Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Lets not go into the nuances and minute details of the UN resolution as both sides can find enough clauses to support their respective stands with convinience.

There are no nuances here - India's own actions and commitments, along with the UNSC resolutions and Millennium Declaration, establish the legal and moral position of the right to self-determination for the Kashmiris, as explained above.

Tell me one thing - Is not the demand of Kashmiris for independence in conflict with the UN resolutions which do not grant independence as an option.??

I also ought to remind everyone that the Indepencence option was dropped at the behest of Pakistan.

So with such a basic conflict of interests how can any one move forward.?

What conflict of interest? The first step is for India to agree to implement its commitment to the right of the Kashmiris to self-determination. The next step is for the representatives of India, Pakistan and J&K to enter negotiations on the conditions and choices of the plebiscite. The need and validity of introducing a third option can be arrived at through those negotiations.

In any case, two options in a plebiscite is a much better position than no options and no plebiscite. Forward movement can be achieved, what is needed is for Indians to drop their irrational nationalistic desire to impose their rule over Kashmiris on the basis of some distorted and flawed historical narrative of 'mother India', and accept the validity of self-determination for Kashmiris and the need to resort to it to end the conflict.

 

[Guynextdoor]

Read the UNSC resolutions thread, and the excerpt posted above by RamGorur:

"upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured."​

Consultations were entered into, various plans were proposed by the various commissions, and India rejected them. There was no unilateral obligation upon Pakistan to withdraw its troops - had there been, then there would have been no need for the various UN commissions that tried to arrive at demilitarization and plebiscite proposals.

That is irrelevant to the legal and moral case, with regards to self-determination, that India herself established and advocated in invading, occupying and annexing the three territories, through her commitments and actions, as explained in my last post.

Aside from my previous paragraph on why this argument is irrelevant in the context of self-determination, please also look into the history of the dictator Maharajah's rule in J&K, and his extremely discriminatory treatment of his Muslim subjects, and how that discrimination sparked a revolt in Kashmir before any Tribal invasion from Pakistan took place.

Given that your argument of 'he had no right to rule since he was not democratically elected' seeks to imply that neither accession to Pakistan by the Nawab of Junagadh nor the desire to remain independent by the rule of Hyderabad, have any validity, then so to does the accession of the dictator Maharajah of J&K not have any validity, which brings us back to the principle and means used by India herself in legitimizing the annexation of Junagadh and Hyderabad - self-determination for the people of these States, who were ruled by brutal tyrants.

And 'self-determination' for the people of J&K has not yet been implemented.

I can argue that the constant interference from Pakistan and efforts to vitiate the atmosphere in India made any conditions of fair and equitable expression of people's interest impossible.

I can also put up this point- the wishes of the Nawab of Junagarh, the Nizam of Hyderabad as well as the Raja of Kashmir were irrelevant and restricted to one point only- WHICH COUNTRY THEY WOULD ACCEDE TO. That was an explicit agreement between the Congress, the British & JINNAH. Princely states have two options only- India or Pakistan no other option. And it was the decision of the rulers to accede or not. so from the moment the Raja of Kashmir signed the instrument of accession to India, ALL parts of kashmir automatically came to India and your presence automatically became illegal.

 

[RamGorur]

It is both a moral and promised right, by the UN and India herself. India, in invading and occupying Jungadh and Hyderabad (the former after the ruler had acceded to Pakistan) chose herself to argue that the plebiscites India conducted in those territories on her own legitimized the annexation of those territories.

Therefore, India has herself made clear the legal and moral validity of self-determination through her actions and commitments.

UN never made any promise because by the very nature of Chapter VI resolutions, UN can’t have any obligation, which is the necessary flip side of a promise. I may add once again that the plebiscite was what the parties to the dispute, i.e. India and Pakistan, had agreed among themselves to be the means to resolve the dispute, and UN's role was restricted to that of a witness to the agreement.

