is not in the best interests of both the Dominions and of my State to stand independent, of course with friendly and cordial relations with both. I accordingly approached the Dominions of India and Pakistan to enter into standstill agreement with my State. The Pakistan Government accepted this arrangement. The Dominion of India desired further discussion with representatives of my Government. I could not arrange this in view of the developments indicated below. ln fact the Pakistan Goernment under the standstill agreement is operating the post and telegraph system inside the State. Though we have got a standstill agreement with the Pakistan Government, the Govemment permitted a steady and increasing strangulation of supplies like food, salt and petrol to my State.

Afridis, soldiers in plain clothes, and desperadoes with modern weapons have been allowed to infiltrate into the State, at first in the Poonch area, then from Sialkot and finally in a mass in the area adjoining-Hazara district on the Ramkote side. The result has been that the limited number of troops at the disposal of the State had to be dispersed and thus had to face the enemy at several points simultaneously, so that it has become difficult to stop the wanton destruction of life and property and the looting of the Mahura power house, which supplies electric current to the whole of Srinagar and which has been burnt. The number of women who have been kidnapped and raped makes my heart bleed. The wild forces thus let loose on the State are marching on with the aim of capturing Srinagar, the summer capital of my government, as a first step to overrunning the whole State. The mass infiltration of tribesman drawn from distant areas of the North-West Frontier Province, coming regularly in motortrucks, using the Manwehra-Mazaffarabad road and fully armed with up-to-date weapons, cannot possibly be done without the knowledge of the Provincial Govemment of the North-West Frontier Province and the Government of Pakistan. Inspite of repeated appeals made by my Government no attempt has been made to check these raiders or to stop them from coming into my State. In fact, both radio and the Press of Pakistan have reported these occurences. The Pakistan radio even put out the story that a provisional government has been set up in Kashmir. The people of my State, both Muslims and non-Muslims, generally have taken no part at all.

With the conditbns obtaining at present in my State and the great emergency of the situation as it exists, I have no option but to ask for help from the Indian Dominion. Naturally they cannot send the help asked for by me without my State acceding to the Dominion of India. I have accordingly decided to do so, and I attach the instrument of accession for acceptance by your Government. The other alternative is to leave my state and people to free booters. On this basis no civilised government can exist or be maintained.

This alternative I will never allow to happen so long as I am the ruler of the State and I have life to defend my country. I may also inform your Excellency's Government that it is my intention at once to set up an interim government and to ask Sheikh Abdullah to carry the responsibilities in this emergency with my Prime Minister.

If my State is to be saved, immediate assistance must be available at Srinagar. Mr. V.P. Menon is fully aware of the gravity of the situation and will explain it to you, if further explanation is needed.

In haste and with kindest regards,

Yours sincerely,

Hari Singh
October 26, 1947


Response from Lord Mountbatten

My dear Maharaja Sahib,

Your Highness' letter dated 26 October 1947 has been delivered to me by Mr. V.P. Menon. In the circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. In consistence with their policy that in the 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, it is my Government's wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and its soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people.

Meanwhile, in response to Your Highness' appeal for military aid, action has been taken today to send troops of the Indian Army to Kashmir, to help your own forces to defend your territory and to protect the lives, property, and honour of your people. My Government and I note with satisfaction that Your Highness has decided to invite Sheikh Abdullah to form an interim Government to work with your Prime Minister.

Mountbatten of Burma
October 27, 1947 http://www.kashmir.com/modules.php?n...=article&sid=5

The important points of Mountbatten's letters
The Kashmiri people must decide whether they want to join with India or Pakistan
The Kashmiri people would get the chance to vote as soon as law and order was restored

The history continues....
So, the Indian Army came into Kashmir to restore law and order and prevent the alleged incursions by Pathani tribesmen from the frontier province of what was to become Pakistan. So far it's clear. India restores law and order, holds, free and fair elections, Kashmiris choose their path either India or Pakistan and India leaves if the Kashmiris choose Pakistan. Let's ignore the issue of whether the Maharajah was right to ignore the wishes of his majority Muslim populous and invite the Indian Army in, since now the UN stepped in and international law became applicable.

At this time, Pakistani irregulars controlled about 35% of Kashmir and India the rest. The UN decided to establish the line of control between these areas. Then began years of debate and UN resolutions about this conflict. The main essence of these resolutions are these in my point of view :-

Resolution of the Security Council of March 30, 1951-->> Observing that the Governments of India and Pakistan have accepted the provisions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 and of the Security Council resolution of 14 March 1950 (see below), and have re-affirmed their desire that the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations (Binding agreement between India, Pakistan, and the UNSC

Resolution of the Security Council, 14 March1950 -->Considering that the resolution of the outstanding difficulties be based upon the substantial measure of agreement of fundamental principles already reached, and that steps should be taken forthwith for the demilitarization of the State and for the expeditious determination of its future in accordance with the freely expressed will of the inhabitants.

