Autonomy Under Indian Constitution: An Old Pragmatic Approach To Kashmir or a Recipe for Disaster?

[M. Sarmad]

I have news for you - bad news.

The UN does not decide the sovereignty of a state, nor does it have the authority to overthrow the actions of a sovereign state, unless it is a matter under Chapter VII. A matter under Chapter VI can result in a recommendation; no action is mandated unless with the consent of both parties. More important, they cannot, as part of their recommendation, supersede the sovereign powers of a state. That is beyond the capacity of a Chapter VI resolution.

The passage you have quoted is null and void in international law.

Tough luck. First @hellfire, then@Rain Man

How are You, Sir ? I have logged into this site after almost two years. Nice to see you again

And Yes, it is a bad news for everyone when educated and mature people, no matter what country they belong to, start toeing the official government line and start expressing chauvinist and nationalist sentiments.


As for the Indian Government's Chapter VI mantra, I would like to raise a few points:



1) UN maintains that "NO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CAN BE DESCRIBED AS UNENFORCEABLE."


2) India approached UN under Chapter VI of the UN charter , BUT the decision taken by UN reflected that its resolutions were not based exclusively on this chapter .... The resolutions , apart from chapter VI , are based upon other chapters , including chapter VII

The fact that there does not exist any provision for the deputing of UN peace keeping mission under chapter VI makes it obvious that UN resolutions were not exclusively based on chapter VI .... The interim measures which included cease fire and deputation of United Nations Military Observer Group were based on Article 40 of chapter VII ...

Besides chapter VI and VII , UN resolutions are based on other chapters also(i.e Article 1 , Chapter I (2) and Article 55 , Chapter IX) ...

^^ And this is not my personal opinion. That is Rosalyn Higgins' opinion on 'Kashmir Resolutions and under which chapter they were passed' .. Source: 'Higgins, Rosalyn. United Nations Peace Keeping 1946-67: Documents and Commentary. London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1970. (349-51)

(Rosalyn Higgins is an expert on International Law; a Doctor of Juridical Science. She has served as a Judge in the International Court of Justice for fourteen years (and was elected President in 2006). Her competence has been recognised by many academic institutions, having received at least thirteen honorary doctorates)


3) Moreover, there always has been a general inability of the Permanent Five to agree upon imaginative and expansive applications of Chapter VI ... In Somalia, the Security Council deployed the UN's first operation, UNOSOM I, in mid-1992 to separate warring combatants and help delivery of humanitarian relief ....

UNOSOM I entered and operated without invoking Chapter VII

Further Reading: http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/6/1/1305.pdf



Your Comments please




------------


@hellfire ... Sir, You don't need to post full Text of UN Resolutions or other Agreements here. A link is enough.


I guess all of us know what those resolutions say, and what the official position of our countries regarding those resolutions is. Why waste time and energy on that ?


The point is, Indian claim that Pakistan was responsible for halting the process was refuted by none other than the UN's official mediator, Sir Owen Dixon, himself, who blamed India for halting the process. He reported to the Security Council that,

"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Para 52 of Document S/1971)





The London Economist stated that "the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [the Kashmiri people]...has been obstructing a holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite. From this the world opinion can only conclude that India really has no confidence that the vote would go in its favour" The Economist (London), Feb 18, 1950



You are free to believe in whatever you want and interpret the UN Resolutions in any way you like and accuse Pakistan of halting the process, but You should know that your position/opinion is not accepted outside India.


So instead of wasting our time and energy on blame game, and going round in circles, we shall discuss more important things. What do you say ?


As For Baluchistan Issue, this might clear your misconceptions:
https://defence.pk/threads/some-historical-inaccuracies.304218/

And if you want to discuss this issue any further, please comment/post on that thread




@Rain Man ... It's clear that you haven't bothered to read anything I had written in my posts. You are repeating/parroting the Indian official position that has been refuted already. A better approach would be to try counter the arguments/facts presented here. . Thank You

 

[dray]

@Rain Man ... It's clear that you haven't bothered to read anything I had written in my posts. You are repeating/parroting the Indian official position that has been refuted already. A better approach would be to try counter the arguments/facts presented here. . Thank You

I prefer to go by the official documents, not by the personal interpretations of it by individuals or countries with vested interest. Let me quote the text of the original UN resolution from the same source that you have used earlier. Also attaching the link to the original resolution from the UN website for your clear understanding.

The OFFICIAL TEXT below is very categorical in mentioning the steps, now can you tell me since when Pakistan completed the Step 1 marked in RED, to enable us to proceed to Step 2 marked in BLUE??

And for your confusion about Chapter VI with 'elements' of Chapter VII...whatever that is..!! The UN resolution was under Chapter VI, and the debate ends right there. For your statement about UN peacekeeping forces to be used there, that's again a false statement. Check the point number 5 marked in GREEN.

And now we only have the Simla Agreement of 1972 to resolve the pending issues bilaterally, and Pakistan should work on that line only instead of scattering its time and energy in other futile exercises. That should be your guiding light: http://people.unica.it/annamariabaldussi/files/2015/04/Simla-Agreement-July-2-1972.pdf


BTW, you didn't tell me what legal and valid provisions Pakistan have to militarily keep occupying the parts of J&K.

And yes, In The Senior's Cafe, Don't expect that your lies and false propaganda by the Pakistani state will go unchallenged ...

Cheers

=========================


Resolution 47 (1948)
On the India-Pakistan question submitted jointly by the Representatives for
Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, the United Kingdom and United States
of America and adopted by the Security Council at its 286th meeting held on
21 April, 1948.
(Document No. 5/726, dated the 21st April, 1948).
THE SECURITY COUNCIL
Having considered the complaint of the Government of India concerning the dispute over the State
of Jammu and Kashmir, having heard the representative of India in support of that complaint and the
reply and counter complaints of the representative of Pakistan. Being strongly of opinion that the
early restoration of peace and order in Jammu and Kashmir is essential and that India and Pakistan
should do their utmost to bring about cessation of all fighting. Noting with satisfaction that both India
and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan
should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, Considering that
the continuation of the dispute is likely to endanger international peace and security,
Reaffirms its resolution 38 (1948) of 17 January 1948;

Resolves that the membership of the Commission established by its resolution 39 (1948) of 20
January 1948, shall be increased to five and shall include, in addition to the membership mentioned
in that Resolution, representatives of... and ..., and that if the membership of the Commission has not
been completed within ten days from the date the adoption of this resolution the President of the
Council may designate such other Member or Members of the United Nations as are required to
complete the membership of five;

Instructs the Commission to proceed at once to the Indian subcontinent and there place its good
offices and mediation at the disposal of the Governments of India and Pakistan with a view to
facilitating the taking of the necessary measures, both with respect to the restoration of peace and
order and to the holding of a plebiscite by the two (Governments, acting in co-operation with one
another and with the Commission, and further instructs the Commission to keep the Council
informed of the action taken under the resolution; and, to this end.

