UN Security Council Meet On Kashmir Tonight After China Push: Sources

[adelphi]

A similar gathering was held in August, called by China after the government scrapped the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir.

New Delhi:

The United Nations Security Council will hold a second closed-door meeting on Kashmir tonight in New York, sources told NDTV. The meeting, sources said, comes after push from China, the all-weather ally of Pakistan, which called for such meetings earlier as well.

A similar gathering was held in August, called by China after the government scrapped the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution and bifurcated the state into two union territories.

But that meeting had fallen flat for Pakistan. The members did not censure India, agreeing that the centre's move in Jammu and Kashmir was an internal issue.

Another UNSC meeting on Kashmir, scheduled in December, was not held.

Except for China, all the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council - France, Russia, the US and the UK -- have consistently backed New Delhi's position that disputes between India and Pakistan are bilateral matters.

The US has said that developments in Jammu and Kashmir are an internal matter of India.

French diplomatic sources told NDTV that the position of France has not changed and is very clear -- that the Kashmir issue must be settled bilaterally. "As we have stated on several occasions and will continue to reiterate to our partners on the United Nations Security Council," a source said.

While many other countries have also backed India's position that this is an internal matter and a bilateral one, there have been concerns expressed about the detentions of political leaders and the internet restrictions. These concerns have been expressed by the US again last week.

India and Pakistan will not attend the closed-door meeting, since these are open only to permanent members of the Security Council. There will also be no statement, since such meetings are informal in nature.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/un-...china-pushes-fo-2164500?pfrom=home-topstories

 

[Flight of falcon]

Kashmir topic is being discussed in open and repeatedly....... now what does India have to say? Where is Modi and his plans to isolate Pakistan?

 

[krash]

The members did not censure India, agreeing that the centre's move in Jammu and Kashmir was an internal issue.

France, Russia, the US and the UK -- have consistently backed New Delhi's position that disputes between India and Pakistan are bilateral matters.

The US has said that developments in Jammu and Kashmir are an internal matter of India.

French diplomatic sources told NDTV that the position of France has not changed and is very clear -- that the Kashmir issue must be settled bilaterally.

So which is it? Is it an internal matter of India or is it a bilateral matter? These Indian journalists are a joke.

While many other countries have also backed India's position that this is an internal matter and a bilateral one

............

 

[FuturePAF]

Its up to the Kashmiri people now to start a mass movement (non-violent) to gain international attention for their cause. Taking to the streets and getting aerial or satellite pictures of their massive protests, once the blackout is lifted should be enough to start the ball rolling again. The local assembly/legislature should be brave enough to hold a session in any given building; not necessarily the formal legislature building (not giving a damn what Indian occupiers allow), where if the majority votes to declare independence, and puts it out to the world, it will undermine India's efforts. Its a democratic move, by elected representatives, that the world will then not be able to ignore.

The Us declared independence the same way, and lobbying efforts to foreign nations; ruling parties and opposition parties, should help win global supporters.

 

[jaibi]

It is the flashpoint for the region and potentially the world;
so it is no surprise that it's been taken so seriously.

 

[PakFactor]

Indians keep barking up the line bilateral. As of this moment it’s beyond a bilateral position and a major conflict flash point — so their bilateral line has no such value any more.

 

[Ray02589]

I am most upset with Saudi Arabia the cradle of Islam. Not only did they fail to even register diplomatic protest against India on Kashmir, they even thwarted Pakistan's attempt to rally other Muslim nations by threatening our Prime Minister to deport millions of Pakistanis if he attended a Malaysia gathering that he organized. That is utterly shameful.

India is still dependent on the Gulf states for oil and gets nearly half its remittances from Gulf nations, so these so-called Muslim nations could easily threaten to deport Hindus to censure India and correct its behavior. Instead, they threatened to deport Muslim Pakistanis.