Junagadh and Hyderabad do give rise to an expectation, but still doesn’t give rise to any right to self-determination. If I go to a barber and tip him 5 bucks, it doesn’t mean that every barber in town, who I may visit from then on, now will have the right to receive similar tip from me. They can certainly expect, but they can hardly claim it as their right.

The claim for a right has to stand on its own merit and can't be argued on the basis of 'Daddy gave candy to my brother and so I have a right to get one too'.

There is however always this question of owning upto one’s promise and India did make a promise to Kashmiris, albeit conditional. Although a promise makes the promisor obligated to the promisee, it doesn’t necessarily give rise to any ‘right’ to the promisee.

The UN millenium declaration endorses, 'the right to self-determination of peoples which remain under colonial domination and foreign occupation.' That in conjunction with the UN resolutions, and India's own actions and commitments with respect to J&K, Junagadh and Hyderabad, provides an affirmation of the Kashmiri 'Right to self-determination'.

Constitutionally, it is Pakistan which is occupying a portion of Kashmir, not India. Sir Owen Dixon, an Australian constitutional lawyer was appointed by UN to fix the specifics of plebiscite. He stayed in the subcontinent for about 3 months in 1950. In his report, dated 15th Sept, 1950, he made the following observation (pg 7/8):

‘…without going into the causes or reasons why it happened, which presumably formed part of the history of the sub-continent, I was prepared to adopt the view that when the frontier of the State of Jammu and Kashmir was crossed, on I believe 20 October 1947, by hostile elements, it was contrary to international law, and that when, in May 1948, as I believe, units of regular Pakistan forces moved into the territory of the state that too was inconsistent with international law.’

The highlighted part is a polite way of saying Pakistan invaded Kashmir and is occupying it.

I am not debating if Kashmiris deserve a plebiscite to determine the future of their land. My query is if they have a right to claim self-determination. All your arguments revolve around if Kashmiris deserve a plebiscite or not but fails to address my query.

 

[S_O_C_O_M]

Google map of Kashmir annoys India​

Published: Aug. 21, 2010 at 9:50 PM

NEW DELHI, Aug. 21 (UPI) -- The Indian government objected Saturday to a Google map showing what India considers ***************** Kashmir as Pakistani territory.

The disputed map comes up on Google Insights for Search, Press Trust of India reported.

"Any wrongful depiction of Indian map and its boundaries is liable for action under the India Information Technology Act," said Sachin Pilot, the Indian minister for telecom and information technology. "Google has been asked to immediately correct this inaccuracy."

Pilot said Google has agreed to correct the offending map. He added he has asked the government information technology department to search for other maps depicting Kashmir as part of Pakistan.

Kashmir, a Muslim majority region and former princely state, is claimed by both India and Pakistan and has been partitioned for decades. India controls the southeast part, Pakistan the northwest and China a smaller portion to the northeast.

Google map of Kashmir annoys India - UPI.com

 

[civfanatic]

.

That is a deliberate, but convenient, misinterpretation of UN resolutions regarding Kashmir. If you carefully read the resolution of 13th August, 1947, which both the countries had accepted and formed the cornerstone for every subsequent resolutions, then you will come across Part III of the resolution which states:

‘The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.’

It is not an affirmation of Kashmiri’s right to self-determination, but only recognition by the international community of how both the countries wished to resolve their own dispute. By no stretch of the most fertile mind can this be construed as international community’s affirmation of Kashmiri’s right to self-determination. If instead of plebiscite, India and Pakistan had decided to settle it over a game of Polo, even that would have been vetted by UN.

Yes, but only in case of colonialism.


Nothing can be further from the truth. UN resolutions make it very much explicit that Kashmiris are a part of either Indian or Pakistani nationhood. There is no such thing as ‘Kashmiri Nationhood’ and hence, thanks to Pakistan, independence is not an option as per UN resolutions.