Recommends to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following measures as those which in the
opinion of the Council and appropriate to bring about a cessation of the lighting and to create proper
conditions for a free and impartial plebiscite to decide whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir is to
accede to India or Pakistan.

A - RESTORATION OF PEACE AND ORDER

1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours:

(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and
Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes
of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of
material aid to those fighting in the State;

(b) To make known to all concerned that the measures indicated in this and the following
paragraphs provide full freedom to all subjects of the State, regardless of creed, caste, or
party, to express their views and to vote on the question of the accession of the State, and
that therefore they should co-operate in the maintenance of peace and order.

2. The Government of India should:

(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the
Council's Resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for
the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the
Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing
them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the
maintenance of law and order;

(b) Make known that the withdrawal is taking place in stages and announce the completion of
each stage; When the Indian forces shall have been reduced to the minimum strength
mentioned in (a) above, arrange in consultation with the Commission for the stationing of the
remaining forces to be carried out in accordance with the following principles:

(i) That the presence of troops should not afford any intimidation or appearance of
intimidation to the inhabitants of the State;
(ii) That as small a number as possible should be retained in forward areas;
(iii) That any reserve of troops which may be included in the total strength should be located
within their present base area.

3. The Government of India should agree that until such time as the plebiscite administration referred
to below finds it necessary to exercise the powers of direction and supervision over the State forces
and policy provided for in paragraph 8, they will be held in areas to be agreed upon with the
Plebiscite Administrator.

4. After the plan referred to in paragraph 2 (a) above has been put into operation, personnel
recruited locally in each district should so far as possible be utilised for the re-establishment and
maintenance of law and order with due regard to protection )t minorities, subject to such additional
requirements as may be specified by the Plebiscite Administration referred to in paragraph 7.

5. If these local forces should be found to be inadequate, the Commission, subject to the agreement
of both the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, should arrange for the use of such
forces of either Dominion as it deems effective for the purpose of pacification.

B - PLEBISCITE

6. The Government of India should undertake to ensure that the Government of the State invite the
major political groups to designate responsible representatives to share equitably and fully in the
conduct of the administration at the ministerial level, while the plebiscite is being prepared and
carried out.

7. The Government of India should undertake that there will be established in Jammu and Kashmir a
Plebiscite Administration to hold a Plebiscite as soon as possible ()n the question of the accession of
the State to India or Pakistan.

8. The Government of India should undertake that there will be delegated by the State to the
Plebiscite Administration such powers as the latter considers necessary for holding a fair and
impartial plebiscite including, for that purpose only, the direction and supervision of the State forces
and police.

9. The Government of India should at the request of the Plebiscite Administration, make available
from the Indian forces such assistance as the Plebiscite Administration may require for the
performance of its functions.

10. (a) The Government of India should agree that a nominee of the Secretary-General of the United
Nations will be appointed to be the Plebiscite Administrator. The Plebiscite Administrator, acting as
an officer of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, should have authority to nominate the assistants and
other subordinates and to draft regulations governing the Plebiscite. Such nominees should be
formally appointed and such draft regulations should be formally promulgated by the State of Jammu
and Kashmir.

The Government of India should undertake that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir will appoint
fully qualified persons nominated by the Plebiscite Administrator to act as special magistrates within
the State judicial system to hear cases which in the opinion of the Plebiscite Administrator have a
serious bearing on the preparation and the conduct of a free and impartial plebiscite. The terms of
service of the Administrator should form the subject of a separate negotiation between the
Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Government of India. The Administrator should fix
the terms of service for his assistants and subordinates.

The Administrator should have the right to communicate directly, with the Government of the State
and with the Commission of the Security Council and, through the Commission, with the Security
Council, with the Governments of India and Pakistan and with their representatives with the
Commission. It would be his duty to bring to the notice of any or all of the foregoing (as he in his
discretion may decide) any circumstances arising which may tend, in his opinion, to interfere with the
freedom of the Plebiscite.

11. The Government of India should undertake to prevent to give full support to the Administrator
and his staff in preventing any threat, coercion or intimidation, bribery or other undue influence on the
voters in the plebiscite, and the Government of India should publicly announce and should cause the
Government of the State to announce this undertaking as an international obligation binding on all
public authorities and officials in Jammu and Kashmir.

12. The Government of India should themselves and through the Government of the State declare
and make known that all subjects of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, regardless of creed, caste or
party, will be safe and free in expressing their views and in voting on the question of the accession of
the State and that there will be freedom of the Press, speech and assembly and freedom of travel in
the State, including freedom of lawful entry and exit.

13. The Government of India should use and should ensure that the Government of the State also
use their best endeavour to effect the withdrawal from the State of all Indian nationals other than
those who are normally resident therein or who on or since 15th August 1947 have entered it for a
lawful purpose.

14. The Government of India should ensure that the Government of the State releases all political
prisoners and take all possible steps so that:

(a) all citizens of the State who have left it on account of disturbances are invited and are free
to return to their homes and to exercise their rights as such citizens;
(b) there is no victimisation; minorities in all parts of the State are accorded adequate
protection.

15. The Commission of the Security Council should at the end of the plebiscite certify to the Council
whether the plebiscite has or has not been really free and impartial.

C - GENERAL PROVISIONS

16. The Governments of India and Pakistan should each be invited to nominate a representative to
be attached to the Commission for such assistance as it may require in the performance of its task.

17. The Commission should establish in Jammu and Kashmir such observers as it may require of any
of the proceedings in pursuance of the measures indicated in the foregoing paragraphs.

18. The Security Council Commission should carry out the tasks assigned to it herein.

The Security Council voted on this Resolution on 21-41948 with the following result:
In favour: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Syria, U.K. and U.S.A.
Against: None
Abstaining: Belgium, Colombia, Ukrainian S.S.R. and U.S.S.R.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kashun47.htm

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/47(1948)

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Rain Man

Just to thank you for sorting out these issues the old-fashioned way - with nothing but solid facts. With you and @hellfire firing on both cylinders, it is very pleasant reading on these threads.

Salaam, Sar.