The only reasonable explanation for this from the Gulf nations' perspective is that they want to protect their lucrative trade ties with India which they expect to continue to grow rapidly. if Pakistan were to rally other Muslim nations against India then the Gulf Arabs would have to follow suit to avoid isolation in the Muslim world. They are much more depended on trade with India than Iran, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. so they have much more to lose. So for Gulf Arabs throwing Indian Muslims and Pakistanis under the bus is fine to protect their ties with Indian Hindus. It is this type of thinking that leads the Gulf states to not protest anti-Muslims actions in the West. Erdogan of Turkey is a strong leader because of his willingness to speak out on such issues, even though it is known he can't do anything about them.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Except for China, all the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council - France, Russia, the US and the UK -- have consistently backed New Delhi's position that disputes between India and Pakistan are bilateral matters.

Delhi's position has been that Kashmir is an "internal matter of India", therefore the aforementioned members of the UNSC have categorically not accepted India's assertions.

India's position that this is an internal matter and a bilateral one,

?

The laws of physics appear to contradict this Vedic grammar.

 

[FuturePAF]

Indians keep barking up the line bilateral. As of this moment it’s beyond a bilateral position and a major conflict flash point — so their bilateral line has no such value any more.

Honestly, Only the Kashmiris can change this from a Bilateral issue/Internal issue into an international issue, as they were never a party to the deal, or at least not not be expected to be a party. Simla agreement was only between Pakistan and India, and the Kashmiris have to make the world accept this as not a bilateral matter nor an internal matter of India.

The most likely way this can be done, is a vote by democratically elected representatives of the Kashmir people, signing a formal declaration of independence, as well as selected a leader that can plead their case to the world. This leader need not be a directly voted for leader, but one selected by the legislature; similar to a Prime Minister. The only one that may really be able to stand up on the world stage, at this point, as a Mandela figure would be Yasin Malik. His position is neither pro-India nor Pro-Pakistan, and therefore maybe able to get a majority of Kashmiri support and international legitimacy. Eventually, he could be seen as a figure that can make a deal with both India and Pakistan, and come to some sort of compromise deal; Independent Kashmir valley (with the few Muslim majority districts in Jammu and Ladakh) merger with Azad Kashmir. India keeping the rest of Jammu and Ladakh, while Pakistan keeps Gilgit-Baltistan.

The other option is Pakistan convincing this Kashmir Legislature to pick a leader that will side with annexation to Pakistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/5.stm

Scenario five: A smaller independent Kashmir
An independent Kashmir could be created from the Kashmir Valley - currently under Indian administration - and the narrow strip of land which Pakistan calls Azad Jammu and Kashmir. This would leave the strategically important regions of the Northern Areas and Ladakh, bordering China, under the control of Pakistan and India respectively. However both India and Pakistan would be unlikely to enter into discussions which would have this scenario as a possible outcome.

If, as the result of a regional plebiscite, which offered the option of independence, the majority of the inhabitants of the Kashmir Valley chose independence and the majority of the inhabitants of Pakistani-administered Jammu and Kashmir, (excluding the Northern Areas) also chose independence, a smaller, independent Kashmir could be created by administratively joining these two areas together.

This would leave the predominantly Muslim Northern Areas as part of Pakistan and Buddhist Ladakh and majority Hindu Jammu as part of India, with the possibility that some Muslim districts of Jammu might also opt to join the independent state.

Although Pakistan has demanded a change in the status of the Kashmir Valley, it depends on water from the Mangla Reservoir in Pakistani-administered Jammu and Kashmir and would be unlikely to permit loss of control of the region.

India is still committed to retaining the Kashmir Valley as part of the Indian Union and has refused to consider holding a plebiscite in any part of the state.

Regardless of the aspirations of the inhabitants, to date neither country has contemplated a situation where the end result would adversely affect their own interests.

 

[PakFactor]

Honestly, Only the Kashmiris can change this from a Bilateral issue/Internal issue into an international issue, as they were never a party to the deal, or at least not not be expected to be a party. Simla agreement was only between Pakistan and India, and the Kashmiris have to make the world accept this as not a bilateral matter nor an internal matter of India.