If you read the document carefully, under the heading of plebiscite the following is written (B7)

The Govt of India Should undertake that there will be established a plebiscite administration to hold a plebiscite as soon as possible on the question of accession of the state to India or Pakistan

It is clear from above that according to UN resolutions it is binding upon India to hold plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir. The part III of resolution is just reaffirmation by India and Pakistan that they agree with international community in this matter. Hence UN resolutions are not only implicit recognition of Kashmiri nationalism by larger international community but also by India and Pakistan .

 

[Jade]

If you read the document carefully , under the heading of plebicite the folllowing is written (B7)

[I]The Govt OF India Should Undertake that there will be established a plebiscite administration to hold a plebiscite as soon as possible on the question of accession of the state to India or Pakistan [/I].

It is clear from above that according to UN resolutions it is binding upon India to hold plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir. The part III of resolution is just reaffirmation by India and Pakistan that they agree with international community in this matter. Hence UN resolutions are not only implicit recognition of Kashmiri nationalism by larger international community but also by India and Pakistan .

If it were a Pakistani, my reply may have been bit harsh, however, as a compatriot (you may thing it differently), I think you seems blinded by anti India/anti Hindu propaganda. I find that you lack nuance of UNSC resolution or you seems to twist UNSC resolution to suit your argument.

 

[Hulk]

@civfanatic UN resolution are non binding end of story. Interest of nation comes before anything else, not everyone can be given right to chose their country most of us did not got that right. Even if millions more die we will still not give Kashmir, the sooner you understand this the better for you. Anyone who revolts will be treated as traitor and proper treatment given.

 

[RamGorur]

If you read the document carefully , under the heading of plebicite the folllowing is written (B7)

[I]The Govt OF India Should Undertake that there will be established a plebiscite administration to hold a plebiscite as soon as possible on the question of accession of the state to India or Pakistan [/I].

It is clear from above that according to UN resolutions it is binding upon India to hold plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir. The part III of resolution is just reaffirmation by India and Pakistan that they agree with international community in this matter. Hence UN resolutions are not only implicit recognition of Kashmiri nationalism by larger international community but also by India and Pakistan .

You are referring to res 47, which, I have already explained, is redundant in presence of resolution of 13th Aug, 1948 and 5 Jan, 1949.

There is a reason why resolution 47 is not referred to by India or even UN, except probably in one instance. That resolution was passed in a situation where material fact was suppressed by Pakistan. Pakistan refused to admit that PA was well within Kashmiri territory. As a result, the entire onus was dumped on India. When the Commission reached Pakistan, to verify, Sir Zafarulla Khan, the then foreign minister of Pakistan, hastily admitted of PA's presence. This constituted 'material change' and finally led to the resolution of 13th Aug, 1948. If you notice Part II/A(1) of the said resolution makes reference to that 'material change'.

The UNSC resolution of 13 Aug, 1948, as opposed to resolution 47, made plebiscite subjective to certain conditions and intricately bound Pakistan to it. As such resolution 47 became redundant.

I will again repeat, that by not including the option of independence, Pakistan had rejected 'Kashmiri Nationalism' and given that Kashmiris could either join India or join Pakistan, there is no scope for any Kashmiri Nationalism.

It is sad that you are just regurgitating the usual falsity that has been used to brainwash Kashmiri youth.

 

[Prometheus]

@civfanatic UN resolution are non binding end of story. Interest of nation comes before anything else, not everyone can be given right to chose their country most of us did not got that right. Even if millions more die we will still not give Kashmir, the sooner you understand this the better for you. Anyone who revolts will be treated as traitor and proper treatment given.

that will be highly unconstitutional.............

 

[Bhairava]

There are no nuances here - India's own actions and commitments, along with the UNSC resolutions and Millennium Declaration, establish the legal and moral position of the right to self-determination for the Kashmiris, as explained above.

Of course not...though Im not into much of these..I have seen many explanations from toxic_pus in the seven solutions and the UNSC resolutions thread to justify India's present stand in Kashmir.
So please dont potray Pakistan as all angelic and India as the devil incarnate here.

What conflict of interest? The first step is for India to agree to implement its commitment to the right of the Kashmiris to self-determination.