 

[Hellfire]

@Azlan Haider

Just curious, do you challenge the legality of the Instrument of Accession as signed by the lawful regent with Sheikh Abdullah's concurrence, who was the acknowledged leader of the mass movement against the Maharaja, and also his full support?

 

[niaz]

I thank Hon. Rain Man for bringing some logical sense into the debate rather than emotional tirade. My view on this issue is slightly different.

It is hard to fathom why Sheikh Abdulla and the J&K National Conference favoured India. It could be that like many other Muslim leaders such Abul Kalam Azad, Bacha Khan, Mulana Maudoodi of Jamaat Islami and Maulana Madani of Jamiat ulema-e –Hind, he was against the Two Nation Theory or that Sheikh Abdulla had ambitions of an Independent Kashmir with him as Head of the State. It is however alleged that it was primarily Sh. Abdulla who was instrumental in the Maharraja signing the Instrument of Accession which was accepted by Mountbatten, Gov. General of India on October 27, 1947. The Instrument which forms the basis of accession of Kashmir to India clearly states:

“It is further specified that:

2. I accept the matters specified in the schedule hereto as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make law for this State.

Thus the power of the Dominion to make laws was restricted to the matters mentioned in the Schedule namely Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications and a few ancillary subjects specified in the schedule. For all other matters concurrence of the State Government was essential.”

In my humble opinion start of the Kashmir problem is the key issue. The condition of that Kashmir would remain an autonomous State with the Indian union. More like a ‘Confederation’.

On the 1948 Resolution, most politicians on both the sides have never read and majority of the population of Pakistan is completely ignorant the text.

Re the Clause:

To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State;

All the tribal Lashkars were evacuated. However India insisted that all of the Pak Army personnel should also withdraw.
Then problem arose in the implementation of the following clause:

Quote


(i) That the presence of troops should not afford any intimidation or appearance of
intimidation to the inhabitants of the State;
(ii) That as small a number as possible should be retained in forward areas;
(iii) That any reserve of troops which may be included in the total strength should be located
within their present base area.

Unquote.

Pakistan’s understanding was that this meant a very skeleton force confined to the barracks in Sri Nagar and at Jammu with no more than a few manned check posts at the Pakistan- J&K border. Indians interpreted it to mean the numbers sufficient to stop all future border infiltrations. This meant that once Pak Army vacated, the AJK would also be occupied by India with no prospects of winning it back should India refuse to abide by the promise of holding the Plebiscite.

That is why Liaqat Ali- Nehru talks failed and the pact signed by the two leaders in April 1950 was limited to the return of the refugees, forced conversions and right of the minorities only. Problem is that majority of the population in Pakistan is completely ignorant of the text of 1948 Resolution and most politicians & political analysts have either not read it in detail or deliberately choose to mis-inform the public. There have been subsequent talks on Kashmir issue in 1955 involving Mohammed Ali Bogra and Iskandar Mirza (then Interior Minister) with Pundit Nehru & Abu Kalam Azad but again nothing concrete came out of it.

Turmoil in Kashmir was on a very low key until Nehru decided to tear the Instrument of Accession and decided to fully integrate Kashmir into India. Nation Conference leaders were maliciously charged in the famous ‘Kashmir Conspiracy’ case and Sheikh Abdulla jailed for 11 years; just reward for trusting Nehru & India to keep their word???

I see politicians & analysts in TV programs every day quite rightly moaning about the world’s indifference on Indian brutality in the Kashmir valley, without admitting that apart from the fact that India is now a global economic & military power and thus unlikely to care much about the international opinion; Indians can also legally tell rest of the world to go to hell because during the Simla Agreement, our much heralded Z A Bhutto agreed that:

Quote

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the subcontinent so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their people.

In order to achieve this objective, the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan have agreed as follows:

(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations.

(iii) That the prerequisite for reconciliation, good neighborliness and durable peace between them is a commitment by both the countries to peaceful coexistence respect for each others territorial integrity and sovereignty and noninterference in each others internal affairs, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit. That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedeviled the relations between the two countries for the last 25 years shall be resolved by peaceful means.

(v) That they shall always respect each others national unity, territorial integrity, political independence and sovereign equality.

(vi) That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, they will refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other.

Unquote.

The above wording clearly demonstrates to any neutral observer that India is justified in insisting on bilateral talks without reference to the 1948 UN Resolution for all India - Pakistan disputes.

Whether I & my Pakistani compatriots think that India in committing genocide in Kashmir or Indian members think that all the troubles have been sponsored by Pakistan is of no consequence whatsoever. Because notwithstanding that fact as to who is morally & ethically right or wrong or which country is in illegal occupation; until such time that Pakistan becomes strong enough to conquer Kashmir; there could be no end to the Indian occupation of the Kashmir valley because India is certainly not going to give it away.

Only possible way to end the misery & bloodshed of the Kashmiris is the proposal by Musharraf whereby the freedom of movement for the Kashmiris across the LOC is facilitated to extent that the border becomes irrelevant.

However, such a solution needs bold & visionary leadership which is currently non-existent in both the countries. Ground reality indicates that as long as naïve Pakistani Public continue to believe that we can capture Red Fort thru Jazba & lathis and the Hindutva chauvinists continue to dictate Indian policy; sadly Kashmiri blood-shed will continue.

@Azlan Haider

Just curious, do you challenge the legality of the Instrument of Accession as signed by the lawful regent with Sheikh Abdullah's concurrence, who was the acknowledged leader of the mass movement against the Maharaja, and also his full support?

It can be argued that Instrument was signed under ‘Duress’ because Mountbatten had refused to help the Kashmir State until the Maharaja unless signs the Instrument of Accession. However this being a technical point, any objective observer would ignore it.

Two wrongs don't make a right but;

Quote

Immediately after making the announcement in Dastrural Amal Sarkar Junagadh, the Jungadh government communicated to Pakistan its wish to accede, and a delegation headed by Ismail was sent to Karachi with the Instrument of Accession signed by the Nawab. The Constituent Assembly of Pakistan considered the proposal in detail and approved it. The Quaid-e-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, as Governor General of Pakistan, counter-signed the Instrument of Accession on 15 September 1947. This was notified in the Gazette of Pakistan and Dasturul Amal, the Gazette of Junagadh, on that date.

On 24 September 1947, Mohandas K. Gandhi condemned the action of the Junagadh government in a prayer meeting held at Delhi.

