What's new

A political solution for Kashmir and lasting peace for India and Pakistan

Baltistan scouts

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Aug 5, 2019
74
0
63
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Solution for jammu kashmir despute if no plebacite and one which would be agreeable to the majority is for pakistan to keep gilgit baltistan and india to keep leh district and to keep the 4 southern most jammu districts .the remainder of azad kashmir kashmir valley kargil district and pir panjal valley and chenab valley are given their independence.
 

T-SaGe

FULL MEMBER
Feb 25, 2021
684
2
1,334
Country
Turkey
Location
Turkey
Political solution is already present in the case of UN Plebiscite.

Let the people decide; not Islamabad or Delhi. You need a peacekeeping mission after withdrawal of all military forces to conduct this plebiscite in the valley.

Options to be presented for plebiscite

1. Join India
2. Join Pakistan
3. Independent Kashmir

Funny India harping about democracy when it can't even give the people their voice. You cannot claim to speak for a people; only let them say it themselves.

How hard is this for people to understand?
Surely, It is not difficult to understand, but I think there are problems with applicability. Ghulam Nabi had an article addressing this problem.


Is plebiscite in Kashmir workable?
(by Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai)
(...)
"What prevented the plebiscite's holding was India's refusal to accept any proposals that called for her to withdraw the bulk of her forces from Kashmir. Since the plebiscite could not be impartial unless both India and Pakistan withdrew their forces from Kashmir, a stalemate was ensured. This stalemate has now lasted for more than 73 years.

The United States and Britain sponsored all of the Security Council resolutions which called for a plebiscite. Their commitment was indicated by a personal appeal made by America's President Harry Truman and Britain's Prime Minister Clement Atlee that differences over demilitarization be submitted to arbitration by the Plebiscite Administrator, a distinguished American war hero: Admiral Chester Nimitz. India rejected this appeal and, later on, objected to an American acting as the Plebiscite Administrator. American Senator Frank Graham also visited the Subcontinent as the United Nations Representative to negotiate the demilitarization of Kashmir before the plebiscite. India rejected his proposals as well.

The American position was bipartisan and maintained equally by Republicans and Democrats. Similarly in Britain, both Labor and Conservative governments consistently upheld the position that a plebiscite was the only way the dispute over Kashmir could be democratically and peacefully settled.

India's obdurate stand has been effective in creating the impression among policymakers in America, Britain and elsewhere that the idea of a plebiscite is unworkable. This, however, cannot be considered conclusive.

There are no insuperable obstacles to the setting up of a plebiscite administration in Kashmir under the aegis of the United Nations. The world organization has proved its ability, even in the most forbidding circumstances, to institute an electoral process under its supervision and control and with the help of a neutral peace‑keeping force. A striking example of this is Namibia, which was peacefully brought to independence after seven decades of occupation and control by South Africa. Likewise, East Timor and Southern Sudan became independent only through the intervention of the United Nations.

Secondly, the idea of a referendum or plebiscite can be translated, without derogation, into the idea of elections to one or more constituent assemblies which will determine the future status of the state or its different zones. The sole condition is that the election should be completely free from undue pressure, rigging or intimidation: it must be conducted under the control and supervision of the United Nations.

It is clear from this historical narrative that there is nothing fuzzy about the modalities of holding the plebiscite in Kashmir. These were exhaustively worked out during the negotiations concluded by the United Nations about the implementation of its peace plan for Kashmir. The phased withdrawal of forces on both sides, the appointment of the Plebiscite Administrator by the United Nations Secretary-General, his induction into office, the institution of the electoral process under his authority, the exercise of powers deemed necessary by him ‑ all these are fully known to the parties. If a credible peace process is instituted, some t's will need to be crossed and some i's dotted.