In addition, India is bound to the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolutions of 1948 and 1949. Both re-iterate that the will of the Kashmiri people will determine which side they join. These therefore are binding in nature. Even the Indian foreign minister, Krishna Menon, acknowledged this by describing these resolutions as being in the nature of an “international agreement”. The acceptance of their binding character by the Indian permanent representative to the UN during the 1957 Security Council debate on Kashmir further confirmed this. The fact that the UN acknowledged the binding nature of this agreement makes it an international law/standard. A violation of this international law is illegal. Now here is the crux of the matter :-

In 1951 with Article 370 (which has been temporary for the last 53 years) India incorporated Kashmir temporarily into their constitution, and then finally amended their fully incorporating Kashmir into the Indian constitution 4 years later (1957) without consuIing the people of Kashmir. This is clearly a violation of UN resolutions since plebscite must be held before Kashmir accedes to anyone. This was agreed bilaterally with the UN as observed by the UN. Can there be any disagreement that it was illegal to steal Kashmir like this?

The binding nature of these UN resolutions (acknowledgement from India at a government level)

Finally some quotes from Indian officials on Kashmir exemplifying their commitment to plebiscite rather than forced accession as history has found them do :-

We adhere strictly to our pledge of plebiscite in Kashmir – a pledge made to the people because they believe in democratic government …… We don’t regard Kashmir as a commodity to be trafficked in
-Krishna Menon (Press statement in London, reported in the Statesman,
New Delhi, 2nd August, 1951)

The Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible
-Letter from Govt. of India to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, 11th September, 1951

I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken.
-Krishna Menon (Statement at UN Security Council, 24th January, 1957)

The resolutions of January 17, 1948 and the resolutions of the UNICP, the assurances given, these are all resolutions which carry a greater weight – that is because we have accepted them, we are parties to them, whether we like them or not.
-Krishna Menon, (Statement at UN Security Council, 20th February, 1957)

These documents (UNCIP reports) and declarations and the resolutions of the Security Council are decisions; they are resolutions, there has been some resolving of a question of one character or another, there has been a meeting of minds on this question where we have committed ourselves to it.
-Krishna Menon, (Statement at the Security Council, 9th October, 1957)


India believes that sovereignty rests in the people and should return to them.
-Krishna Menon, (The Statesman, Delhi, 19th January, 1962)

 

[roadrunner]

There was a very good opportunity with UN resolution 98 to de-militarize the region calling for the reduction of Pakistani troop levels to 3k-6k, and Indian troop levels to 12k-18k. Pakistan agreed to this, but India insisted it needed 21k troops to maintain the security. It sounds incredibily disingenuous to claim a mere 3000 troops would make such a difference to the security of the region. Again the important point of the matter is that this was a trilateral agreement to demilitarize the region according to UNSC resolution 47 of 21 April 1948 calling for “the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani national not normally resident therein” and the reduction of Indian forces in the state to “minimum strength required” in order to lay the grounds for the plebiscite". 3000 troops is an exceptionally fastidious margin by which to renege on an agreement.

UN resolution 98 of 23RD December 1952
Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3,000 and 6,000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line and between 12,000 and 18,000 armed forces remaining on the India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952

UN resolution 80, 14th March 1950
Commending the Governments of India and Pakistan for their statesman like action in reaching the agreements embodied in the United Nations Commission's resolutions of August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949 for a cease-fire, for the demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and for the determination of its final disposition in accordance with the will of the people through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite

Sir Owen Dixon, Head of the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), in his report to the Security Council on 15 September 1950. He stated that, “in the end I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of plebiscite of such character, as would in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled."

The way forward is another demilitarization procedure, but one that is implemented and squabbled over petty numbers. The Kashmiri people should decide their fate.

 

[roadrunner]

And one of the common responses of Salim on UN resolutions "Pakistan had to withdraw all its troops from Kashmir as per resolution 47". Nonsense. Here's resolution 47 in the flesh.

Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948.
(Document No.1100, Para. 75, dated the 9th November, 1948).

(1) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw itstroops from that State. CHECK - Pakistan agreed

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from theState of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident thereinwho have entered the State for the purpose of fighting. CHECK - Pakistan tried

(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission. - CHECK - Pakistan awaited the following

When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.- CHECK - "are being withdrawn", when Pakistani troops ARE BEING withdrawn, then India must agree to reduce its troops.

But did it? Answer is next.

Onto 1952, and Pakistani troops were being withdrawn, now UNCIP asks India to reduce its troops as per resolution 47 above.

UN resolution 98 of 23RD December 1952
Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3,000 and 6,000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line and between 12,000 and 18,000 armed forces remaining on the India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952

But oh no, did it agree to reduce its troops? Here are those words again
UNCIP representative: "in the end I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of plebiscite of such character, as would in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled."
UNCIP chief representative

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

So 'are being" means "has been done"?

60 years and still on the go!

Marvellous!

Do it and then talk.