The most likely way this can be done, is a vote by democratically elected representatives of the Kashmir people, signing a formal declaration of independence, as well as selected a leader that can plead their case to the world. This leader need not be a directly voted for leader, but one selected by the legislature; similar to a Prime Minister. The only one that may really be able to stand up on the world stage, at this point, as a Mandela figure would be Yasin Malik. His position is neither pro-India nor Pro-Pakistan, and therefore maybe able to get a majority of Kashmiri support and international legitimacy. Eventually, he could be seen as a figure that can make a deal with both India and Pakistan, and come to some sort of compromise deal; Independent Kashmir valley (with the few Muslim majority districts in Jammu and Ladakh) merger with Azad Kashmir. India keeping the rest of Jammu and Ladakh, while Pakistan keeps Gilgit-Baltistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/5.stm

Major issue for Kashmiri people is the Indian Force of 900,000 armed soldiers -- any such move could lead to a mass slaughter of innocent people and rape of women and girls which Indian Forces are known for. Unless, the people have a armed militia or supplier it's difficult, my gut feeling this will most likely 100% be resolved through a war that might happen soon. We have to many Mir Jafar's in the Ummah to even rally around one individual.

 

[FuturePAF]

Major issue for Kashmiri people is the Indian Force of 900,000 armed soldiers -- any such move could lead to a mass slaughter of innocent people and rape of women and girls which Indian Forces are known for. Unless, the people have a armed militia or supplier it's difficult, my gut feeling this will most likely 100% be resolved through a war that might happen soon. We have to many Mir Jafar's in the Ummah to even rally around one individual.

Not necessarily. If the legislators from the recently dissolved Kashmir parliament gathered together, and held a quorom at any building, they could be said to constitute that last legitimate democratically elected government before Article 370 was terminated. If a majority of them declares independence and signs the document, and puts it to the UN, it would trigger a formal need for the UN to address the matter under the new circumstances.

If at that point people come out on to the streets, in a non-violent manner and are just standing in the streets, in the hundred of thousands to be photographed by satellite, they can be seen as supporting the move. Then the Kashmiris will have held a sort of work around, to have a sort-of plebiscite, and can legitimately claim being Occupied, making the presence of Indian Troops a violation of International Law.

If their wishes are not respected then, they will have legitimacy for armed struggle in a similar manner as the US war of Independence.

They also need a Mandela figure to be the face of the movement, and Yasin Malik seems like the most legitimate person, having tried to convince Indians in India (Face to Face) with words not violence for the past few Decades, that the kashmirs and only the kashmirs have the right to decide their future.

 

[Meengla]

The local assembly/legislature should be brave enough to hold a session in any given building; not necessarily the formal legislature building (not giving a damn what Indian occupiers allow), where if the majority votes to declare independence,

That's the problem: There is no 'local' assembly anymore. Maybe some years ago, had the leaders of IoK seen what was coming, they would have declared independence. But now even they are under house arrest.

Also, Indians are copying the Israeli strategy in Kashmir and don't particularly care about the UNGA/UNSC or any Human Rights Council statements; important thing is that Washington backed West will tolerate India's action in Kashmir to a large extent.

 

[Minho]

Misleading title. There is no scheduled UNSC meeting on Kashmir. The meeting was on the situation in Mali, but China raised Kashmir using the "Any other business points" rule. Although other members can't stop china from bringing it up, the issue cannot move further withoug approval of p-5. And France, Russia, and the US among other members have opposed discussing Kashmir in the UNSC.

https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/events/programme-work

 

[FuturePAF]

That's the problem: There is no 'local' assembly anymore. Maybe some years ago, had the leaders of IoK seen what was coming, they would have declared independence. But now even they are under house arrest.

Also, Indians are copying the Israeli strategy in Kashmir and don't particularly care about the UNGA/UNSC or any Human Rights Council statements; important thing is that Washington backed West will tolerate India's action in Kashmir to a large extent.

Once they get out of jail, they can reconstitute some kind of “government”, among the survivors. As many of the survivors and brave ones as possible. They can still claim to be democratically elected and wait for the international climate to change. What other choice do they have but to resist or submit to the Indians. Unless this becomes a war. Your right that India will try to use Israeli settler tactics.

 

[Minho]

Interesting statement by the Russian UNSC Ambassador

https://twitter.com/x/status/1217509181990719488

Noticeable that there is no mention of the "k" word, and Amb. Polyansky simply calls for resolution of all Indo-Pak issues in general.

Also noteworty is russia's repeated mention of Shimla and Lahore. Interesting, because Pakistan has repeatedly stated that those documents became null and void post August 5th.