Lastly, It is not the inherent difficulties of a solution, but the lack of the will to implement a solution, that has caused the prolonged deadlock over the Kashmir dispute. The deadlock has meant indescribable agony for the people of Kashmir and incalculable loss for both India and Pakistan. If the twenty-first century is not to be a century of unreason, injustice and terror and thus permitted anarchy, that agony should be brought to an end and that loss repaired. The peace that has eluded the South Asian subcontinent, home to one-fifth of humanity, should be made secure." S.-https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis/opinion-is-plebiscite-in-kashmir-workable/2058249
 

Enigma SIG

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 20, 2009
3,682
2
4,546
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Surely, It is not difficult to understand, but I think there are problems with applicability. Ghulam Nabi had an article addressing this problem.


Is plebiscite in Kashmir workable?
(by Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai)
(...)
"What prevented the plebiscite's holding was India's refusal to accept any proposals that called for her to withdraw the bulk of her forces from Kashmir. Since the plebiscite could not be impartial unless both India and Pakistan withdrew their forces from Kashmir, a stalemate was ensured. This stalemate has now lasted for more than 73 years.

The United States and Britain sponsored all of the Security Council resolutions which called for a plebiscite. Their commitment was indicated by a personal appeal made by America's President Harry Truman and Britain's Prime Minister Clement Atlee that differences over demilitarization be submitted to arbitration by the Plebiscite Administrator, a distinguished American war hero: Admiral Chester Nimitz. India rejected this appeal and, later on, objected to an American acting as the Plebiscite Administrator. American Senator Frank Graham also visited the Subcontinent as the United Nations Representative to negotiate the demilitarization of Kashmir before the plebiscite. India rejected his proposals as well.

The American position was bipartisan and maintained equally by Republicans and Democrats. Similarly in Britain, both Labor and Conservative governments consistently upheld the position that a plebiscite was the only way the dispute over Kashmir could be democratically and peacefully settled.

India's obdurate stand has been effective in creating the impression among policymakers in America, Britain and elsewhere that the idea of a plebiscite is unworkable. This, however, cannot be considered conclusive.

There are no insuperable obstacles to the setting up of a plebiscite administration in Kashmir under the aegis of the United Nations. The world organization has proved its ability, even in the most forbidding circumstances, to institute an electoral process under its supervision and control and with the help of a neutral peace‑keeping force. A striking example of this is Namibia, which was peacefully brought to independence after seven decades of occupation and control by South Africa. Likewise, East Timor and Southern Sudan became independent only through the intervention of the United Nations.

Secondly, the idea of a referendum or plebiscite can be translated, without derogation, into the idea of elections to one or more constituent assemblies which will determine the future status of the state or its different zones. The sole condition is that the election should be completely free from undue pressure, rigging or intimidation: it must be conducted under the control and supervision of the United Nations.

It is clear from this historical narrative that there is nothing fuzzy about the modalities of holding the plebiscite in Kashmir. These were exhaustively worked out during the negotiations concluded by the United Nations about the implementation of its peace plan for Kashmir. The phased withdrawal of forces on both sides, the appointment of the Plebiscite Administrator by the United Nations Secretary-General, his induction into office, the institution of the electoral process under his authority, the exercise of powers deemed necessary by him ‑ all these are fully known to the parties. If a credible peace process is instituted, some t's will need to be crossed and some i's dotted.

Lastly, It is not the inherent difficulties of a solution, but the lack of the will to implement a solution, that has caused the prolonged deadlock over the Kashmir dispute. The deadlock has meant indescribable agony for the people of Kashmir and incalculable loss for both India and Pakistan. If the twenty-first century is not to be a century of unreason, injustice and terror and thus permitted anarchy, that agony should be brought to an end and that loss repaired. The peace that has eluded the South Asian subcontinent, home to one-fifth of humanity, should be made secure." S.-https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis/opinion-is-plebiscite-in-kashmir-workable/2058249
Pakistan would have no qualms withdrawing it's military if India did the same. India being the larger party would have to show magnanimity in the larger interests of the region. Alas they don't have sane people leading the country.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Military Forum Latest Posts

Top Bottom