Soon columns of Indian tanks and other vehicles carrying Indian soldiers entered Junagadh state, led by Brig. Gurdial Singh, commander of the Kathiawar defense force. The States of Nawanagar , Bhavnagar and Porbander had agreed to the request to place their State forces under the command of Gurdial Singh. All these forces were suitably deployed, their movements and manoeuvres creating a steadying effect all over Kathiawar. The Army Commander had strict orders not to violateJunagadh territory in any way. At 6 p.m. on 9 November, Captain Harvey Johnson and Chief Secretary Gheewala, a civil servant of Junagadh state, formally handed over the charge of the State to the Indian Government.

On the same day, Nehru sent a telegram to Liaquat Ali Khan about the Indian take-over of Junagadh. Khan sent a return telegram to Nehru stating that Junagadh was Pakistani territory, and nobody except the Pakistan government was authorised to invite anybody to Junagadh. He also accused the Indian Government of naked aggression on Pakistan's territory and of violating international law. The Government of Pakistan strongly opposed the Indian occupation. Nehru wrote:

In view of special circumstances pointed out by Junagadh Dewan that is the Prime Minister of Junagadh – our Regional Commissioner at Rajkot has taken temporarily charge of Junagadh administration. This has been done to avoid disorder and resulting chaos. We have, however, no desire to continue this arrangement and wish to find a speedy solution in accordance with the wishes of the people of Junagadh. We have pointed out to you previously that final decision should be made by means of referendum or plebiscite. We would be glad to discuss this question and allied matters affecting Junagadh with representatives of your Government at the earliest possible moment convenient to you. We propose to invite Nawab of Junagadh to send his representatives to this conference.

Unquote

Indians decide which Instrument of Accession is legal and which one is not. Might is always right even when it is wrong.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I prefer to go by the official documents, not by the personal interpretations of it by individuals or countries with vested interest. Let me quote the text of the original UN resolution from the same source that you have used earlier. Also attaching the link to the original resolution from the UN website for your clear understanding.

The OFFICIAL TEXT below is very categorical in mentioning the steps, now can you tell me since when Pakistan completed the Step 1 marked in RED, to enable us to proceed to Step 2 marked in BLUE??

And for your confusion about Chapter VI with 'elements' of Chapter VII...whatever that is..!! The UN resolution was under Chapter VI, and the debate ends right there. For your statement about UN peacekeeping forces to be used there, that's again a false statement. Check the point number 5 marked in GREEN.

And now we only have the Simla Agreement of 1972 to resolve the pending issues bilaterally, and Pakistan should work on that line only instead of scattering its time and energy in other futile exercises. That should be your guiding light: http://people.unica.it/annamariabaldussi/files/2015/04/Simla-Agreement-July-2-1972.pdf


BTW, you didn't tell me what legal and valid provisions Pakistan have to militarily keep occupying the parts of J&K.

And yes, In The Senior's Cafe, Don't expect that your lies and false propaganda by the Pakistani state will go unchallenged ...

Cheers

=========================


Resolution 47 (1948)
On the India-Pakistan question submitted jointly by the Representatives for
Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, the United Kingdom and United States
of America and adopted by the Security Council at its 286th meeting held on
21 April, 1948.
(Document No. 5/726, dated the 21st April, 1948).
THE SECURITY COUNCIL
Having considered the complaint of the Government of India concerning the dispute over the State
of Jammu and Kashmir, having heard the representative of India in support of that complaint and the
reply and counter complaints of the representative of Pakistan. Being strongly of opinion that the
early restoration of peace and order in Jammu and Kashmir is essential and that India and Pakistan
should do their utmost to bring about cessation of all fighting. Noting with satisfaction that both India
and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan
should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, Considering that
the continuation of the dispute is likely to endanger international peace and security,
Reaffirms its resolution 38 (1948) of 17 January 1948;

Resolves that the membership of the Commission established by its resolution 39 (1948) of 20
January 1948, shall be increased to five and shall include, in addition to the membership mentioned
in that Resolution, representatives of... and ..., and that if the membership of the Commission has not
been completed within ten days from the date the adoption of this resolution the President of the
Council may designate such other Member or Members of the United Nations as are required to
complete the membership of five;

Instructs the Commission to proceed at once to the Indian subcontinent and there place its good
offices and mediation at the disposal of the Governments of India and Pakistan with a view to
facilitating the taking of the necessary measures, both with respect to the restoration of peace and
order and to the holding of a plebiscite by the two (Governments, acting in co-operation with one
another and with the Commission, and further instructs the Commission to keep the Council
informed of the action taken under the resolution; and, to this end.

Recommends to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following measures as those which in the
opinion of the Council and appropriate to bring about a cessation of the lighting and to create proper
conditions for a free and impartial plebiscite to decide whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir is to
accede to India or Pakistan.

A - RESTORATION OF PEACE AND ORDER

1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours:

(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and
Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes
of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of
material aid to those fighting in the State;

(b) To make known to all concerned that the measures indicated in this and the following
paragraphs provide full freedom to all subjects of the State, regardless of creed, caste, or
party, to express their views and to vote on the question of the accession of the State, and
that therefore they should co-operate in the maintenance of peace and order.

2. The Government of India should:

(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the
Council's Resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for
the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the
Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing
them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the
maintenance of law and order;

(b) Make known that the withdrawal is taking place in stages and announce the completion of
each stage; When the Indian forces shall have been reduced to the minimum strength
mentioned in (a) above, arrange in consultation with the Commission for the stationing of the
remaining forces to be carried out in accordance with the following principles:

(i) That the presence of troops should not afford any intimidation or appearance of
intimidation to the inhabitants of the State;
(ii) That as small a number as possible should be retained in forward areas;
(iii) That any reserve of troops which may be included in the total strength should be located
within their present base area.

3. The Government of India should agree that until such time as the plebiscite administration referred
to below finds it necessary to exercise the powers of direction and supervision over the State forces
and policy provided for in paragraph 8, they will be held in areas to be agreed upon with the
Plebiscite Administrator.

4. After the plan referred to in paragraph 2 (a) above has been put into operation, personnel
recruited locally in each district should so far as possible be utilised for the re-establishment and
maintenance of law and order with due regard to protection )t minorities, subject to such additional
requirements as may be specified by the Plebiscite Administration referred to in paragraph 7.

5. If these local forces should be found to be inadequate, the Commission, subject to the agreement
of both the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, should arrange for the use of such
forces of either Dominion as it deems effective for the purpose of pacification.

B - PLEBISCITE

6. The Government of India should undertake to ensure that the Government of the State invite the
major political groups to designate responsible representatives to share equitably and fully in the
conduct of the administration at the ministerial level, while the plebiscite is being prepared and
carried out.

7. The Government of India should undertake that there will be established in Jammu and Kashmir a
Plebiscite Administration to hold a Plebiscite as soon as possible ()n the question of the accession of
the State to India or Pakistan.