PAKISTAN AND UNITED NATIONS ON KASHMIR

Guest Column-by Abdul Hamid Khan, Chairman Balawaristan National Front

UN RESOLUTIONS

The Jammu and Kashmir, including Gilgit Baltistan (Balawaristan), dispute emerged when Pakistan signed an agreement of stand still with Maharaja Hari Singh for keeping him in oblivion. Later, Pakistan sent its force to Jammu and Kashmir in the disguise of tribals. Tribal like troops and human like beasts while using the holy name of Islam resorted pillaging and carnage in Jammu and Kashmir and raped women. Several women were sold by F.C. in the brothels of Peshawar and other cities of NWFP. After this, the Maharaja was compelled for accession with India. India besides landing its military operation to oust Pakistani soldiers from Jammu and Kashmir, knocked the door of the UN. The UN Commission for lndia and Pakistan (UNCIP) passed a resolution on August 13th,1948. This resolution, by following the request of Pakistan, declared Balawaristan (OGB) as a part of Jammu and Kashmir state. The important clauses of this resolution gives right to the people of Balawaristan (OGB) that they should either vote for Pakistan or for India or for their independent state through a fair, free and impartial plebiscite, like other parts of Jammu & Kashmir. This clause was accepted by both India and Pakistan. After it, the commission adopted another resolution on January 5th,1949 in which the text of the August 13th,1948 resolution, which envisaged the right of people of Jammu and Kashmir including Balawaristan(G.B.) to choose their own independent state, was withdrawn on the request of Pakistan. India did not object to it, because it did not pose any threat to Indian interests. Now the people of Jammu and Kashmir and Balawaristan (G.B.) should understand Pakistan’s long standing heinous plan of capturing their land and properties after getting them killed. Pakistan had accepted the resolution for complete withdrawal of its all forces and armed civilians within 7 weeks, according the UN resolution, but later through a formal request, Pakistan gave assurance to complete the process of withdrawal within 12 weeks instead of 7 weeks. This request was accepted by the U.N. commission. Pakistan also accepted India’s proposal that after the withdrawal of Pakistan’s troops, India will pullout the bulk of its forces in a phased manner and a smaller part of Indian Army will remain in Jammu and Kashmir. According to this resolution India can keep 3 lakh troops of the army, after withdrawing 5 lakh troops out of 8 lakh (As Pakistan claims) deployed in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan had also accepted this demand of India, which said, that India can deploy its garrisons at 15 vital places of Balawaristan (Occupied Gilgit Baltistan). The UN resolution further says (and Pakistan had accepted) that a local Government would be formed in Jammu and Kashmir state (four thousand sq. miles area) and Balawaristan (28,000 sq. mile area).

According UNCIP resolutions the local authority will be fully represented to restore law and order and to run the administration under the supervision of UNCIP and Pakistan has no role in it.

The important part and the text of the UN resolution is as follows:-
“The territory evacuated by Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authority under the surveillance of the commission”. In the next stage the UN Security Council guarantees the political and human rights in the areas of local authority. Now the people of occupied Balawaristan and Pakistan should decide themselves, that to how much extent Pakistan had complied with the U.N. resolution, while accusing India of non implementation of the U.N. resolution. Will Pakistan now be ready to withdraw all its forces along with arms and ammunition as well as those nationals who intruded the state of Jammu and Kashmir including Balawaristan (OGB) after 1947, in case India announces to implement the U.N. resolution and deploys only 3 lakhs out of 8 lakhs of the troops in Jammu and Kashmir and Balawaristan (O.G.B.). It seems impossible that this hypocratic country would fulfill its obligation. It wanted to usurp the entire region of Jammu and Kashmir. It is not sincere in the implementation of the U.N. resolution upon itself. If India today announces the implementation of the U.N. resolution, the heinous face of this hypo critic and liar country would be exposed.

PAKISTAN & UN
The U.N. resolution orders Pakistan to completely withdraw its forces from Occupied Gilgit Baltistan (OGB the 28000 square mile area). But this expansionist, usurper and wicked country increases the strength of its army regularly instead of withdrawal. These forces have brought along with them ISI, MI, FIU, 555, FIT and dozens of other agencies and agents. These agencies have occupied the houses and properties of the people and are plundering their resources, ethnic and cultural values. The free movement of the people has been restricted. Life has been made difficult for them within their homeland. Pakistani army is settling terrorists, arms smugglers and drug traffickers to crush the local population. The UNSC guarantees the fundamental, human and democratic rights in all disputed regions. But Pakistan does not recognize human rights here and this has been admitted by the Supreme court of Pakistan, after a lapse of 52 years. But it could neither punish the guilt, nor compensate the affected. N.As. council which though an elected body has not even got the powers of a local body of any city. Therefore the Doctor’s organisation has described councilors of N.As. Council as municipal watchmen.
PAKISTAN AND UNITED NATIONS ON KASHMIR

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

-RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN ON 13 AUGUST 1948. (DOCUMENT NO. S/1100, PARA 75, DATED THE 9TH NOVEMBER, 1948)

The resolution clearly states:

1.The presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation and the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State….

Question1.Did the Government of Pakistan removed its forces from the State of Kashmir as per UN Resolution of 1948?

2.The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals …………..

Question 2.So, The UN agreed that pashtun tribal who were not a part of Kashmir were fighting along with army regulars you agree?

3.Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission…….. the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the Commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order.

Question 3.When the UN commission decided that Indian forces are to be kept to maintain minimum law and order did Pakistan vacate *** as per instructions of the United Nations?

