Zibago
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,006
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
Here are some more
Simla Agreement & What about Jammu & Ladakh?
0 0 0
Representational Pic
This is the 4th column of an FAQ series, in which two more questions will be answered. For those, who might not have read some or whole of the series, it’s apt to remind them that the 7 questions in last 3 columns were about the role of Islam & Pakistan in Kashmir movement, Children of Hurriyat, Who ought to vacate first, as per the UNSC?, Kashmir’s Hindu past as a reason for its ‘ever-Indianness’, theory of Pandits being the original inhabitants & What about Kashmiri pandits? Today’s questions & the subsequent answers are about Simla Agreement & What about Jammu & Ladakh?
Q8: How can you bring up the UN Resolutions, when Pakistan has already signed Simla agreement with India, in 1972, making Kashmir a bilateral issue and the UN resolutions, superfluous?
This question has multiple refutations which breaks such a fallacy to smithereens. Indians- its Politicians, Media & Intelligentsia, ostensibly speak on Kashmir without doing their home-work. They’re used to receive applauses for empty rhetoric when it comes to Kashmir. I would want them to open the website of their own Ministry of External Affairs & read the text of Simla Agreement (Web Link: http://mea.gov.in/in-focus-article.htm?19005/Simla+Agreement+July+2+1972 ). The first clause of the objective no. 1 reads as follows: “that the principles & purposes of the charter of United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.’’ So it begins by honoring the UN Charter without any exception. So, Simla reinforces the role of United Nations in the context of Pakistan & India, with Kashmir being no exception. The 2nd Clause, which India extrapolates, thus restricting Kashmir to bilateralism, indeed talks about solving issues bilaterally, but the sentence doesn’t end before it leaves the window open for other ways, by adding “or any other means’’. The Clause is as follows: “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.’’ Now, we know that Simla agreement neither excludes the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir, nor does it limit Kashmir to bilateralism.
Well, this was one dimension to disprove the Indian claim about Simla agreement. Another angle to discredit the theory is more important, especially for those who know International Law. It runs counter to a standing principle of international relations which is set out in Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations (accepted by every Member of the United Nations, including India & Pakistan). The Article says: "In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail". So, no agreement- unilateral, bilateral or multilateral, about the issue for which resolutions have been passed by the UN, can supersede the UN resolutions. So, even if Simla agreement were to mean what India says, which by the way is not true either, it has no legal standing in front of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Now, to prove my interpretation of India’s misinterpretation of the said agreement overpowering that of the UNO,right, I looked it up on the United Nations website. The website has published an interview of Major General Young Bum-Choi, who was the Head of Mission & Chief Military Observer of the United Nations Group in India & Pakistan (UNMOGIP), in 2013. He said & I quote ‘’ The Shimla agreement does not supersede the UNMOGIP mission here until any other UN resolution terminating the mission is issued’’. (Web Link: http://www.unic.org.in/display.php?E=12884&K= ). In fact, if the two countries ever resolve Kashmir on their own, they have to jointly approach the UN, and then if other member countries agree, a new UN resolution will have to be passed, to over-power the previous ones. he previous ones. Till then, nothing at all can impact the sanctity of the Security Council resolutions.
India’s insistence of Simla also shows their insecurity with the idea of UN resolutions. Had India not been the one to block its implementation & had Pakistan really been on a wrong side as per the UN, as is claimed by India & answered previously in this FAQ series, India wouldn’t have shied away from the UN by falsely claiming that Simla has superseded it, which is a travesty of law & of the Simla agreement as well.
Even if, any Kashmiri is not aware of these legalities, he could simply argue that he was not a party to Simla agreement and that his right to self-determination, guaranteed by the United Nations can not be done away with non-Kashmiris, be that Pakistan or India. Therefore, it’s not a binding on us.
As a last resort, if Simla were really to be a bilateral compulsion, even then India violates it by calling Kashmir its Internal issue. When you tell them UNSC, they say international dimension is old and Simla’s bilateralism is new. When you talk of Simla’s bilateralism, they say it’s our internal issue, and that J&K is same as UP & MP. This shows political dishonesty of India vis a vis Kashmir and proves that it’s wrong & self-contradictory on every single argument. Neither can they win legally nor have they won morally, all they have done is to have a part of J&K militarily.