8. The Government of India should undertake that there will be delegated by the State to the
Plebiscite Administration such powers as the latter considers necessary for holding a fair and
impartial plebiscite including, for that purpose only, the direction and supervision of the State forces
and police.

9. The Government of India should at the request of the Plebiscite Administration, make available
from the Indian forces such assistance as the Plebiscite Administration may require for the
performance of its functions.

10. (a) The Government of India should agree that a nominee of the Secretary-General of the United
Nations will be appointed to be the Plebiscite Administrator. The Plebiscite Administrator, acting as
an officer of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, should have authority to nominate the assistants and
other subordinates and to draft regulations governing the Plebiscite. Such nominees should be
formally appointed and such draft regulations should be formally promulgated by the State of Jammu
and Kashmir.

The Government of India should undertake that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir will appoint
fully qualified persons nominated by the Plebiscite Administrator to act as special magistrates within
the State judicial system to hear cases which in the opinion of the Plebiscite Administrator have a
serious bearing on the preparation and the conduct of a free and impartial plebiscite. The terms of
service of the Administrator should form the subject of a separate negotiation between the
Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Government of India. The Administrator should fix
the terms of service for his assistants and subordinates.

The Administrator should have the right to communicate directly, with the Government of the State
and with the Commission of the Security Council and, through the Commission, with the Security
Council, with the Governments of India and Pakistan and with their representatives with the
Commission. It would be his duty to bring to the notice of any or all of the foregoing (as he in his
discretion may decide) any circumstances arising which may tend, in his opinion, to interfere with the
freedom of the Plebiscite.

11. The Government of India should undertake to prevent to give full support to the Administrator
and his staff in preventing any threat, coercion or intimidation, bribery or other undue influence on the
voters in the plebiscite, and the Government of India should publicly announce and should cause the
Government of the State to announce this undertaking as an international obligation binding on all
public authorities and officials in Jammu and Kashmir.

12. The Government of India should themselves and through the Government of the State declare
and make known that all subjects of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, regardless of creed, caste or
party, will be safe and free in expressing their views and in voting on the question of the accession of
the State and that there will be freedom of the Press, speech and assembly and freedom of travel in
the State, including freedom of lawful entry and exit.

13. The Government of India should use and should ensure that the Government of the State also
use their best endeavour to effect the withdrawal from the State of all Indian nationals other than
those who are normally resident therein or who on or since 15th August 1947 have entered it for a
lawful purpose.

14. The Government of India should ensure that the Government of the State releases all political
prisoners and take all possible steps so that:

(a) all citizens of the State who have left it on account of disturbances are invited and are free
to return to their homes and to exercise their rights as such citizens;
(b) there is no victimisation; minorities in all parts of the State are accorded adequate
protection.

15. The Commission of the Security Council should at the end of the plebiscite certify to the Council
whether the plebiscite has or has not been really free and impartial.

C - GENERAL PROVISIONS

16. The Governments of India and Pakistan should each be invited to nominate a representative to
be attached to the Commission for such assistance as it may require in the performance of its task.

17. The Commission should establish in Jammu and Kashmir such observers as it may require of any
of the proceedings in pursuance of the measures indicated in the foregoing paragraphs.

18. The Security Council Commission should carry out the tasks assigned to it herein.

The Security Council voted on this Resolution on 21-41948 with the following result:
In favour: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Syria, U.K. and U.S.A.
Against: None
Abstaining: Belgium, Colombia, Ukrainian S.S.R. and U.S.S.R.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kashun47.htm

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/47(1948)

Here we go again !!

Once again you refuse to read, understand and reply to what I had written in post#145

Anyway, it has become rather abundantly clear that you are talking complete and utter nonsense, and that you are as clueless on international law as you are on Kashmir Issue.


As for the highlighted green part, it talks about Forces of Either Dominion, whereas what Higgins says is that the interim measures which included cease fire and deputation of United Nations Military Observer Group were based on Article 40 of chapter VII


So, here we have an Anonymous Indian on the internet who doesn't even know what United Nations Military Observer Group is, and he is telling us that the statement by a Doctor of Juridical Science who has served as a Judge in the International Court of Justice for fourteen years and was elected President in 2006, and whose competence has been recognised by many academic institutions, having received at least thirteen honorary doctorates, on a matter related to the UN and international Law is a "False Statement" !!



As for the UN Resolutions, as I said earlier (to @hellfire ), I guess all of us know what those resolutions say, and what the official position of our countries regarding those resolutions is. Why waste time and energy on that ?

But if you want to understand/discuss Pakistan's position, read this:
https://defence.pk/threads/the-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.7904/


That discussion ends here :

The Indian claim that Pakistan was responsible for halting the process was refuted by none other than the UN's official mediator, Sir Owen Dixon, himself, who blamed India for halting the process. You are free to believe in whatever you want and interpret the UN Resolutions in any way you like and accuse Pakistan of halting the process, but You should know that your position/opinion is not accepted outside India. Period



-------------------------

@Joe Shearer , Sir, I am still waiting for your response. I want to have some serious discussion on this subject so that I can understand the Indian position/POV in a better way. Clueless Indians like Rain Man know nothing about this issue except what has been fed to them by the Indian government.

And You seem to be in a really good mood today, doling out positive ratings ? just for copy/pasting a UN Resolution ??

----------------------------

@hellfire

1) International law clearly states that every treaty entered into by a member of the United Nations must be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations. "The Instrument of Accession" was neither presented to the United Nations nor to Pakistan. Hence India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.


2) The legality of the Instrument of Accession may also be questioned on grounds that it was obtained under coercion. The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void."..... India’s military intervention in Kashmir was provisional upon the Maharaja’s signing of the Instrument of Accession. More importantly, however, the evidence suggests that Indian troops were pouring into Srinigar even before the Maharaja had signed the treaty. This fact would suggest that the treaty was signed under duress.


3) The Maharaja had no authority to sign the treaty, hence the Instrument of Accession can be considered without legal standing . The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was hardly in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Hari Singh was in flight from the state capital, Srinigar. And it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power .....



Thus, an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Instrument of Accession shows that the accession of Kashmir to India was neither complete nor legal, as Delhi has vociferously contended for over sixty years.