4..When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn……

Question4 Has Pakistan notified the UN or Party to dispute “India” about tribesmen and Pakistani nationals withdrawing from Kashmir?.

There is a misunderstanding that the resolution contained only a plebiscite. If you check the resolution it contains three steps in sequence

a)Cease Fire(was implemented and the result is present day LOC)

b)Truce agreement(produced next post)

c)Plebiscite

Often the plebiscite is quoted by Pakistani authorities without the mention of truce agreement. The logical step should be implement Cease fire—Truce agreement—and then Plebiscite for Kashmir to determine their fate.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

*RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN ON 13 AUGUST 1948. (DOCUMENT NO. S/1100, PARA 75, DATED THE 9TH NOVEMBER, 1948)

THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Having given careful consideration to the points of view expressed by the Representatives of India and Pakistan regarding the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and

Being of the opinion that the prompt cessation of hostilities and the coercion of conditions the continuance of which is likely to endanger international peace and security are essential to implementation of its endeavors to assist the Governments of India and Pakistan in effecting a final settlement of the situation.

Resolves to submit simultaneously to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following proposal

PART I

CEASE-FIRE ORDER

1. The Governments of India and Pakistan agree that their respective High Commands will issue separately and simultaneously a cease- fire order to apply to all forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as of the earliest practicable date or dates to be mutually agreed upon within four days after these proposals have been accepted by both Governments.

2. The High Commands of Indian and Pakistan forces agreed to refrain from taking any measures that might augment the military potential of the forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. (For the purpose of these proposals "forces under their control shall be considered to include all forces, organized and unorganized, fighting or participating in hostilities on their respective sides).

3. The Commanders-in-Chief of the Forces of India and Pakistan shall promptly confer regarding any necessary local changes in present dispositions which may facilitate the cease-fire.

4. In its discretions and as the Commission may find practicable, the Commission will appoint military observers who under the authority of the Commission and with the co-operation of both Commands will supervise the observance of the cease-fire order.

5. The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan agree to appeal to their respective peoples to assist in creating and maintaining an atmosphere favorable to the promotion of further negotiations.



PART II

TRUCE AGREEMENT

Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in Part I, both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.

1. (l) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavor to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.

2. (1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission

(2) Pending the acceptance of the conditions for a final settlement of the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the Commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order. The Commission will have observers stationed where it deems necessary.

(3) The Government of India will undertake to ensure that the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will take all measures within their power to make it publicly known that peace, law and order will be safeguarded and that all human and political rights will be guaranteed.

3. (1) Upon signature, the full text of the Truce Agreement or communiqué containing the principles thereof as agreed upon between the two Governments and the Commission, will be made public.


PART III

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.


*The UNCIP unanimously adopted this Resolution on 13-8-1948.

Members of the Commission: Argentina. Belgium, Columbia, Czechoslovakia and U.S.A.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Let's, therefore, not speak as if we are on 'grass'.


Understand the reality. Understand the complications 60years of inaction has done and how the world views the issue now.

And then, talk.

Here is what Kofi Anan, the Secretary General of the UN had to say:

August 28, 2006
UN Resolution On Kashmir Irrelevant - Kofi Anan
Filed under: Kashmir, Quotes for Thought, Terrorism In Kashmir, UN — vicharnaag @ 7:25 am

….UN resolutions on Kashmir did not come under Chapter 7 of the UN charter and were, therefore, not self-enforcing. Unlike the resolutions on East Timor and Iraq, which come under that particular chapter, the Kashmir resolutions require the cooperation of both parties for implementation……[ March 2001 During his brief interaction with the media at Pakistan’s Chakala military ]
UN Resolution On Kashmir Irrelevant - Kofi Anan « The Kashmir

The truth of the matter is that the US backed Pakistan then and got her into CENTO and SEATO and made the issue controversial and now that there is no requirement for Pakistan it currently, the US has abandoned Pakistan and embraced India!

Other UN Security Council members are dependent on the US munificences and though they dislike the US, they are not ready to intervene in affairs that have no bearing to their well being in the geostrategic equation.

So, as the English nursery rhyme goes - Pop goes the Weasel!

 

[roadrunner]

Salim,

I really don't think you have the foggiest about what you're going on about. But anyhow, I'll reply just to be clear.

First your invention of the Indian papers on what Kofi Annan (who incidentally is not the UN secretary General and would not have had the power to rule on UN resolutions when he was SG). The reality is the Kofi Annan said no such thing, as was stated by Huanji she, the UN spokeswoman..

"That was not what he said at all, said Huanji She said as you can see On 10 March 2001, he was asked by a journalist in Islamabad if the UN would be interested to implement its resolutions as it implemented in East Timor ? The Secretary General replied "I think the UN resolutions on Kashmir are on record and the UN has observers in the region. We have UNMOGIP. In fact, the Chief Military Observer is here.