Q9: This Cry for Azadi is limited to Kashmir. Why do you forget it’s not just Kashmir. What about Jammu & Ladakh?
Before we talk about it, may we kindly implement ‘The J&K Migrants Resettlement Act 1982’, which has been twice passed by the state legislature. Then we can see whether it's only Kashmir or even Jammu who have similar aspirations. Even without bringing back those Jammuites, who were killed en masse and others forced to leave, the Jammu province which has Doda, Bhaderwah, Rajouri & Kishtwar, also share Kashmir’s sentiment. Jammu is not just Jammu city or Udhampur & Katra. As far as Ladakh is concerned, it’s population is only 2,92,000, equal to few localities of down-town Srinagar. It doesn’t mean their rights should be trampled but the way Kashmir is being dwarfed to somehow show the smallness of Pro-Freedom constituency in J&K, these facts burst the artificial bubble created by these evasive politicians. Even within Ladakh region, which has Kargil & Leh district, 56% people identify themselves with the movement. It’s just that they are geographically cut-off from the valley and as I said are very few in number, inhabiting very large land mass. On top of that, if AJK & Gilgit-Baltistan were to be added, there would hardly be anyone in erstwhile J&K, who wouldn’t identify himself with the cause. And if my analysis is wrong, and India really believes that it’s a small number of people or just the Kashmir valley, which cries for Azadi, let them allow a referendum in entire state of J&K & even Pakistan-administered Kashmir, to let people decide their political destiny. We don’t seek plebiscite for the valley alone. The fact that they aren’t ready for it shows that they know the reality and are only raking up our division into Kashmiri-non-Kashmiri, Shia-Sunni, Gujjar Bakerwal, etc. But to expect such a democratic solution from the ‘world’s largest democracy’ seems like asking for a moon. One day, it will happen, God Willing!
Mehboob Makhdoomi is a Harvardian & an MBA from Pennsylvania University (IUP) United States with a Research degree from Cardiff University, United Kingdom.
http://m.greaterkashmir.com/news/225561.html
Simla Agreement & What about Jammu & Ladakh?
0 0 0
Representational Pic
This is the 4th column of an FAQ series, in which two more questions will be answered. For those, who might not have read some or whole of the series, it’s apt to remind them that the 7 questions in last 3 columns were about the role of Islam & Pakistan in Kashmir movement, Children of Hurriyat, Who ought to vacate first, as per the UNSC?, Kashmir’s Hindu past as a reason for its ‘ever-Indianness’, theory of Pandits being the original inhabitants & What about Kashmiri pandits? Today’s questions & the subsequent answers are about Simla Agreement & What about Jammu & Ladakh?
Q8: How can you bring up the UN Resolutions, when Pakistan has already signed Simla agreement with India, in 1972, making Kashmir a bilateral issue and the UN resolutions, superfluous?
This question has multiple refutations which breaks such a fallacy to smithereens. Indians- its Politicians, Media & Intelligentsia, ostensibly speak on Kashmir without doing their home-work. They’re used to receive applauses for empty rhetoric when it comes to Kashmir. I would want them to open the website of their own Ministry of External Affairs & read the text of Simla Agreement (Web Link: http://mea.gov.in/in-focus-article.htm?19005/Simla+Agreement+July+2+1972 ). The first clause of the objective no. 1 reads as follows: “that the principles & purposes of the charter of United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.’’ So it begins by honoring the UN Charter without any exception. So, Simla reinforces the role of United Nations in the context of Pakistan & India, with Kashmir being no exception. The 2nd Clause, which India extrapolates, thus restricting Kashmir to bilateralism, indeed talks about solving issues bilaterally, but the sentence doesn’t end before it leaves the window open for other ways, by adding “or any other means’’. The Clause is as follows: “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.’’ Now, we know that Simla agreement neither excludes the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir, nor does it limit Kashmir to bilateralism.