The Fate of Kashmir
International Law or Lawlessness?
BY VIKAS KAPUR AND VIPIN NARANG
http://web.stanford.edu/group/sjir/3.1.06_kapur-narang.html


----

Excerpts from 'The Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU & KASHMIR ––A REAPPRAISAL'

by Alastair Lamb

THE INDIAN CLAIM TO JAMMU & KASHMIR A REAPPRAISAL

 

[Hellfire]

@niaz

Thanks for the post. I have been quite neutral in my view of the question of Kashmir in so far that there have been mistakes by all involved which has led to the present state of affairs. I found @Azlan Haider 's post pushing me into the same circle which has marked all discussions on this question hence my post which you quoted.

The example of Baluchistan which I gave, was given as an example wherein Pakistan has also been found wanting. When you give the example of Junagadh, arguably, Indian acts can also be labelled as such. I also point out the fact that technically, the accession of Hyderabad into India can also be questioned.

The aim is not to carry on the never ending blame game but to put out facts as they stand, howsoever uncomfortable they may be, for all. Nationalism has no role for understanding an issue.

I said it earlier, both the nations were forging a new nation, and the acts have to be taken in the spirit of the same. History is replete with false promises, broken treaties and naked aggression to forge a modern nation state.

Otto Eduard Leopold, the Prince of Bismarck is an example.

You will find that the emotional rants were missing till about two pages back.

Indians decide which Instrument of Accession is legal and which one is not. Might is always right even when it is wrong.

Don't really know if it is a bait or merely a nationalism tinged 'parting shot', but I believe that holds for all, and hence, agree with you. It holds for India in Junagad, Hyderabad, Sikkim, Goa, Pondicherry, Daman & Diu for you in Baluchistan, Gilgit, NWFP to name a few on both sides.

I reconcile the acts with the actions of founding fathers on both sides to forge a nation, they did what was needed and when it was needed, howsoever it was needed.

Was waiting for Alastair Lamb to be put next. Predictable ....!

 

[Joe Shearer]

Here we go again !!

Once again you refuse to read, understand and reply to what I had written in post#145

Anyway, it has become rather abundantly clear that you are talking complete and utter nonsense, and that you are as clueless on international law as you are on Kashmir Issue.


As for the highlighted green part, it talks about Forces of Either Dominion, whereas what Higgins says is that the interim measures which included cease fire and deputation of United Nations Military Observer Group were based on Article 40 of chapter VII


So, here we have an Anonymous Indian on the internet who doesn't even know what United Nations Military Observer Group is, and he is telling us that the statement by a Doctor of Juridical Science who has served as a Judge in the International Court of Justice for fourteen years and was elected President in 2006, and whose competence has been recognised by many academic institutions, having received at least thirteen honorary doctorates, on a matter related to the UN and international Law is a "False Statement" !!



As for the UN Resolutions, as I said earlier (to @hellfire ), I guess all of us know what those resolutions say, and what the official position of our countries regarding those resolutions is. Why waste time and energy on that ?

But if you want to understand/discuss Pakistan's position, read this:
https://defence.pk/threads/the-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.7904/


That discussion ends here :

The Indian claim that Pakistan was responsible for halting the process was refuted by none other than the UN's official mediator, Sir Owen Dixon, himself, who blamed India for halting the process. You are free to believe in whatever you want and interpret the UN Resolutions in any way you like and accuse Pakistan of halting the process, but You should know that your position/opinion is not accepted outside India. Period



-------------------------

@Joe Shearer , Sir, I am still waiting for your response. I want to have some serious discussion on this subject so that I can understand the Indian position/POV in a better way. Clueless Indians like Rain Man know nothing about this issue except what has been fed to them by the Indian government.

And You seem to be in a really good mood today, doling out positive ratings ? just for copy/pasting a UN Resolution ??

----------------------------

@hellfire

1) International law clearly states that every treaty entered into by a member of the United Nations must be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations. "The Instrument of Accession" was neither presented to the United Nations nor to Pakistan. Hence India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.


2) The legality of the Instrument of Accession may also be questioned on grounds that it was obtained under coercion. The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void."..... India’s military intervention in Kashmir was provisional upon the Maharaja’s signing of the Instrument of Accession. More importantly, however, the evidence suggests that Indian troops were pouring into Srinigar even before the Maharaja had signed the treaty. This fact would suggest that the treaty was signed under duress.


3) The Maharaja had no authority to sign the treaty, hence the Instrument of Accession can be considered without legal standing . The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was hardly in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Hari Singh was in flight from the state capital, Srinigar. And it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power .....



Thus, an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Instrument of Accession shows that the accession of Kashmir to India was neither complete nor legal, as Delhi has vociferously contended for over sixty years.


The Fate of Kashmir
International Law or Lawlessness?
BY VIKAS KAPUR AND VIPIN NARANG
http://web.stanford.edu/group/sjir/3.1.06_kapur-narang.html


----

Excerpts from 'The Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU & KASHMIR ––A REAPPRAISAL'

by Alastair Lamb

THE INDIAN CLAIM TO JAMMU & KASHMIR A REAPPRAISAL

@Azlan Haider

could you remind this 66 year old dotard (yes, you may quote me later) what we were to have discussed?

I am in a good mood, but whom did I ennoble for reprinting a UN Resolution? I seem to be getting really forgetful.

 

[niaz]

@niaz

Thanks for the post. I have been quite neutral in my view of the question of Kashmir in so far that there have been mistakes by all involved which has led to the present state of affairs. I found @Azlan Haider 's post pushing me into the same circle which has marked all discussions on this question hence my post which you quoted.

The example of Baluchistan which I gave, was given as an example wherein Pakistan has also been found wanting. When you give the example of Junagadh, arguably, Indian acts can also be labelled as such. I also point out the fact that technically, the accession of Hyderabad into India can also be questioned.

The aim is not to carry on the never ending blame game but to put out facts as they stand, howsoever uncomfortable they may be, for all. Nationalism has no role for understanding an issue.

I said it earlier, both the nations were forging a new nation, and the acts have to be taken in the spirit of the same. History is replete with false promises, broken treaties and naked aggression to forge a modern nation state.

Otto Eduard Leopold, the Prince of Bismarck is an example.

You will find that the emotional rants were missing till about two pages back.



Don't really know if it is a bait or merely a nationalism tinged 'parting shot', but I believe that holds for all, and hence, agree with you. It holds for India in Junagad, Hyderabad, Sikkim, Goa, Pondicherry, Daman & Diu for you in Baluchistan, Gilgit, NWFP to name a few on both sides.

I reconcile the acts with the actions of founding fathers on both sides to forge a nation, they did what was needed and when it was needed, howsoever it was needed.

Was waiting for Alastair Lamb to be put next. Predictable ....!