Secretary General said "You are comparing apples and oranges" When it comes to implementation of resolutions, I think we have to be clear here. The UN has two types of resolutions -- enforcement resolutions under Chapter VII and other resolutions. The resolution you are referring to here comes under Chapter VI, which require cooperation of both parties to get implemented. the two parties discussing these issues and finding a peaceful way is the route I recommend.
Spokeswoman rejects Kofi Annan said UN resolution on Kashmir not binding - ContactPakistan.com

In fact, the UN resolutions ARE binding, as I've proved above with resolution from March 30th, 1951, and numerous quotes from Indian government.

 

[roadrunner]

So 'are being" means "has been done"?

60 years and still on the go!

Marvellous!

Do it and then talk.

I realize English is not your first language, so i don't see this as a sign of stupidity. But the phrase "are being withdrawn", mean as troops "are being" withdrawn, India must do something else. That something else was agree to reduce its troop number down to 18,000, as per UNCIP resolution above, which it never did. It wanted 24,000 (a mere 6,000 troops more !), while Pakistan had agreed to get its troop number down to 6,000.

Use some common sense Salim. Do you honestly believe the UN would tell ALL Pak troops to vacate so that the only troops left in Kashmir would be Indian? It would, and did call for a simultaneous withdrawal of troops from both Pakistan and India, with Pakistan taking the first step (which Pakistan did - which is why UNCIP proceeded to ask India to reduce its troop number, which it refused to do despite having an international obligation to do so).

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Road Runner,

No, English is not my first language, even though that is what we spoke at home.

I confess I do not have the ecstatic acclaim to European descent as you possibly have, not that it is something that one should exult about, it being historically a wee bit embarrassing to claim one is not indigenous.

That apart, of course, you would know better what Kofi Anan said since you were at his knees I presume.

I am afraid you live in a fond delusion and in denial of the contemporary times.

UN resolutions on Kashmir obsolete: Qayyum
UN resolutions on Kashmir obsolete: Qayyum

And what did Mushrraf have to say on it?

Google boy google!

So, there you are, Bob's your uncle!

 

[roadrunner]

Road Runner,

No, English is not my first language, even though that is what we spoke at home.

I confess I do not have the ecstatic acclaim to European descent as you possibly have, not that it is something that one should exult about, it being historically a wee bit embarrassing to claim one is not indigenous.

That apart, of course, you would know better what Kofi Anan said since you were at his knees I presume.

whatever you're on about here is a mystery to me. Anyhow, I would say that Indian media quoting one thing, Pak media another is nothing new. Both are pretty crap (as is a lot of official "independent" media round the world). So just stick to the resolutions. At least you have agreed that the resolution does say "are being", meaning that Pakistani troops did not have to vacate out of Kashmir completely, before the agreement was gotten from the Indian side (which it never was, so halting the demilitarization process due to Indian hindrance).

I am afraid you live in a fond delusion and in denial of the contemporary times.

UN resolutions on Kashmir obsolete: Qayyum
UN resolutions on Kashmir obsolete: Qayyum

Funny the way that he says the UN resolutions are relevant here..

"Sardar Qayyum censured to the continual surfacing of barbed wire fence by India along the LoC and said; 'it is a blatant and flagrant violation of all the international laws including the UN resolutions on Kashmir."
Pakistan Times | Kashmir: Qayyum Vows for Intra-Kashmiri Dialogue

And what did Mushrraf have to say on it?

Well, Musharraf said nothing of what you or Indian media think he said. Here's his prime minister at the time saying it..

Pakistan Premier says UN Resolution Key to Kashmir

Pakistan Times Monitoring Report

NEW DELHI (India): The UN-mandated referendum on the future of disputed state of Jammu n' Kashmir must be the basis for resolving the decades-old problem with rival India, Pakistan Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali said on Sunday.

About President Musharraf's offer of flexibility both by India n' Pakistan on the topic of Kashmir, Jamali said to Indian news television channel NDTV 24x7 in an interview: 'I don't think the President meant that [a deviation from UN resolutions].'

Musharraf's remarks were received with a mixture of relief and alarm and some commentators described him as--'too generous to India'.

'UN Resolution...Basis of resolving Kashmir Issue'

Jamali reaffirmed that 'UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite remained the basis of resolving the Kashmir issue'.

'The basis of the whole solution lies in the UN resolution. That has to be kept in mind. You cannot overlook it,' the Premier remarked.

'Resolutions not to be Forgotten'

Asked what Musharraf meant when he said the demand for resolutions could be set aside, Jamali said 'When President Musharraf said 'set aside', he probably meant...yes they have to be followed.'

'The UN resolutions will be carried through. They have to come up,' he said and warned that if the UN resolutions were abandoned, it would make things 'difficult to work' between India and Pakistan.

Responding to another question about 'setting aside UN resolutions and plebiscite in Kashmir', the Prime Minister stated, 'we cannot forget them.' The solution of Kashmir issue lies in UN resolutions, he added.

Backdrop

New Delhi forcibly occupies around 45 percent of Muslim-majority Jammu n' Kashmir State, and insists on its baseless view that 'it was an integral part of India.'

With a brutal way, Indian troops in the held-Kashmir have martyred tens of thousands of the innocent people for raising voice for their birth right of self-determination during the 14-year freedom struggle in India held-Kashmir. The two nuclear-armed neighbors have fought two of their three wars over the revolt-racked state.