Well, this was one dimension to disprove the Indian claim about Simla agreement. Another angle to discredit the theory is more important, especially for those who know International Law. It runs counter to a standing principle of international relations which is set out in Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations (accepted by every Member of the United Nations, including India & Pakistan). The Article says: "In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail". So, no agreement- unilateral, bilateral or multilateral, about the issue for which resolutions have been passed by the UN, can supersede the UN resolutions. So, even if Simla agreement were to mean what India says, which by the way is not true either, it has no legal standing in front of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Now, to prove my interpretation of India’s misinterpretation of the said agreement overpowering that of the UNO,right, I looked it up on the United Nations website. The website has published an interview of Major General Young Bum-Choi, who was the Head of Mission & Chief Military Observer of the United Nations Group in India & Pakistan (UNMOGIP), in 2013. He said & I quote ‘’ The Shimla agreement does not supersede the UNMOGIP mission here until any other UN resolution terminating the mission is issued’’. (Web Link: http://www.unic.org.in/display.php?E=12884&K= ). In fact, if the two countries ever resolve Kashmir on their own, they have to jointly approach the UN, and then if other member countries agree, a new UN resolution will have to be passed, to over-power the previous ones. he previous ones. Till then, nothing at all can impact the sanctity of the Security Council resolutions.
India’s insistence of Simla also shows their insecurity with the idea of UN resolutions. Had India not been the one to block its implementation & had Pakistan really been on a wrong side as per the UN, as is claimed by India & answered previously in this FAQ series, India wouldn’t have shied away from the UN by falsely claiming that Simla has superseded it, which is a travesty of law & of the Simla agreement as well.
Even if, any Kashmiri is not aware of these legalities, he could simply argue that he was not a party to Simla agreement and that his right to self-determination, guaranteed by the United Nations can not be done away with non-Kashmiris, be that Pakistan or India. Therefore, it’s not a binding on us.
As a last resort, if Simla were really to be a bilateral compulsion, even then India violates it by calling Kashmir its Internal issue. When you tell them UNSC, they say international dimension is old and Simla’s bilateralism is new. When you talk of Simla’s bilateralism, they say it’s our internal issue, and that J&K is same as UP & MP. This shows political dishonesty of India vis a vis Kashmir and proves that it’s wrong & self-contradictory on every single argument. Neither can they win legally nor have they won morally, all they have done is to have a part of J&K militarily.
Q9: This Cry for Azadi is limited to Kashmir. Why do you forget it’s not just Kashmir. What about Jammu & Ladakh?
Before we talk about it, may we kindly implement ‘The J&K Migrants Resettlement Act 1982’, which has been twice passed by the state legislature. Then we can see whether it's only Kashmir or even Jammu who have similar aspirations. Even without bringing back those Jammuites, who were killed en masse and others forced to leave, the Jammu province which has Doda, Bhaderwah, Rajouri & Kishtwar, also share Kashmir’s sentiment. Jammu is not just Jammu city or Udhampur & Katra. As far as Ladakh is concerned, it’s population is only 2,92,000, equal to few localities of down-town Srinagar. It doesn’t mean their rights should be trampled but the way Kashmir is being dwarfed to somehow show the smallness of Pro-Freedom constituency in J&K, these facts burst the artificial bubble created by these evasive politicians. Even within Ladakh region, which has Kargil & Leh district, 56% people identify themselves with the movement. It’s just that they are geographically cut-off from the valley and as I said are very few in number, inhabiting very large land mass. On top of that, if AJK & Gilgit-Baltistan were to be added, there would hardly be anyone in erstwhile J&K, who wouldn’t identify himself with the cause. And if my analysis is wrong, and India really believes that it’s a small number of people or just the Kashmir valley, which cries for Azadi, let them allow a referendum in entire state of J&K & even Pakistan-administered Kashmir, to let people decide their political destiny. We don’t seek plebiscite for the valley alone. The fact that they aren’t ready for it shows that they know the reality and are only raking up our division into Kashmiri-non-Kashmiri, Shia-Sunni, Gujjar Bakerwal, etc. But to expect such a democratic solution from the ‘world’s largest democracy’ seems like asking for a moon. One day, it will happen, God Willing!
Mehboob Makhdoomi is a Harvardian & an MBA from Pennsylvania University (IUP) United States with a Research degree from Cardiff University, United Kingdom.
http://m.greaterkashmir.com/news/225561.html
