Thursday, April 28, 2011

KASHMIR-Who's it? Who's getting it!




"Kiska hai, kisko Mileyga"

Kashmir today is without Kashmiri Pandits. A religious minorily, with its 5,000 years of evidenced history and roots linked with Kashmir, was under a concerted plan of ethnic cleansing, forcibly hounded out enmasse from their natural habitat. (Text Source;Shri Ashok Bhans's Paper)

The current agitation in Indian-Held Kashmir is rooted in the struggle of the people for the exercise of the right of self-determination. Peaceful processions chanting demands for freedom were fired upon by Indian Army and Police. Hundreds of men, women and children have been killed or wounded. New Delhi’s allegations of assistance to the Kashmiri people from the Pakistan side are unfounded. Objective reports in foreign media testify that the Kashmiri agitation is indigenous.

Pakistan upholds the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. These resolutions of 1948 and 1949 provided for the holding of a free and impartial plebiscite for the determination of the future of the State by the people of Jammu & Kashmir.

Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory. It does not involve the principle of respect for the unity and territorial integrity of states to which Pakistan adhere. Attempts to forcibly suppress the legitimate demands of the people of Jammu and Kashmir are doomed to failure. Similarly, threats of use of force will not affect Pakistan’s resolve to maintain its position of principle. The Indian claim is that the State is an integral part of the Indian Union and brooks no further discussion. With such a rigid approach, no scope for manoeuvre, what hope can be expected from any talks on the issue which India sometimes agrees to open with Pakistan to hoodwink the world opinion.

Ever since the Simla Agreement was signed, a quarter of a century ago, India has insisted that the issue is purely bilateral one and must be solved without any outside intercession or mediation. India is so allergic to the very reference of the issue in any international forum that one needs to recall India’s bitter reaction to Nelson Mandela’s mention of “Kashmir” at the 1998 NAM Conference in South Africa. Even as India comes to half-hearted international pressure to resolve the flashpoint issue of Kashmir with its neighbour, it only agrees to bilateral talks to gain time.

In May 1998 the issue came to the fore front in the wake of nuclear explosions first by India and then by Pakistan, after which many genuinely hoped that international pressure would be brought to bear on India to come to a meaningful resolution of the Kashmir problem that has bedeviled the two nations of the sub-continent and has eaten up so much of their meager resources. One thing is starkly clear : without an active interest of big powers to come to the rescue of Kashmiris, India will never agree to any meaningful talks on Kashmir.


To avenge their defeats at the hands of India, Pakistan embarked on sponsoring terrorism in Kashmir. It is a matter of common knowledge that, for the last 10 years, the people of Kashmir, particularly Kashmiri Hindus and Hindus of the Doda district in Jammu, in particular, are under perpetual threat from the Pakistani-sponsored militants. They lured and tempted the uneducated youth to take arms against their own brethren with whom they had lived for centuries in peace and tranquillity. (Text Source;Shri Ashok Bhans's Paper)


To be more precise, the terrorist violence has brought about a disaster to all the communities in Kashmir, its culture, its development, its overall social conditions and so on.

- Anonymous (A 45 yr old in India from Pakistan)

6 comments:

  1. The basic points about the UN resolutions are that:

    The complaint relating to Kashmir was initiated by India in the Security Council;

    The Council explicitly and by implication, rejected India’s claim that Kashmir is legally Indian territory;

    The resolutions established self-determination as the governing principle for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute. This is the world body’s commitment to the people of Kashmir;

    The resolutions endorsed a binding agreement between India and Pakistan reached through the mediation of UNCIP, that a plebiscite would be held, under agreed and specified conditions.

    The Security Council has rejected the Indian contention that the people of Kashmir have exercised their right of self-determination by participating in the “election” which India has from time to time organized in the Held Kashmir. The 0.2% turn out during the 1989 “elections” was the most recent clear repudiation of the Indian claim.

    Pakistan continues to adhere to the UN resolutions. These are binding also on India.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Simla Agreement of 2 July 1972, to which Pakistan also continues to adhere, did not alter the status of Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory:

    Para 6 of the Agreement lists “a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir” as one of the outstanding questions awaiting a settlement.