Pakistan Times | Kashmir: Qayyum Vows for Intra-Kashmiri Dialogue

So there you have it. Let's forget what irrelevant people say. Singh, Mush, Qayyum have no hold on international law. The UN resolutions do. This topic is about who has not followed the UN resolutions. It's pretty clear India broke its agreement, and stopped the demilitarization process. Forget media, and the rest, just stick to resolutions if you can.

Google boy google!

So, there you are, Bob's your uncle!

And Salim's your grandfather

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

whatever you're on about here is a mystery to me. Anyhow, I would say that Indian media quoting one thing, Pak media another is nothing new. Both are pretty crap (as is a lot of official "independent" media round the world). So just stick to the resolutions. At least you have agreed that the resolution does say "are being", meaning that Pakistani troops did not have to vacate out of Kashmir completely, before the agreement was gotten from the Indian side (which it never was, so halting the demilitarization process due to Indian hindrance).

The troops had to vacate first before the Plebiscite and there is no question of any future tense being there in the resolution.

"Are being" does not mean "has been".

Do read the Truce Agreement of the UN and it says

1. (l) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

I thought you inferred that English was your first language!

Funny the way that he says the UN resolutions are relevant here..

"Sardar Qayyum censured to the continual surfacing of barbed wire fence by India along the LoC and said; 'it is a blatant and flagrant violation of all the international laws including the UN resolutions on Kashmir."
Pakistan Times | Kashmir: Qayyum Vows for Intra-Kashmiri Dialogue

Funny, what?



Well, Musharraf said nothing of what you or Indian media think he said. Here's his prime minister at the time saying it..

Pakistan Premier says UN Resolution Key to Kashmir

Pakistan Times Monitoring Report

NEW DELHI (India): The UN-mandated referendum on the future of disputed state of Jammu n' Kashmir must be the basis for resolving the decades-old problem with rival India, Pakistan Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali said on Sunday.

About President Musharraf's offer of flexibility both by India n' Pakistan on the topic of Kashmir, Jamali said to Indian news television channel NDTV 24x7 in an interview: 'I don't think the President meant that [a deviation from UN resolutions].'

Musharraf's remarks were received with a mixture of relief and alarm and some commentators described him as--'too generous to India'.

'UN Resolution...Basis of resolving Kashmir Issue'

Jamali reaffirmed that 'UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite remained the basis of resolving the Kashmir issue'.

'The basis of the whole solution lies in the UN resolution. That has to be kept in mind. You cannot overlook it,' the Premier remarked.

'Resolutions not to be Forgotten'

Asked what Musharraf meant when he said the demand for resolutions could be set aside, Jamali said 'When President Musharraf said 'set aside', he probably meant...yes they have to be followed.'

'The UN resolutions will be carried through. They have to come up,' he said and warned that if the UN resolutions were abandoned, it would make things 'difficult to work' between India and Pakistan.

Responding to another question about 'setting aside UN resolutions and plebiscite in Kashmir', the Prime Minister stated, 'we cannot forget them.' The solution of Kashmir issue lies in UN resolutions, he added.

Backdrop

New Delhi forcibly occupies around 45 percent of Muslim-majority Jammu n' Kashmir State, and insists on its baseless view that 'it was an integral part of India.'

With a brutal way, Indian troops in the held-Kashmir have martyred tens of thousands of the innocent people for raising voice for their birth right of self-determination during the 14-year freedom struggle in India held-Kashmir. The two nuclear-armed neighbors have fought two of their three wars over the revolt-racked state.

Pakistan Times | Kashmir: Qayyum Vows for Intra-Kashmiri Dialogue

So there you have it. Let's forget what irrelevant people say. Singh, Mush, Qayyum have no hold on international law. The UN resolutions do. This topic is about who has not followed the UN resolutions. It's pretty clear India broke its agreement, and stopped the demilitarization process. Forget media, and the rest, just stick to resolutions if you can.

It is pretty clear that Pakistan NEVER implemented the Resolution and has no intention of doing so either!

And Salim's your grandfather

I thought you said you knew English well. And of European descent.

Here it proves you know hardly a sausage about the English Language.

"Bobs, your Uncle" is an English phrase and it has nothing to indicate that your Uncle's name is Bob. Learn English, old boy before you are shown up since Pretenders cannot hold a candle in the face of factual truth i.e. you know English!

 

[UnitedPak]

The very idea of Kashmiris themselves deciding their own future sounds totally ridiculous to the democracy loving Indians. The only explanation is that Indians who have never set a foot in Kashmir seem to be under the impression that they own Kashmir and everyone in it.

Every agreement has been broken by India when it comes to Kashmir. What was the whole point of the 2 nation theory which allowed a Hindu India to exist in the first place? We could have gone back to the pre-British Muslim rule.

Kashmiris were promised a referendum, and thats still what they want today. Indian claims that a referendum isnt possible are baseless and will only further question India's so called democracy.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The Rediff Interview/Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan

'Independent Kashmir is a mental luxury'

September 21, 2005

Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan, who previously held the posts of both president and prime minister of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir -- Azad Kashmir, as he likes to put it -- is in New Delhi to participate in the 'Heart-to-Heart talks' about Kashmir.

