Confidence-building measures: a tool for Indo-Pakistani peace
At the UNGA, Indian First Secretary Sneha Dubey said that all of the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh “were, are and always will be an integral and inalienable part of India. . She added: “Pakistan’s attempts to internationalize the Kashmir issue have not gained any support from the international community and member states, who maintain that Kashmir is a bilateral affair between the two countries (Pakistan is a” incendiary âdisguising himself asâ fireman â: India at UNGA, Hindu September 25, 2021).
It is difficult to understand India’s position on Kashmir. India considers the entire disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir to be an integral part. Yet at the same time admits that this is a bilateral issue yet to be resolved between India and Pakistan.
What is preventing Pakistan from agitating the Kashmir conflict in international forums?
India assumes that the Simla Accord prohibits Pakistan from âinternationalizingâ the Kashmir conflict. This is not the case. Avtar Singh Bhasin (India and Pakistan: strange neighbors) is of the opinion that although Pakistan lost the war in East Pakistan, it won it in Simla.
Bhasin said: âIn the end, Bhutto the ‘dramatist’ won over Simla. The agreement signed in Simla only called for “respect for the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971. As Foreign Minister TN Kaul [of India] said at a briefing of heads of foreign missions in New Delhi on July 4, 1972, recognition of the new ceasefire line ended the role of the United Nations Military Observer Group on India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) in Kashmir, created specifically for the supervision of the 1949 UN-sponsored ceasefire line, since that line no longer existed. However, India was once again hesitant for not asking the UN to withdraw its team from Kashmir, or to withdraw its own recognition and privileges (Document No. 0712 in Bhasin’s India-Pakistan Relations 1947- 207).
Following the Simla Accord (1972), frustrated India stopped reporting ceasefire skirmishes to the UN. But Pakistan has regularly reported all these violations to the UN. India pretends not to recognize UNMOGIP. But, then, he brings logistical support to UMOGIP on his side of the LOC.
India continues to occasionally harass UNMOGIP vehicles. Not too long ago, three UNMOGIP members had a phone call along the LoC in Azad Jammu and Kashmir after Indian troops shot and injured two residents who were briefing them on the situation. after the ceasefire violations.
India even asked UNMOGIP to leave 1 / AB, Purina Lila Road, Connaught Place, where it has been operating since 1949.
Bhasin says (p.257-259), `Pakistani radio broadcasts and … commentators have made particular efforts to highlight … the fact: (i) that India has accepted Kashmir as disputed territory and Pakistan as a party to the dispute. (ii) That the resolutions of the UNSC had not been annulled and on the contrary (iii) Kashmir remained the central issue between the two countries and that there could be no permanent peace without a just solution based on the principle of self-determination of the people of Kashmir. And Pakistan was right in its assessment. He lost the war won the peace. In the end, India was left out by its own wisdom â.
Obviously, if the UNSC resolutions are intact, then Pakistan has the right to raise the Kashmir dispute in international forums.
India’s Changing Positions on Kashmir
Basically, the wily Jawaharlal Lal Nehru never cared about the constituent assembly of the contested state, the Indian parliament or the UN. This truth is interspersed with Avtar Singh Basin’s (2012) 10-volume documentary study on Indo-Pakistani relations 1947-2007. It contains 3,649 official documents, accessible from the archives of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. These articles shed new light on Nehru’s faltering and treacherous state of mind regarding the Kashmir conflict. In his 2018 book (published after six years of his earlier work), India, Pakistan: neighbors at odds (Bloomsbury India, New Delhi, 2018), Bhasin discusses Nehru’s perfidy in Kashmir in Chapter 5 titled Kashmir, Indian constitution and Nehru hesitation (pages 51-64). The book is based on Selected Works of Jawaharlal (SWJ) Nehru and the author’s own collection of papers on Indo-Pak relations. Let’s lay bare some of Nehru’s somersaults
Nehru disavows “membership” of Kashmir Assembly, holds Security Council resolutions
Initially, Nehru relied on what is called the instrument of accession and its authentication by the Constituent Assembly. Yet in a volt-face, he reiterated in New Delhi on November 3, 1951 that “we have made it clear to the Security Council that the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir is not [insofar] as far as we are concerned, it comes up against a decision of the Security Council or the United Nations â(SWJ: Volume 4: page 292, Bhasin p.228). Again, at a press conference on June 11, 1951, he was asked “if the Kashmir Constituent Assembly proposal” decides in favor of Pakistan joining, what will be the position? “That the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir was not supposed to decide definitively on such an issue, and that it does not preclude any decision which might ultimately result from the deliberations of the Security Council” (SWJ: Volume 15:, Part II, page 394. Bhasin page 56). He reiterated his point of view at a press conference in New Delhi on November 3, 1951.
Nehru does not call Pakistan an aggressor at the UN
And then the label thus in Parliament
He never called Pakistan an aggressor at the UN. Yet he told parliament on March 1, 1954 “that an ‘aggression’ took place in Kashmir six and a half years ago with disastrous consequences. However, the United States has not yet condemned it and we are asked not to insist on this point in the interests of peace (Bhasin pp. 55-56).
Nehru disavows the Security Council as a mere non-binding mediator
On July 24, 1952, Nehru said: âUnless the Security Council operates under other articles of the Charter, it cannot make a decision that is binding on us unless we accept it. They function as mediators and a mediator means getting people to agree (SWJ, Volume 19, page 241. Bhasin page 56).
Security Council reappeared
Bhasin points out (page 57 op. cited.) âAt the same press conference on July 24, 1952, when asked what the need for the plebiscite was now that he had obtained the Constituent Assembly [approval], he replied, âMaybe theoretically you might be right. But we gave them [UN] an assurance and we support it (SWJ: Volume 19, pp. 240-241. Bhasin, p. 57, Bhasin pages 256-257).
Pakistan’s recourse to the UN is India’s Achilles heel. Thus India’s position on the disputed Kashmir is a farce of inconsistent myths.
To avoid the internationalization of the Kashmir issue, former Indian Foreign Minister Jagat Singh Mehta proposed proposals (renamed by Pervez Musharraf) to relax the LOC in exchange for the non-internationalization of the Kashmir conflict for 10 years . Mehta presented her ideas in an article titled âSolving Kashmir in the International Context of the 1990sâ.
India did not have a consistent position on Kashmir. There was a time when Sardar Patel presented Kashmir to Pakistan in exchange for Hyderabad and Junagadh. The offer was reportedly declined because Pakistani Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan believed he could keep not only Kashmir, but also Junagadh and Hyderabad. Jawaharlal Nehru approached the United Nations for mediation. He kept repeating his commitment to the plebiscite.
It is strange that the whole architecture of India’s position on Kashmir is built on the mythical “instrument of accession” and its approval by the assembly of the contested state. Membership documents are not registered with the UN. The text of the Simla Accord clearly refers to the Charter of the United Nations.
Let India know that a state that flouts international treaties is a rogue state: pacta sunt servanda, treaties must be observed and are binding on the parties. Self-determination is not only a political right but also a legal right over disputed lands. Without talks with Pakistan, and mediation by the UN or a third party, what is India’s recipe for imprisoning the Kashmiris? Nuclear armageddon or divine intervention?