Honourable Hellfire,

No doubt I would like to see Kashmir as part of Pakistan, however I am a pragmatist and I am not sure that is what all the Kashmiris want because many I came across in the UK would like independence.

I totally agree with you that endless blame game is pointless. No matter how neutral & unbiased they strive to be, politicians will be politicians and in the end ‘Realpolitik’ will rule the day. Main reason being that there is no right & wrong in politics. Ultimate goal in the statecraft is the attainment of power by ‘hook or by crook’.

Whatever has happened is water under the bridge and cannot be undone. As an ordinary ‘human being’, no more & no less; I feel a deep anguish & sadness when I see police brutality upon the unarmed Kashmiris and would like to see an end to the blood-shed.

I see no other way to resolving the Kashmir problem other than proposed by Musharraf. However that is my view and I am a no body.

 

[Hellfire]

@niaz

I agree with your post. Ideological viewpoints aside, we need to move to a pragmatic solution.

I too, agree that majority of the Kashmiris who have the luxury to have a political outlook, would rather see an independent Kashmir followed by India and Pakistan sequentially. The study by Robert Bradnock as financed by Saiful Islam was more or less accurate to the extent of the trends in urbane centres, the rural, since was not considered, is usually dominated by people more concerned with immediate problems of poor infrastructure, development and employment opportunities and may have a preference for India as the armed forces deployed in the region are the source of livelihood for them.

The thread was started by me with a hope that after finishing off the summation of all the pertinent events of past and collating data in terms of political posturing/initiatives, to move into a critical analysis of the the only option available keeping exclusively the Kashmiri viewpoint, which also happens to also be one option which neither Pakistan nor India can afford to allow - that of Kashmir as an independent entity.

Many Pakistani members scoffed the China factor as raised by @Joe Shearer and I, and the potential for its claims on substantial parts of Northern Areas, Ladakh and indeed right into Gilgit Baltistan as historically these areas had at some or the other time, been under Tibetan suzerainty/influence and the Chinese do have a tendency to patiently wait in a garb of bonhomie and friendship till an opportune time to stake claim on any and all areas which at some point of time, has been under them or any of their claimed areas/province (Tibet).

An independent Kashmir is a neigh on impossibility as long as Chinese question is not addressed, and here again my assessment as someone who has read a bit about the Chinese from a security point of view, and something which I share with @Joe Shearer, is the potential mistake in formulating the Sino-Pakistani boundary agreement, which makes it a temporary agreement with a clause for re-negotiation at a latter date and at the same time the withdrawal of the claims of Hunza and by inheritance of the Pakistani state, to Shasgam Valley, which has set a precedent wherein in case of the rare possibility of an amicable settlement of Kashmir in consonance with Kashmiris' wishes, the door has been left open for a Chinese occupation.

Anyways, thanks for your sensible and pragmatic approach, something I agree with, the solution as planned by MMS - Musharraf.

My limited knowledge and experience of Kashmir only convinced me that it remains the only sensible and viable option, but with an additional option of those who want to leave the valley for Pakistan, being allowed to do so.

Just my opinion too.

 

[M. Sarmad]

@niaz


I too, agree that majority of the Kashmiris who have the luxury to have a political outlook, would rather see an independent Kashmir followed by India and Pakistan sequentially. The study by Robert Bradnock as financed by Saiful Islam was more or less accurate to the extent of the trends in urbane centres, the rural, since was not considered, is usually dominated by people more concerned with immediate problems of poor infrastructure, development and employment opportunities and may have a preference for India as the armed forces deployed in the region are the source of livelihood for them.

There has been a lot of discussion over this 2010 survey commissioned by Dr Saif al Islam al Qadhafi and designed by Dr Bradnock and Ipsos Mori , .. .. One should first try to understand the purpose behind this survey and the "faults" in the techniques used ...

Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) is a self-governing state under Pakistani control, but under Pakistan's constitution the state is not actually part of Pakistan . Azad Jammu and Kashmir covers an area of 13,297 square kilometr . Azad Kashmir has its own elected President, Prime Minister, Legislative Assembly, High Court . (44% of people want independence according to the survey , when they are already independent !!)

Gilgit–Baltistan is an autonomous self-governing region that was established as a single administrative unit in 1970, formed by the amalgamation of the Gilgit Agency, the Baltistan region and the former princely states of Hunza and Nagar. It covers an area of 72,971 km²



Pakistani-controlled part of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir is made up of AJK & Gilgit-Baltistan


Gilgit-Baltistan was not included in this survey


Only 3,700 people were interviewed out of a total population of 15 million . (i.e 0.025% of total population)


Without any survey one can tell that areas of Jammu, Kathua, Udhampur, Rajouri, Poonch, Kargil and Leh are not pro independence areas; yet all these areas were included in the survey and other militancy hit and pro independence areas like Doda, Pulwama and Kupwara were left out of the survey.


It is surprising, rather shocking that in places like Poonch, Rajouri, Udhampur and Kathua not a single person supported an independent Kashmir. Some of these areas have sizable Muslim minority; It is very likely that those who ‘administered' the survey only approached non Muslims in the survey.


The vote in favour of independence was as high as 95% in some districts. To bring this very high percentage of vote in favour of independence down to acceptable or desired level, important pro independence areas were deliberately left out of the survey; and all anti independence areas were included in the survey.


It is also interesting to note that 77% of people of Indian side of Kashmir believe that ‘an end to all militant violence in Kashmir will help to end the conflict over Kashmir'. It is also interesting that the highest support in favour of ‘an end to all militant violence' came from the Valley, with Baramulla showing 91% support, Badgam 92%, Srinagar 84% and Anantnag 98% respectively.Some areas of Pakistani Administered Kashmir also showed high support for this, for example, Bagh had 75% support and Mirpur had 72 %. From this side of the LOC, Kotli showed the least support for this, 27%.In Jammu province, Rajouri showed 0%, Poonch 3%, Jammu 64%, Udhampur 97% and Kathua 98% support. Kargil showed 81% and 87 % support for this


The option of ‘Liberalised Line of Control' attained amazing support in the survey. From Kargil the survey showed 100% support for this option, Leh 81%; Srinagar 83%, Baramulla 81%, Anantnag 81%, Badgam 74%; Kathua 93%, Jammu 79%, Udhampur 66%, Rajouri 99% and Poonch 99%.

In Pakistani Administered Kashmir the support for this option was as follows: Muzaffarabad 95%, Sudanhoti 97%, Bagh 81%, Bhimber 87%, Mirpur 87%, Poonch 97% and Kotli 98%.