    Para 4 (ii) talks of a “Line of Control” as distinguished from an international border. Furthermore, it explicitly protects “the recognized position of either side.” The recognized position of Pakistan is the one which is recognized by the United Nations and the World Community in general.

    Article 1 (iv) obviously refers to the Kashmir issue when it talks of “the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedeviled the relations between the two countries for the last 25 years.

    The Simla Agreement does not preclude raising of Kashmir issue at the United Nations:

    Para 1 (i) specifically provides that the UN Charter “shall govern” relations between the parties.

    Para 1 (ii) providing for settlement of differences by peaceful means, does not exclude resort to the means of pacific settlement of disputes and differences provided in the UN Charter.

    The UN Security Council remains seized of the Kashmir issue which remains on the Council’s agenda.

    Articles 34 and 35 of the UN Charter specifically empower the Security Council to investigate any dispute independently or at the request of a member State. These provisions cannot be made subservient to any bilateral agreement.

    According to Article 103 of UN Charter, member States obligations under the Charter take precedence over obligations under a bilateral agreement.

    Presence of United Nations Military Observes Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) at the Line of Control in Kashmir is a clear evidence of UN’s involvement in the Kashmir issue.

    Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory. It does not involve the principle of respect for the unity and territorial integrity of states to which Pakistan adhere.

    Attempts to forcibly suppress the legitimate demands of the people of Jammu and Kashmir are doomed to failure. Similarly, threats of use of force will not affect Pakistan’s resolve to maintain its position of principle.

    The Indian claim is that the State is an integral part of the Indian Union and brooks no further discussion. With such a rigid approach, no scope for manoeuvre, what hope can be expected from any talks on the issue which India sometimes agrees to open with Pakistan to hoodwink the world opinion.

    Ever since the Simla Agreement was signed, a quarter of a century ago, India has insisted that the issue is purely bilateral one and must be solved without any outside intercession or mediation. India is so allergic to the very reference of the issue in any international forum that one needs to recall India’s bitter reaction to Nelson Mandela’s mention of “Kashmir” at the 1998 NAM Conference in South Africa. Even as India comes to half-hearted international pressure to resolve the flashpoint issue of Kashmir with its neighbour, it only agrees to bilateral talks to gain time.

    In May 1998 the issue came to the fore front in the wake of nuclear explosions first by India and then by Pakistan, after which many genuinely hoped that international pressure would be brought to bear on India to come to a meaningful resolution of the Kashmir problem that has bedeviled the two nations of the sub-continent and has eaten up so much of their meager resources. One thing is starkly clear : without an active interest of big powers to come to the rescue of Kashmiris, India will never agree to any meaningful talks on Kashmir.

    ReplyDelete
  3. [ A thought-provoking symposium was organised by the Indo-European Kashmir Forum at the House of Commons, London, in November 1998 on the Kashmir issue as viewed in new perspectives. Views expressed at the symposium by Shri C.L Gadoo, President, Kashmiri Samiti, Delhi, appeared in our January 1999 issue. We reproduce hereunder relevant extracts from the speeches made by Justice M.L Bhat (retd.) and Shri Ashok Bhan, advocate, Supreme Court of India, at this symposium. Even though some of the observations and conclusions are repetitive, their publication appears imperative for purposes of reference and record. - Editor. Koshur Samachar]

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rich Sufi Traditions Kashmir has been an abode of saints and sages who were from both Hindu and Muslim communities. They have preached peace and brotherhood, love and affection among the people irrespective of religious considerations. The rich traditions of Kashmir culture are also sought to be destroyed. The worst example of the same can be found in the burning of a pious mosque in Central Kashmir by a hardcore terrorist of Pakistan, Mastgul. There are hundreds of examples of this nature which only show that Pakistan has no love for the people of Kashmir, they only have lust for its land. They have behaved like the enemies of the Kashmiri people.

