Kashmir Issue
by Syed Adeeb -- Source: www.InformationTimes.com The General Court of New Hampshire, which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate, recently passed the House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 16 by majority voice vote to liberate the illegally occupied State of Jammu & Kashmir from the brutal clutches of Indian-Hindu tyranny.
The General Court Resolution urges the United States Government to facilitate a just, peaceful and rapid resolution to the Kashmir conflict between India and the 13 million people of Kashmir; to bring a cessation of atrocities committed by Indian-Hindu tyrants against the citizens or nationals of Jammu and Kashmir State; and, as a result, to reduce the threat of a nuclear war between Pakistan and India in South Asia.
The Resolution No. 16 states: "The New Hampshire General Court, fully mindful of the sacred obligation embodied in our state motto, "Live Free or Die," respectfully requests that the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives immediately initiate hearings to discern all relevant facts and circumstances attendant to the Kashmiri conflict so as to facilitate its just, peaceful and rapid resolution; to bring a cessation of atrocities against the people of Jammu and Kashmir; and to minimize the threat of nuclear war in Southwest Asia; and
"The New Hampshire General Court hereby calls upon all parties [Kashmiris, India and Pakistan] to this conflict to adhere to the principles of the United Nations Charter on Human Rights forthwith, and grant observers from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch free and unrestricted access to the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir to monitor the status of human rights therein; and
"Copies of this resolution be sent by the House clerk to the President of the United States [George W. Bush], the Vice President of the United States [Richard B. Cheney], the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives [J. Dennis Hastert], and the New Hampshire congressional delegation."
HCR 16, titled "a resolution urging increased diplomacy to achieve a just, peaceful and rapid resolution of the conflict between India and Pakistan relative to the State of Jammu and Kashmir," is based on the following 4 points:
The people of the former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir have for the past 55 years been subjected to documented and unspeakable human rights abuses, including the execution of civilians, the rape and burning of women, the immolation and mutilation of children, the deliberate shelling of civilians by Indian military artillery, and the torture and murder of political detainees. During January 1989 and January 31, 2003, Indian-Hindu rulers, military and police have murdered 85,065 Kashmiris, according to the Kashmir Media Service (KMS -- www.kmsnews.org).
Three wars between India and Pakistan, in 1947-1948, 1965 and 1971, failed to justly resolve either the Kashmiri self-determination issue or the ongoing and egregious violations of human rights committed by the Indian-Hindu armed forces in occupied Kashmir.
The threat of nuclear war between India and Pakistan has reached unprecedented levels because of the volatility of the issues attendant to the illegal accession of Kashmir by India in October 1947.
Resolution of this India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir, the cessation of Indian-Hindu atrocities against the Kashmiri people and the reduction of the threat of an Indo-Pak nuclear war in South Asia is unquestionably in the best interests of the people of the State of New Hampshire, the United States of America and the world community of nations.
HCR 16 was sponsored by the State of New Hampshire Representative, Robert J. Giuda (R+D), and co-sponsored by New Hampshire Representative Sharon L. Nordgren (D), Senator Lou D'Allesandro (D) and Senator Robert K. Boyce (R). The Giuda Resolution was passed in the House of Representatives on Thursday, February 13, 2003. It was passed in the Senate on Thursday, February 20, 2003. There are 400 Representatives and 24 Senators, making the General Court of New Hampshire the second largest legislature in the United States following the U.S. Congress and the third-largest parliamentary body in the English-speaking world. It is said that only the U.S. Congress and the parliaments of UK and India are larger.
Rep. Giuda, the Deputy Majority Leader of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, recently told reporters: "What makes this particular [Kashmir] conflict so dangerous is the fact that both India and Pakistan, which are locked in a struggle to determine if, when and under whose auspices Kashmiri self-determination will ensue, possess nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them."
Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Executive Director of the Washington DC-based Kashmiri American Council (KAC), recently told this journalist: "Representative Robert Giuda is leading a delegation of members of the New Hampshire legislature to Kashmir later this month, along with several members of the media. They will use the self- funded trip to meet with local and high-level Pakistani and Kashmiri officials, visit refugee camps and hold local public forums with Kashmiris to discuss the conflict. Mr. Giuda will address a joint session of the Azad Kashmir Assembly, and will present HCR 16 at that time. The group is awaiting a response from the Indian Government as to whether a similar fact-finding visit can be arranged to the Indian-held portion of Kashmir."
He went on to say that Kashmir is a divided country with a total population of 13 million; 5 million reside in Azad (Free) Kashmir under Pakistani rule, and 8 million live in the Indian-held section of the illegally occupied State of Jammu & Kashmir. In addition, there are over 3 million Kashmiri refugees in Pakistan and more than 2 million citizens or nationals of Kashmir live in various countries of the world. The free part and occupied part of Kashmir are separated by a 'Line of Control', similar to the Berlin Wall, which separates families, blocks travel and commerce, and is essentially a line of demarcation between the imperialist Hindu nation and the oppressed Kashmiri nation.
Dr. Fai pointed out: At present, the Indian Government has deployed 700,000 army and 100,000 paramilitary police within and around the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir. They operate under a recently-passed "Prevention Of Terrorism Ordinance" (POTO), which allows all army and police personnel to summarily arrest, detain indefinitely and interrogate at will any man, woman, or child suspected of complicity with or sympathy for the Kashmiri freedom movement. The POTO also provides blanket immunity from prosecution for any Indian Army or police personnel acting under the Draconian law.
As recently as November 2002, India-Pakistan nuclear war was only narrowly averted after a rapid escalation and concentration of conventional armed forces along the border between the two countries, and a marked increase in the repression of Kashmiris, whose objective is enforcement of the U.N. resolutions on Kashmir promising them the right of self-determination, said the Kashmiri leader.
The following are excerpts from a dialogue with Pakistan's Ambassador to the United Nations Munir Akram, which sheds some light on the UN role in resolving the Kashmir conflict:
Q: How many resolutions have so far been adopted by the United Nations Security Council on the illegally occupied State of Jammu & Kashmir? How many of them clearly spell out the prescription for the settlement of the Kashmir war between Indian-Hindu dictators and the Kashmiri people?
A: The UN Security Council has so far adopted 18 resolutions directly or indirectly dealing with the Kashmir dispute, the latest being Resolution 1172 adopted in 1998, which, while addressing the nuclearization of South Asia, urges Pakistan and India in its paragraph 5 to find mutually acceptable solutions that address the Kashmir issue and all other root causes of tensions between them.
Q: India claims that the UN resolutions on Jammu & Kashmir have lost their relevance. It further contends that the resolutions are not binding on it. How far is this true?
A: Legally and politically, Indian claims are not correct. No UN Security Council resolution can lose its relevance unless the Security Council adopts another resolution calling for its supercession for whatever reasons. This has been confirmed by the Security Council in a statement on 6 January 1994.
Politically, the UN resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir have become even more relevant because of the on-ground political situation in Jammu and Kashmir where a legitimate freedom struggle is being suppressed by over 700,000 Indian Army soldiers and the situation now poses a grave danger to international peace and security.
A long time ago, Indian-Hindu rulers charged Pakistan with committing aggression against India. But India based its complaint on Article 35 of Chapter 6 of the UN Charter which relates to the "Pacific Settlement of Disputes" and not Chapter 7 which deals with acts of aggression. Subsequently, India tried to evade the provisions of the Kashmir resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council saying that the resolutions were passed under Chapter 6 and not under Chapter 7 and that its recommendations were not binding on it.
Contrary to India's distorted logic, under international law all UN Security Council resolutions which confirm agreements reached among the parties to a dispute -- as was the case in Kashmir -- become legally binding on all parties concerned -- in this case India, Pakistan and the UN.