What conflict of interest..?!!!? Even in the most anti-Indian part of J&K (the Valley) only a miniscule part of the separatists want to join Pakistan - the absolute majority want independence from both India and Pakistan.

So while they certainly want their azaadi - the UNSC resolutions we guys talk about promise only India or Pakistan as their future.

And it seems your (Pakistani and UN) meaning of self-determination is different from the Kashmiri meaning of self-determination.

So first you guys iron out your differences among yourselves and then bring India into the picture.

The next step is for the representatives of India, Pakistan and J&K to enter negotiations on the conditions and choices of the plebiscite. The need and validity of introducing a third option can be arrived at through those negotiations.

How do you know that the current gen of leaders will repeat the same foolish mistake that Nehru did going to the UN when the Indian Army was in the process of sucessfully throwing out the invaders.

In any case, two options in a plebiscite is a much better position than no options and no plebiscite. Forward movement can be achieved, what is needed is for Indians to drop their irrational nationalistic desire to impose their rule over Kashmiris on the basis of some distorted and flawed historical narrative of 'mother India', and accept the validity of self-determination for Kashmiris and the need to resort to it to end the conflict.

Ahh so the real desire of Kashmir to join Pakistan comes out.So much for them to be independent.
As for the nationlistic attitude - with all due respect Pakistanis cant decide if our nationlism is irrational or not.
It will be there no matter what you guys think.
And in what way is the historical narrative flawed.Please explain that part.

 

[Hulk]

@Prometheus Anyone who revolts against nation is a traitor, even by constitution, read national security act. Anyone violently protesting will be dealt with firm hand. I am being practical here, this is what will happen.

 

[Prometheus]

@Prometheus Anyone who revolts against nation is a traitor, even by constitution, read national security act. Anyone violently protesting will be dealt with firm hand. I am being practical here, this is what will happen.

constitution also says that you can demand anything including freedom by peaceful demonstration

and National security act ( whatever that is) cannot do anything about Fundamentals of constitution

 

[Bhairava]

constitution also says that you can demand anything including freedom by peaceful demonstration

and National security act ( whatever that is) cannot do anything about Fundamentals of constitution

The constitution in its present form doesnt allow "Freedom" from India by whatever means - though it allows peaceful protest through the "Right to Protest".

 

[civfanatic]

You are referring to res 47, which, I have already explained, is redundant in presence of resolution of 13th Aug, 1948 and 5 Jan, 1949.

There is a reason why resolution 47 is not referred to by India or even UN, except probably in one instance. That resolution was passed in a situation where material fact was suppressed by Pakistan. Pakistan refused to admit that PA was well within Kashmiri territory. As a result, the entire onus was dumped on India. When the Commission reached Pakistan, to verify, Sir Zafarulla Khan, the then foreign minister of Pakistan, hastily admitted of PA's presence. This constituted 'material change' and finally led to the resolution of 13th Aug, 1948. If you notice Part II/A(1) of the said resolution makes reference to that 'material change'.

The UNSC resolution of 13 Aug, 1948, as opposed to resolution 47, made plebiscite subjective to certain conditions and intricately bound Pakistan to it. As such resolution 47 became redundant.

I will again repeat, that by not including the option of independence, Pakistan had rejected 'Kashmiri Nationalism' and given that Kashmiris could either join India or join Pakistan, there is no scope for any Kashmiri Nationalism.

It is sad that you are just regurgitating the usual falsity that has been used to brainwash Kashmiri youth.

Can you please Give me what is the resolution NO. of these resolutions
a)resolution of 13th Aug, 1948

b) resolution of 5 Jan, 1949

This is no place to get into intricate details of UN resolutions which would be very a complex and time consuming process But the substance of UN resolutions is easy to grasp . The substantive part of UN resolutions is affirmation of Kashmiri RSD by International community which neither India nor Pakistan ,unilaterally or bilaterally can take away.

 

[Hulk]

@Prometheus By revolt I meant violent revolt to damage country's interest.
This law has never changed since old times.