It looks the powers that be want to push the Kashmir dispute in favour of this option





No results can be drawn if opinion of only 0.025% of total population is considered, And selective areas and communities are questioned to achieve desired results .

 

[Joe Shearer]

Honourable Hellfire,

No doubt I would like to see Kashmir as part of Pakistan, however I am a pragmatist and I am not sure that is what all the Kashmiris want because many I came across in the UK would like independence.

I totally agree with you that endless blame game is pointless. No matter how neutral & unbiased they strive to be, politicians will be politicians and in the end ‘Realpolitik’ will rule the day. Main reason being that there is no right & wrong in politics. Ultimate goal in the statecraft is the attainment of power by ‘hook or by crook’.

Whatever has happened is water under the bridge and cannot be undone. As an ordinary ‘human being’, no more & no less; I feel a deep anguish & sadness when I see police brutality upon the unarmed Kashmiris and would like to see an end to the blood-shed.

I see no other way to resolving the Kashmir problem other than proposed by Musharraf. However that is my view and I am a no body.

Dear Sir,

It is good to see you posting. As usual, your message, though short, is profound and permeated with humanity. Your assessment is perfectly correct. It will take the two sides some effort to get back to the General's pragmatic solution, and I wish we had not lost such a great opportunity in the first place.

Respectful regards,

'Joe'

There has been a lot of discussion over this 2010 survey commissioned by Dr Saif al Islam al Qadhafi and designed by Dr Bradnock and Ipsos Mori , .. .. One should first try to understand the purpose behind this survey and the "faults" in the techniques used ...

Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) is a self-governing state under Pakistani control, but under Pakistan's constitution the state is not actually part of Pakistan . Azad Jammu and Kashmir covers an area of 13,297 square kilometr . Azad Kashmir has its own elected President, Prime Minister, Legislative Assembly, High Court . (44% of people want independence according to the survey , when they are already independent !!)

Gilgit–Baltistan is an autonomous self-governing region that was established as a single administrative unit in 1970, formed by the amalgamation of the Gilgit Agency, the Baltistan region and the former princely states of Hunza and Nagar. It covers an area of 72,971 km²



Pakistani-controlled part of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir is made up of AJK & Gilgit-Baltistan


Gilgit-Baltistan was not included in this survey


Only 3,700 people were interviewed out of a total population of 15 million . (i.e 0.025% of total population)


Without any survey one can tell that areas of Jammu, Kathua, Udhampur, Rajouri, Poonch, Kargil and Leh are not pro independence areas; yet all these areas were included in the survey and other militancy hit and pro independence areas like Doda, Pulwama and Kupwara were left out of the survey.


It is surprising, rather shocking that in places like Poonch, Rajouri, Udhampur and Kathua not a single person supported an independent Kashmir. Some of these areas have sizable Muslim minority; It is very likely that those who ‘administered' the survey only approached non Muslims in the survey.


The vote in favour of independence was as high as 95% in some districts. To bring this very high percentage of vote in favour of independence down to acceptable or desired level, important pro independence areas were deliberately left out of the survey; and all anti independence areas were included in the survey.


It is also interesting to note that 77% of people of Indian side of Kashmir believe that ‘an end to all militant violence in Kashmir will help to end the conflict over Kashmir'. It is also interesting that the highest support in favour of ‘an end to all militant violence' came from the Valley, with Baramulla showing 91% support, Badgam 92%, Srinagar 84% and Anantnag 98% respectively.Some areas of Pakistani Administered Kashmir also showed high support for this, for example, Bagh had 75% support and Mirpur had 72 %. From this side of the LOC, Kotli showed the least support for this, 27%.In Jammu province, Rajouri showed 0%, Poonch 3%, Jammu 64%, Udhampur 97% and Kathua 98% support. Kargil showed 81% and 87 % support for this


The option of ‘Liberalised Line of Control' attained amazing support in the survey. From Kargil the survey showed 100% support for this option, Leh 81%; Srinagar 83%, Baramulla 81%, Anantnag 81%, Badgam 74%; Kathua 93%, Jammu 79%, Udhampur 66%, Rajouri 99% and Poonch 99%.

In Pakistani Administered Kashmir the support for this option was as follows: Muzaffarabad 95%, Sudanhoti 97%, Bagh 81%, Bhimber 87%, Mirpur 87%, Poonch 97% and Kotli 98%.



It looks the powers that be want to push the Kashmir dispute in favour of this option





No results can be drawn if opinion of only 0.025% of total population is considered, And selective areas and communities are questioned to achieve desired results .

Very briefly, without seeming to be definitive one way or the other, I want to assure you that the percentage sample of the total population, if it is a fair sample, meaning if any person within the population has had exactly the same chance of being selected for questioning as any other person, keeps decreasing as the population size grows.

We can ask a statistician to comment on this in detail, but I would not tense up at the low numbers actually met, if I were you.

The results are far more interesting. However, I have to admit that I have always been strongly influenced by niaz, and once he has expressed his opinion, I find it difficult to keep other options or possibilities on the same plane. Having said that, I acknowledge the background that you have pointed to, in pointing to the salient features of the responses to the survey. I get what you are saying, and admit it can by no means be ignored.

 

[Hellfire]

@Azlan Haider Thanks for the post.

Let me just get funny and speak that the point you raise, still leaves the p value well within the prescribed confidence interval. It is totally dependent on the design of the experiment/model and its randomization and adequate straification where required (not applicable here).

Can I request you to accept the general accuracy, howsoever you may not like it, of the figures provided from an Indian (me) who had been saying it across the forum to people like your fellow country member @LadyFinger even before I came to know of it?

The figures somehow and uncannily adequately cover the trend in urbane centres. The trends are inverted and indeed radically pro-India in remote areas probably due to livelihood being dependent on army and a peaceful environment..

Anyways, your point is valid by itself, but I think you can safely accept the study as Saiful Islam's action was seen as a direct thrust in policy implementation which many hailed as a last attempt at forging a united muslim front against US and West and it was rumoured to have been done in order to reinforce Pakistani claims over Kashmir.

I stand corrected, he did it to save his a$$ and solicit Indian support and in fact wanted an independent Kashmir.

http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/...did-in-kashmir-gaddafi-to-manmohan/90500.html

 

[M. Sarmad]

@hellfire .. It's not about sample size only. No results can be drawn if opinion of only 0.025% of total population is considered, And selective areas and communities are questioned to achieve desired results .

 

[Hellfire]

@Azlan Haider That was my being cheeky ... my apologies. I use statistics in my line of work so I understand them a bit. However, for arguments sake, just accept the trends ... it is what I personally found to be true in urbane centres of valley.