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

[Baltistan scouts]

i will go with status quo .

You wish status quo

 

[ayodhyapati]

You wish status quo

i meant to recognise loc as international boundary .

 

[Baltistan scouts]

i meant to recognise loc as international boundary .

The loc is not a solution which the majority of people of jammu kashmir happy with or will agree to so is not an option.

 

[Baltistan scouts]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Mentee]

@jamahir bhai you may expand on these suggestions and observations.


Scenario #1- Both countries pull their militaries back and declare Kashmir an independent state . The security is outsourced to u.n forces hailing from neutral countries until kashmiris agree upon a constitution and hold elections under u.n auspices besides raising their own law enforcers etc leaving all three sides happy happy


Scenario#2 indo pak go to a nuke war over Kashmir but that's very much unlikely . The deliberate inaction of both pak and india to break the status qou on either sides is increasing the sufferings of local kashmiris and I've no hesitation in saying that the old guard of subcontinent is milking the security situation to fill personal coffers and stay relevant.



People could finally recover from the ultra nationalistic dope and hold their small men in high offices accountable for their socio-economic well being as the bogeyman has been shown the door already -------

 

[jamahir]

@jamahir bhai you may expand on these suggestions and observations.


Scenario #1- Both countries pull their militaries back and declare Kashmir an independent state . The security is outsourced to u.n forces hailing from neutral countries until kashmiris agree upon a constitution and hold elections under u.n auspices besides raising their own law enforcers etc leaving all three sides happy happy


Scenario#2 indo pak go to a nuke war over Kashmir but that's very much unlikely . The deliberate inaction of both pak and india to break the status qou on either sides is increasing the sufferings of local kashmiris and I've no hesitation in saying that the old guard of subcontinent is milking the security situation to fill personal coffers and stay relevant.

In the immediate term a variation of your Scenario# 1 was also suggested by Gaddafi who IIRC suggested in his 2009 UNO General Assembly address that Kashmir become an area autonomous to India and Pakistan and its administration be done by Baath movement members from the destroyed Iraq. An article from 2011 that refers to his 2009 speech :

Much to the outrage of New Delhi, Gaddafi supported the idea of an “independent state” for Kashmir and said that it should be a “Baathist state” between India and Pakistan.

"Kashmir should be an independent state, not Indian, not Pakistani. We should end this conflict. It should be a Ba'athist state between India and Pakistan," Gaddafi said.

In his much-reported colourful speech at the UN General Assembly in 2009, he mentioned India as among the countries that will be competing for a permanent seat in the Security Council and added that since India and Pakistan were both nuclear powers, if India had a seat then Pakistan would want a seat as well.

Even the hardline Hurriyat movement in Kashmir had supported this :

Srinagar: Welcoming the recent statement of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi in the UN General Assembly that Kashmir should be an independent state, the Hurriyat Conference (M) has described it a beacon light for the OIC member countries.

The Hurriyat general council members: Muhammad Saleem Geelani, Muhammad Yousuf Naqash, Zaffar Akbar Bhat, Abdul Manan Bukhari, Hakim Abdul Rashid, Chowdary Shaheen Iqbal and Bashir Ahmad Andrabi, in a joint statement today, urged the OIC member nations to come out with open support to the Kashmiris freedom struggle. They asked India to withdraw its troops from all parts of Kashmir and give its people an opportunity to decide the future.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Liberation Party chairman Hashim Qureshi, while hailing the statement of Gaddafi, said he (Gaddafi) had been having this stand on Kashmir issue since 1970.
"Gaddafi has always supported the cause of small nations and has always been advocating the re-unification of divided Kashmir to see it as free secular country," said Hashim, in a statement today, adding that he had raised strong protests against Indian rulers when Shaheed Muhammad Maqbool Bhat was sent to gallows in 1984.

And I had read an article of 2009 when that statement of his was welcomed by the common people of Kashmir.

Next, towards a permanent solution of Kashmir and the antagonism between India and Pakistan, and also towards solving the social and political problems in the Subcontinent even please read what I have suggested in the OP of this thread. For solving the economic problem of any society in fact please read this suggestion / solution thread of mine and do read the discussion in that thread.

People could finally recover from the ultra nationalistic dope and hold their small men in high offices accountable for their socio-economic well being as the bogeyman has been shown the door already -------

Agreed.

 

[Mentee]

In the immediate term a variation of your Scenario# 1 was also suggested by Gaddafi who IIRC suggested in his 2009 UNO General Assembly address that Kashmir become an area autonomous to India and Pakistan and its administration be done by Baath movement members from the destroyed Iraq. An article from 2011 that refers to his 2009 speech :

Shremaan, Kashmir, kashmirio'n ka!
Iraqi kithoo'n a gai local gormint m ?

 

[jamahir]

Shremaan, Kashmir, kashmirio'n ka!
Iraqi kithoo'n a gai local gormint m ?

Sure but what Gaddafi suggested was a Ba'athist society in Kashmir and those who could immediately administrate such a society were some of Iraqi Ba'athists who could lend their expertise in running a reasonably progressive society. The Kashmiris would of course not only form the population but also be part of the administration. The Iraqis would merely help them organize and run that system.

 

[jamahir]

@Mentee, you don't agree ? In fact, like I said earlier, the Kashmiris themselves liked the general idea.

 

[Mentee]

@Mentee, you don't agree ? In fact, like I said earlier, the Kashmiris themselves liked the general idea.

They didn't have much of a choice back then even now. Let's just admit it Kashmir for kashmiris.

 

[Jugger]

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.

No one trusts Pakistan after the Kargil fiasco, India made the mistake of believing the Pakistani civilian leadership to be the one running the show, but it was soon made clear who the real boss is… civilian leadership was swept aside like garbage by the Pak army.
Rest is history…. Biggest backstabbing of our times.

Hence we can try all sort of peace negotiations, but keep a big stick ready just in case..!!

 

[MH.Yang]

Have Pakistan and India considered making Kashmir independent? I mean that let Kashmiris hold an independence referendum.

I have little knowledge of Kashmir. Maybe I asked a stupid question.

 

[GHALIB]

Have Pakistan and India considered making Kashmir independent? I mean that let Kashmiris hold an independence referendum.

I have little knowledge of Kashmir. Maybe I asked a stupid question.

we indians dont consider it part of solution .