dabong1
<b>PDF VETERAN</b>
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,417
- Reaction score
- 1
Siachen tourism
IN your editorial, Siachen tourism (Sept 21), you have remarked that the distinction between adventure and adventurism has been blurred by the Indian armys shocking decision to take trekkers to the disputed Siachen glacier ....
Also, that the Indian move comes under the head of needless provocation at a time when the composite dialogue between the two countries is helping ease tensions in the region. The editorial rightly observes that there are other glaciers and mountains that can provide thrills in equal measure.
Finally, you have hit the nail on the head by suggesting that the motive of the Indian army could be to tell a wider audience that if tourists can go to Siachen through India, the glacier must surely fall within its territory.
If we recall what India has been doing all along to avoid a fair solution to the Kashmir problem -- where the Siachen glacier also lies -- your conclusion will be justified. To give an illustration, let us consider the book, The Emergence of Pakistan by former prime minister Chaudhri Muhammad Ali, who had been amongst those at the forefront of our liberation struggle: after 1947 he held talks with Nehru and others regarding Kashmir.
The uniqueness of this work is apparent from the comment of British scholar Prof I. F. Rushbrook Williams: Chaudhri Muhammad Ali has given his readers just the kind of inside view that Liaquat Ali Khan and Quaid i Azam himself would have written, had the opportunity been given to them.
About the two UN Council resolutions of 1948 and 1949 regarding Kashmir, which were accepted by both India and Pakistan, Mr Ali says:
The UN Commission for India and Pakistan was soon to realise that Pakistan was right in having apprehensions about Indias intentions to obstruct the plebiscite. The Indian tactics were essentially the same as they had adopted in dealing with the Cabinet Mission plan. They would misinterpret the plain words of the agreement to suit their own ends, and then refuse to accept any other interpretation, even that offered by the authors of the agreement. In keeping with this technique, the Indians insisted upon the disbandment of the Azad Kashmir forces, even though there was no mention of it in the agreement, and even though the commission stated specifically that the Resolution (of Aug 13, 1948) does not contemplate the disarmament or disbanding of Azad Kashmir forces.
Mr Ali further notes that other points were also raised but the Indian government would not accept the interpretation of the commission. The commission then proposed that the differences be submitted to the arbitration of Americas Admiral Chester W. Nimitz who had been designated Plebiscite Administrator for Kashmir.
President Truman and prime minister Attlee had appealed to both India and Pakistan to accept this proposal for arbitration. Pakistan accepted and India rejected. The writer sadly notes that this pattern of behaviour was repeated on 11 subsequent occasions when eminent statesmen and mediators put forward proposals for a settlement of the Kashmir dispute Pakistan accepted and India rejected.
He further says distinguished Australian judge Sir Owen Dixon was appointed UN Representative in 1950. He replaced the UN commission and was to prepare and supervise a programme of demilitarisation and carry out its other functions. Sir Owen then reported to the UNSC:
In the end I became convinced that Indias agreement would never be obtained to demilitarisation in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character as would, in my opinion, permit of the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperilled.
This survey of UN and western sources should make it clear that Pakistan was always willing to abide by their recommendations but India was obdurate and devious. Thus, it is futile to expect them to behave differently regarding Kashmir or Siachen. Conducting of Anglo-Indian wargames in Ladakh despite our protests (Sept 27) is yet another example of Indias (and Britains) disregard for international law and fairness.
IN your editorial, Siachen tourism (Sept 21), you have remarked that the distinction between adventure and adventurism has been blurred by the Indian armys shocking decision to take trekkers to the disputed Siachen glacier ....
Also, that the Indian move comes under the head of needless provocation at a time when the composite dialogue between the two countries is helping ease tensions in the region. The editorial rightly observes that there are other glaciers and mountains that can provide thrills in equal measure.
Finally, you have hit the nail on the head by suggesting that the motive of the Indian army could be to tell a wider audience that if tourists can go to Siachen through India, the glacier must surely fall within its territory.
If we recall what India has been doing all along to avoid a fair solution to the Kashmir problem -- where the Siachen glacier also lies -- your conclusion will be justified. To give an illustration, let us consider the book, The Emergence of Pakistan by former prime minister Chaudhri Muhammad Ali, who had been amongst those at the forefront of our liberation struggle: after 1947 he held talks with Nehru and others regarding Kashmir.
The uniqueness of this work is apparent from the comment of British scholar Prof I. F. Rushbrook Williams: Chaudhri Muhammad Ali has given his readers just the kind of inside view that Liaquat Ali Khan and Quaid i Azam himself would have written, had the opportunity been given to them.
About the two UN Council resolutions of 1948 and 1949 regarding Kashmir, which were accepted by both India and Pakistan, Mr Ali says:
The UN Commission for India and Pakistan was soon to realise that Pakistan was right in having apprehensions about Indias intentions to obstruct the plebiscite. The Indian tactics were essentially the same as they had adopted in dealing with the Cabinet Mission plan. They would misinterpret the plain words of the agreement to suit their own ends, and then refuse to accept any other interpretation, even that offered by the authors of the agreement. In keeping with this technique, the Indians insisted upon the disbandment of the Azad Kashmir forces, even though there was no mention of it in the agreement, and even though the commission stated specifically that the Resolution (of Aug 13, 1948) does not contemplate the disarmament or disbanding of Azad Kashmir forces.
Mr Ali further notes that other points were also raised but the Indian government would not accept the interpretation of the commission. The commission then proposed that the differences be submitted to the arbitration of Americas Admiral Chester W. Nimitz who had been designated Plebiscite Administrator for Kashmir.
President Truman and prime minister Attlee had appealed to both India and Pakistan to accept this proposal for arbitration. Pakistan accepted and India rejected. The writer sadly notes that this pattern of behaviour was repeated on 11 subsequent occasions when eminent statesmen and mediators put forward proposals for a settlement of the Kashmir dispute Pakistan accepted and India rejected.
He further says distinguished Australian judge Sir Owen Dixon was appointed UN Representative in 1950. He replaced the UN commission and was to prepare and supervise a programme of demilitarisation and carry out its other functions. Sir Owen then reported to the UNSC:
In the end I became convinced that Indias agreement would never be obtained to demilitarisation in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character as would, in my opinion, permit of the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperilled.
This survey of UN and western sources should make it clear that Pakistan was always willing to abide by their recommendations but India was obdurate and devious. Thus, it is futile to expect them to behave differently regarding Kashmir or Siachen. Conducting of Anglo-Indian wargames in Ladakh despite our protests (Sept 27) is yet another example of Indias (and Britains) disregard for international law and fairness.
