Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[karan.1970]

In contract law, the contract may still be in effect even if it is currently unenforceable due to external circumstances. That's what I see here.

So the scenario goes like this

1. India and Pakistan need to agree to troop withdrawl modalities.
2. Post which the plebiscite needs to happen.

Now If point 1 which is a condition for 2 to happen does not get completed, discussing point 2 is a meaningless.. Now in theory the contract may stay in effect but is defunct for all pratical purposes..

 

[Solomon2]

Rather than move in series, these items could move in parallel. Even if the agreement doesn't call for that, it is a practical and trust-building way to implement it, don't you think?

 

[karan.1970]

but without a closure on troop withdrawl, there couldnt have been a clean plebiscite. and that was 60 years back. Now its more of an impossibility than what it was at that time with a significant change in the demographics of the populace. The basic assumptions and premise on which India agreed for the plebiscite do not hold good anymore. Dont think Plebiscite is an option anymore from an India perspective..

 

[toxic_pus]

In contract law, the contract may still be in effect even if it is currently unenforceable due to external circumstances. That's what I see here.

That is a correct observation.

However, from our point of view, it became void - if I am allowed to use that term in the context of UN resolutions - in 1965 when Pakistan broke the cease fire agreement and breached the LoC in direct violation of the agreement.

I would repeat what I had said earlier.

When a party to an agreement – which the Cease Fire Agreement was – willfully violates the terms and conditions of the said agreement, it no longer remains binding on the other party. The agreement becomes invalid. The Cease Fire agreement became invalid that way. Since all other subsequent resolutions were directly dependent on or connected to this Cease Fire agreement, those became defunct.

You should also note that India had accepted plebiscite strictly on certain conditions. One of which was that Pakistan should respect LoC maintaining an atmosphere of peace. Another one was of course, withdrawal of Pakistani citizens, irregular forces a.k.a Azad Kashmir Force and Pak military.

Rather than move in series, these items could move in parallel. Even if the agreement doesn't call for that, it is a practical and trust-building way to implement it, don't you think?

Assuming that all other problems of holding a plebiscite today are somehow solved, organising plebiscite in the middle of military withdrawal can be administrative nightmare.

 

[Solomon2]

So we have the outline of a way forward: India revising its pov and the "administrative nightmare" of organizing a plebiscite without much military around. Not too different from what the U.N. was called to do in Iraq several times in the past decade. Everything sounds doable, if difficult.

As for India standing on its current pov and the letter of its conditions accepting the plebiscite: whether justifiable or not, do you really think it is wise? If India is presented with the opportunity for a lasting peace with Pakistan, why not take it?

 

[prithwidw]

So we have the outline of a way forward: India revising its pov and the "administrative nightmare" of organizing a plebiscite without much military around. Not too different from what the U.N. was called to do in Iraq several times in the past decade. Everything sounds doable, if difficult.

As for India standing on its current pov and the letter of its conditions accepting the plebiscite: whether justifiable or not, do you really think it is wise? If India is presented with the opportunity for a lasting peace with Pakistan, why not take it?

We don't need it. Coz' the whole of Kashmir is Indian Land. You should have known that.

 

[Solomon2]

Pakistan is India and India is Pakistan. For historically the region referred to as "India" has been too large and too diverse to be lumped together as a single political unit, save by military force.

Furthermore, I don't see why the current GoI has an exclusive claim to "Indian Land", any more than the government of Macedonia has dibs on the Greek province with the same name.

 

[prithwidw]

Pakistan is India and India is Pakistan. For historically the region referred to as "India" has been too large and too diverse to be lumped together as a single political unit, save by military force.

Furthermore, I don't see why the current GoI has an exclusive claim to "Indian Land", any more than the government of Macedonia has dibs on the Greek province with the same name.

I don't see Barack Obama or any other US official speaking on this. Neither had.
Your thoughts in a language common for all would be appreciated.

 

[Solomon2]

I think B.O. is too busy with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to serve as an intermediary on Kashmir. And the U.S. doesn't share the British legal tradition to the same extent as India and Pakistan do. I'll bet there are better intermediaries available, under-employed diplomats and ministers who would jump at the opportunity. Seek and ye shall find...

 

[prithwidw]

I think B.O. is too busy with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to serve as an intermediary on Kashmir.