Independent Kashmir not possible

Organised by Harcharan Singh Josh, president of the Indian Council of World Affairs, and Bhim Singh of the Panther's Party, the talks are being held between Kashmiris on either side of the Line of Control that divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan.

The meeting was first scheduled to be held in Jammu but Sardar Qayyum Khan did not want to travel to Jammu on an Indian visa, which he said amounts to accepting Jammu and Kashmir as a part of India.

"I had a problem and I told the organisers," he told Senior Associate Editor Onkar Singh in an interview at New Delhi's Ashok Hotel, where he is staying with other members of his contingent.

"Independent Kashmir is a mental luxury," he said while ruling out the possibility of the two Kashmirs becoming one independent unit. Preferring to give short answers, the 80-year-old politician from across the border is one of the few saner voices from Pakistan, who talks of a practical solution to the Jammu and Kashmir problem.

Don't expect miracles from dialogue process

What do you think of the peace initiative between India and Pakistan?

Despite various difficulties which are inherent in the situation, I think the peace initiative between the two countries headed by Dr Manmohan Singh, prime minister of India, and General Pervez Musharraf, president of Pakistan, is moving forward in the right direction. I sincerely hope these discussions are taken to their logical end. I hope they would continue in the same spirit in which they have started. At least that is what my personal expectations are.

What about the peace talks that were initiated by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee?

I would say that the moves made prior to this initiative were also in the right direction. I supported those moves as well. We Kashmiris would support any move that brings peace in Kashmir. Vajpayee is the only person who could have done things.

What do you mean?

I mean he could have done what he did in Lahore. This is the specific point that I would like to point out.

You were given an opportunity to travel to the Indian side of Kashmir but you chose not to go there. Why?

You see, I could not go on an Indian visa to Jammu. That was my problem. If I have to visit Jammu from Muzaffarabad via Srinagar and then go to Poonch and Rajouri, I would be travelling some 4,000 kilometers and that is not feasible.

In your speech at this convention you referred to the reluctance of India to recognise that Pakistan is a reality. What made you say that?

Pakistan is a reality. It is a question where we go into the history and political background. Many, many steps need to be taken by both sides to win the confidence of the people. The ethos of hatred, enmity and antagonism that has been existing puts pressure all the time against Pakistan's defence, economy and security which is known only to the experts; the public would not know about it.

The rogue and the meek

The All-Parties Hurriyat Conference thinks that independent Kashmir is a growing reality?

Independent Kashmir is a mental luxury as I call it. It does not exist anywhere. It does not exist in the scheme of things. You cannot create it. It does not suit India, Pakistan and China. There is no authority, no organisation. Then who can create an independent Kashmir?

Does it suit the Kashmiris themselves?

No, independent Kashmir does not suit the Kashmiris either. They would feel strangulated. Why should we discuss a thing which does not exist anywhere? And which we cannot bring into existence.

So the best solution according to you is to give autonomy to either side of Kashmir?

To begin with, this is one step that could set things in motion. But this should be treated as an interim step. Let me add that autonomy is not the solution, it is moving forward towards the solution. You got to go step by step. You cannot stop all of a sudden. This could be part of confidence building measures. This decidedly is not the end.

Does Sardar Qayyum Khan have a solution in mind?

I have no solution in my mind except that India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris should sit down and open-heartedly discuss all options on the table for a long time and then find a way out.

'Kashmir is falling off the American radar'

Why can an independent Kashmir not exist is something some Kashmiri leaders on the Indian side would like to know.

I have said it earlier and I say it again, that independent Kashmir is a mental luxury and it does not exist. And I for one am not going to waste time discussing something that does not exist.

Where do India and Pakistan go from here?

The two countries would have to strengthen and enhance the confidence building measures and take them to their logical conclusion. We must move forward step by step.

Pakistan wants India to reduce troops in Kashmir and we say they should first wind up the terrorist camps.

This is a blind and baseless allegation and people can go and supervise it. This is not something that can be hidden. We are open to inspection.

What kind of autonomy do you have?

We have a president, a prime minister and an assembly which performs the job of legislation. Of course we have our own election commission which conducts elections in our part of Kashmir.

What kind of future do you see for Kashmiris?

I see the Kashmiris on either side prospering in the future and trade and commerce between the two nations going up.

If India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris have to make concessions, then what kind of concessions are the Kashmiris prepared to make to find a solution to the problem?

I do not know what kind of concessions the Kashmiris can make. But there will have to be a point from where they would have to begin reconciliations. But if you stick to your positions and make no concessions, then there is no movement forward. This is only a perception and a proposal in principle.

Who represents Kashmiris at the negotiating table?

This is a question that has been exploited. I was asked this question by the BBC. My answer is that if we are given an opportunity then we will tell you who would represent the Kashmiris at the negotiating table.

Why should Pakistan decide that the Hurriyat will represent Kashmiris from the Indian side?

That is in the absence of an arrangement. In such a situation many things can happen. Let the time come and we will find out who represents the Kashmiris.