    ReplyDelete
  5. India fighting a losing battle in Kashmir: Geelani

    Srinagar: Hurriyat Conference (G) chairman, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Thursday said India was fighting a losing battle in Kashmir while the azadi sentiment among youth kept growing stronger by the day despite “arrests and killings.”In a statement issued Geelani said that India was not sincere in talks and New Delhi was using “dialogue as a dilly dallying tactic.” “A solid proof of this is the continued detention of political leaders and activists. In fact, the government has launched a fresh wave of arrests on the pretext of so-called summer unrest this year,” he said.Geelani alleged that Mohammad Ashraf Sehrai, Ghulaam Nabi Sumji, Masrat Alam Bhat , Peer Saifullah, ‘General’ Mussa, Mohammad Yousuf Falahi, Mir Hafizullah, Sanaullah Mir, Asiya Andrabi, Fehmeeda Sofi and other pro-freedom leaders were being detained in inhumane conditions. “They are being denied proper medical care despite their deteriorating health,” he said. “Promises made regarding the release of political prisoners have met the same fate as the false promises made by New Delhi to Kashmiris regarding right to self determination,” he said. Geelani said the release of political prisoners was among the eight recommendations made by Indian Home Minister, P Chidambaram, after the Hurriyat (G) put forth its five-point proposal.Even the three interlocutors— Dileep Padgaonkar, Radha Kumar, MM Ansari— had, in several press conferences, repeatedly mentioned the release of political prisoners, Geelani added.Demanding immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners, Geelani urged Amnesty International, International Red Cross and other rights bodies to use their influence in the matter.

    Source: Editor,Kashmir Media Watch

    ReplyDelete
  6. Timely Reminder

    Interlocutors stand to benefit from emulating Paswan and facilitating separatists’ participation in the peace process

    As if to underline the qualitative difference between a political intervention and a non-political intervention bordering on interference, immediate impact of Ramvilas Paswan’s brief Kashmir visit contrasted with uninspiring perception of the government-appointed interlocutors’ much longer exercise. Lok Janshakti leader hit the nail on its head by pointing out the worthlessness of the interlocutors’ mission in the absence of any interaction with the separatist leaders acknowledged to be among principal stakeholders in the basic dispute over Kashmir. Not that this was being pointed out for the first time but that a high profile political leader from outside the state conversant with local political realities endorsed it publicly. Paswan, who was also a member of the all-party parliamentary delegation last year that broke the ice between Srinagar and New Delhi after the local political apparatus was paralysed, made it a point to emphasise that till now the state government had not acted upon any of the 8-points of central package. He also regretted that New Delhi had been sleeping over Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s five-point demands instead of acting upon at least on the points acceptable to it. Geelani had expressed his willingness to participate in the dialogue process if and when his demands were met by the central government.
    Lack of interest both, at the centre and here in the state is all too evident in the failure of the two governments to fulfil their commitments regarding at least some of the doable measures like release of detenues and relaxation in the draconian measures imposed in the name of security. Paswan was echoing the popular demand that cuts across political divide in the state. It is strange that the authorities in Srinagar and New Delhi continue to rely on the durability of surface calm without actually removing any of its known causes. This attitude is bound to foment anger and alienation especially in the younger generation which has been at the receiving end of government’s vindictiveness. Literally, a whole generation is being targeted for its role in spearheading the 2010 popular uprising. The tactics employed to crush aspirations of the youth have been tested time and again with the same (counterproductive) outcome. The result is not going to be any different this time or in future just because the faces at the helm happened to be different.
    It was childish of chief minister Omar Abdullah to chide the non-official Kashmir Committee headed by Ram Jethmalani by saying that it had no locus standi as only the interlocutors had the government’s accreditation. History is full of instances to show how it is the un-official intervention that has produced result against failures of government-driven intervention. Ground for Sheikh Abdullah’s return to pro-India politics in 1975 had been prepared over a long period by opposition stalwarts. Government-sponsored initiative or intervention invariably suffers from credibility deficit. Only recently, it was the intervention by an all-party delegation of MPs from the broad political spectrum that stemmed the tide in Kashmir. Interlocutors could step in only after the ground had been prepared with political intervention. The delegation’s path-breaking initiative in engaging separatist leaders contrasts with the typical bureaucratic stance of the interlocutors. Paswan’s advice deserves to be heeded to as it goes beyond the narrow scope of interlocutors’ recipe. -Source: Editorial,Kashmir Times

    ReplyDelete