Q: What decisions or actions did the UN Security Council take to implement its resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir to resolve the tragic and bloody Kashmir conflict in which innocent children, women and men are being killed every day?
A: Through its Resolution 47 (1948), later reaffirmed by resolutions 51 (1948), 80 (1950), 91(1951) and 122 (1957), the UN Security Council decided that the final disposition of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the Kashmiri people expressed through a UN supervised plebiscite (democratic referendum).
Q: Why was this UN Security Council decision not implemented by India or by the Security Council?
A: UN Security Council Resolution 47 of 21 April 1948 called for "the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein" and the reduction of Indian forces in the Kashmir State to "minimum strength required" in order to facilitate a plebiscite. The Security Council modified its decision by Resolution 98 of 23 December 1952, which provided for synchronized reduction of troops on both sides of the Indo-Pak ceasefire line to 3,000 to 6,000 on the Pakistani side and 12,000 to 18,000 on the Indian side. Pakistan agreed, India did not. India's reluctance to demilitarize the State of Jammu and Kashmir was confirmed by Sir Owen Dixon, Head of the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), in his report to the Security Council on 15 September 1950. He sated that "in the end I became convinced that India's agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled."
Q: India claims that the Simla Agreement between Pakistan and India had excluded the mediation of the UN in the Kashmir dispute and as such UN Security Council resolutions could not provide a framework for settlement of the Kashmir conflict. How far is this true?
A: Once again, legally and politically, this Indian claim is wrong. No bilateral agreement between India and Pakistan changed the substance of the provisions of the UN Security Council resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir. Bilateral agreements between Pakistan and India merely affirmed the commitment of the two countries to conduct bilateral negotiations to resolve the Kashmir dispute. India based its argument on Article 2 of the Simla Agreement which says 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."
However, Article 1 of the Simla Agreement specifically provides that "the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries" [India and Pakistan]. Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter reads: "All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter." More specifically, Chapter 16, Article 103 of the UN Charter states: "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." Many countries have invoked Article 103 whenever their obligations under the UN Charter conflicted with those under other treaties. The Indian interpretation of the Simla Agreement, therefore, does not diminish the necessity for both Pakistan and India to fulfill their UN Charter obligations.
Moreover, Article 1 of the Simla Agreement says that "the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries" [Pakistan and India]. One of the fundamental provisions of the UN Charter is "respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" (Chapter 1, Article 1, Clause 2). That can also be interpreted as one of the Charter obligations of states and under Article 103 any contrary provision, therefore, of all other treaties, including the Indo-Pak Simla Agreement, cannot take precedence.
After the nuclearization of South Asia, the Kashmir conflict is no more just a bilateral dispute between Pakistan and India. Any dispute between Pakistan and India, no matter how less serious, can provoke a nuclear exchange. This poses a serious threat to international peace and security, and global economic and social stability. The international community has therefore an interest in the settlement of bilateral disputes between Pakistan and India in a peaceful manner and in accordance with the provisions of the UN Charter. The interest of the United Nations has been established by the UN Resolution 1172, which urges Pakistan and India to address the root cause of their tensions.
Pakistan's Ambassador to the UN Munir Akram has rightly pointed out that the 55-year-long Kashmir conflict is the root cause of all major Indo-Pak tensions. Therefore, the United Nations Security Council must implement or enforce its resolutions on the illegally occupied State of Jammu & Kashmir to force imperialist India to hold a democratic UN supervised plebiscite or referendum in the entire Jammu & Kashmir State to resolve the Kashmir dispute; to show respect for human rights and self-determination of the 13 million people of Kashmir; to reduce Indo-Pak military tensions; to stop the Indo-Pak conventional and nuclear arms race; and to avert a nuclear war over Kashmir between Pakistan and India in South Asia which could cause a nuclear world war.
[ Syed Adeeb is America's investigative journalist; Chief Editor of the Washington DC area-based InformationTimes.com, InfoTimes.net and Free Press Network (FPN); and an eminent scholar of the Kashmir conflict ]