One-time Pakistan supporter Syed Ali Shah Geelani says Pakistan has sold out Kashmir?

This question can best be answered by Geelani himself. I cannot speak for him and I have not been in communication with him for many years.

Are you pained by the sufferings of the Kashmiri Pandits?

Of course I am pained by their sufferings. The non-Muslims in Kashmir have lived in far greater amity than anywhere else in the subcontinent. It is a painful thing that they should have been displaced from their homes.

Photograph: Prakash Singh/AFP/Getty Images

'Independent Kashmir a mental luxury'

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Looking for Solutions in Kashmir: Pakistan’s Perceptions


Suba Chandran
Assistant Director, IPCS

Integration with India: Impossibility

What are the possible solutions in Pakistani perceptions to the Kashmiri conflict? First, there is a unanimous approval in Pakistan that India will not be able to integrate Kashmiris into the Indian state. Pakistan considers that “India’s use of force might have succeeded against Punjabi secessionists since the Indian Punjab unlike Kashmir is not a disputed territory.” Besides the use of force, in Pakistan’s perception “Indian efforts to pacify Kashmiri demands and to divide the Kashmiri opposition by offers of autonomy, such as reviving Article 370, have failed because the Kashmiris do not trust such offers.” The 2002 elections, in their perceptions “might have been necessary to form a representative government to run the affairs of the state, they did not legitimize India’s rule and cannot be a substitute for resolving the dispute.”



The underlying assumption of Pakistan on India-Kashmir relations is that India has failed to integrate Kashmir and would never be succeed in the future. No doubt, India has failed to integrate the Kashmiris (care need to be taken to differentiate between Kashmir and Kashmiris) politically and emotionally into the national mainstream. But where Pakistan’s perceptions on the integration and existence aspects of Kashmiris into mainstream politics are taking in the voices of Srinagar as representative of entire Kashmir. No doubt, the Hurriyat represents a section of Kashmiri opinion, but in no way the Hurriyat could be called as the sole spokesman for Kashmir. Not only is the Hurriyat divided; even the component parties are deeply divided among themselves. Second, like that of the Hurriyat, Srinagar also represent a section of Kashmiri opinion and do not speak for the entire Kashmir. While majority in and around Srinagar would not like to be part of India politically and emotionally, the same cannot be said about the same outside Srinagar. Majority of the Kashmiris (other than the Srinagaris) may not want to be a part India emotionally, but would be willing to live with it politically as long as the governments in the State and the Center are able to provide them good governance. This is why in the 2002 elections, there was less than ten percent polling in Srinagar outside it (except Sopore) it was more than 40 percent.



Independence: A Lip Service

Would Pakistan agree to Kashmir becoming an independent entity? The report is again candid. It says: Although Islamabad pays lip service to the right of Kashmiris to determine their own future, its official policy rejects a possible “third option” of independence. In Islamabad’s view, an independent Kashmir is not acceptable because it would undermine Pakistan’s interests.



General Musharraf’s statement to abandon the UN resolutions should be seen through this perception. The UN resolution basically demands for a plebiscite. And a plebiscite in Kashmir would be in the interest of neither Pakistan nor India. Kashmiris, if given an opportunity to express their will, no doubt would opt for independence. Is an independent Kashmir in the interests of Pakistan? General Musharraf’s statement only reflects the real interests and not any flexibility from Pakistan’s side.



The report makes an important and interesting observation on Kashmir and independence. It says: At the very most, Pakistan might accept an option of independence for only the Kashmir Valley and some Muslim majority areas of Jammu, through for example, a regional referendum held under US auspices. This in fact would be the bargaining position of Pakistan in any of future dialogue with India.



Pakistan’s Kashmir policy is simple. The Valley should not be with India. It does not matter whether it joins Pakistan or not. It is based on the simple dictum: It may not be for me but never should it be for you. Plebiscite, self determination, plight of Kashmiris and suppression of their voices are only a bogus cover for this underlying objective.



LoC as Border: Not Acceptable

India’s bargaining position invariably revolves around converting the LoC into international border. It would never be acceptable for Pakistan, for it consider the status quo as the problem. And they are right. How can the problem be a solution? India obviously needs to move ahead. But how far can India go ahead?



From an Indian perspective, maximum autonomy to both Kashmirs with a soft border could be an option that could be sincerely explored. Surprisingly, the report suggests that for some Pakistani analysts support this compromise. This means, there does exist a constituency that this could be a way out. This solution would result in all the three parties compromising to an extent without too much. India could keep its part of Kashmir politically; Kashmiris would get autonomy and could move along the border which would be soft without any problem; and Pakistan could retain its part of Kashmir with getting autonomy for Kashmir.



But the problem is, the report says, it would be not be acceptable to the military. If this is something that could be acceptable to the people of Pakistan or sold to them, then India should seriously pursue this option along with another set of proposals to remove the fear of Pakistani military. A series of CBMs on conventional and nuclear issues apart from Kashmir would help starting this process. Even if it means a regional arms control ? conventional and nuclear, it is worth pursuing.

IPCS - Pakistan