Now that would be another foreign policy mistake.

And the U.S. doesn't share the British legal tradition to the same extent as India and Pakistan do.

If you mean laws, then the feeling is mutual.

I'll bet there are better intermediaries available, under-employed diplomats and ministers who would jump at the opportunity. Seek and ye shall find...

I understand that. Those have been a hindrance at India's progress. But hey! Was America built in a day?

 

[EjazR]

@Solomon2

Historically,

not only did the Maharaja of Kashmir accede to India-which only provides the legal basis, but the most popular political party at that time the National Conference also endorsed the accession.
Sheikh Abdulla was by far the tallest leader and had led a long struggle against the Maharaja for the emancipation of the mostly muslim landless peasants. Infact he was in prison at the time of accession and one of the conditions of accepting this was to release him. If the plebescite had been held at that time and the US and UK had genuinely pressed GoP to create conditions conducive for the plebescite (i.e. withdraw army, and tribals e.t.c) it would most likely have had been in favor for India seeing that Sheikh Abdulla had endorsed this.

In the 1950 elections of J&K on the Indian side, his National Conference won major majority and again passed a resolution endorsing the accession.

Unfortunately, the US and UK looked at most of these disputes as a capitalism vs communism and sided with Pakistan on most Kashmir issues just like it sided with Israel on most Palestinian issues if not all.

 

[Solomon2]

Now that would be another foreign policy mistake.

Would it? Pakistan is currently our ally (albeit a most difficult one) in our struggle against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. At this stage, compelling America's involvement in the Kashmir conflict could be as distasteful as Argentina's experience when the U.S. served as intermediary in the 1982 Falkands/Malvinas conflict: obligations to the ally-of-the-moment blight the efficacy of the mediator. Hoping for such a bias I can see that Pakistan might insist on U.S. involvement, but I don't see why India should.

But hey! Was America built in a day?

Ah, but you see, the Americans looked to build a nation. What are India and Pakistan out to build? That's the question!

 

[Solomon2]

EjazR, what you are describing is a suitable opening position for India in its discussions with Pakistan. From there, you'll have to be flexible if you want to make progress.

After all, how many cease-fires between Israel and Egypt and Jordan were violated? A lot! Yet both countries have peace treaties with Israel today. Do you think that would have happened if these countries had stood on their "rights" rather than make bold initiatives?

 

[prithwidw]

Would it? Pakistan is currently our ally (albeit a most difficult one) in our struggle against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. At this stage, compelling America's involvement in the Kashmir conflict could be as distasteful as Argentina's experience when the U.S. served as intermediary in the 1982 Falkands/Malvinas conflict: obligations to the ally-of-the-moment blight the efficacy of the mediator.

Dude, do you seriously think we need US' help.
Hell No! We have been dealing it for ages and would deal it in the future too. Btw, India is not 1982s' Argentina. Remember 1971 Indo-Pak war, USS Enterprise and etc...ahem!

Hoping for such a bias I can see that Pakistan might insist on U.S. involvement, but I don't see why India should.

We don't. We look towards US as a business partner, and that's how US looks at us. Too much at stake here.

And I see no reason, why if Pakistani request of an involvement would spark an Indo-US cold war. Russia is still our ally. And it would be naive to reject that! And we are not dependent on charity.

Ah, but you see, the Americans looked to build a nation. What are India and Pakistan out to build? That's the question!

Can't you see Solomon?
We don't beg.
We get the best offers on defense equipment.
Israel is our 2nd biggest defense partner.
And more!

Time for you to open your eyes!

I love my country as much as you love yours...

 

[Solomon2]

Dude, do you seriously think we need US' help.

No, but you did ask.

We don't. We look towards US as a business partner, and that's how US looks at us. Too much at stake here.

I see no reason, why if Pakistani request of an involvement would spark an Indo-US cold war. Russia is still our ally.

I see no "Indo-US cold war" happening, now or in the future. As for Russia, I think it sees India as a business partner rather than an ally, just like India sees the U.S. Something India might want to think about.

Can't you see Solomon? We don't beg...Time for you to open your eyes!

I can see that India all-too-often wants to play the game of standing on its strength, rather than being a good neighbor. Until India modifies that somewhat, prospects for peace and prosperity with Pakistan - no matter how welcoming a GoP may be - can't proceed very far, I guess.