Discussion in 'Foreign Relations' started by Yusuf, Aug 22, 2014.
My piece here
Political Solution To Kashmir Just Not Possible | Sarvatra Vijay
Nearly 40 delegations meet Rajnath, demand UT status for Ladakh
Nearly 40 delegations, including representatives of political parties, religious, social, cultural organisations trade and tourism and social activists, called upon Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh here on Monday and unanimously demanded that Ladakh should be given the Union Territory status.
Speaking to reporters after the meeting, the Home Minister said, "Today, not only the representatives of all political parties, but many religious, social and cultural organisations' delegations also met me. All of them unanimously demanded that Ladakh should be given the U.T. status."
The Home Minister assured the members of various delegations that their genuine demands will be fulfilled.
"Both the Centre and the state government will try to find solutions if there are some significant problems," he said.
Singh noted that when he led an all-party delegation last month to Kashmir and Jammu then he had promised to the people of Ladakh that he would visit Ladakh the next month to have a direct communication with them.
"Last month when I led an all-party delegation to Kashmir and Jammu, some people from Ladakh had met us with a complaint that whenever a delegation or a big leader comes then they visit mostly Kashmir and sometimes Jammu also and Ladakh is ignored always. Then I had promised to the people of Ladakh that I would visit Ladakh the next month and meet their delegation to have a direct communication," he added.
The Home Minister said, "I am here till tomorrow (Tuesday) morning, and there will be more meetings before we depart for Kargil to hold meetings with delegations there. We will also learn from them about situation there."
When asked about the situation in restive Kashmir, the Home Minister said the situation was improving gradually.
This is the Home Minister's fourth visit to Jammu and Kashmir in the recent past.
While concluding the all-party visit to Srinagar and Jammu last month, Singh had promised that he would soon visit Ladakh. "I know when we talk about the state of Jammu and Kashmir; we talk about three regions - Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. The delegation has already visited Kashmir and Jammu too has been covered; and soon, I will try to visit Ladakh to hold direct talks with people over there," he said.
What about the SC Resolutions that the Pakis keep harping?
At the outset, I wonder how many Pakistanis have read the UN Resolution 47 on Kashmir which was adopted on August 13, 1948? I daresay none! But on TV channels they keep droning about a plebiscite and that India has refused to abide by them and that it’s an unfinished agenda of partition!
So let’s get the facts on the table.
Firstly, the question of a plebiscite does not arise. Too much water has flowed under the bridge. According to the UN Resolutions 47, Part 2, it is clearly stated that Pakistan must withdraw all its forces including Pakistani tribals used for the purpose of fighting from the state of J&K before a plebiscite is held. This has not happened so far. Pakistan will never withdraw its forces from POK. The resolution is therefore dead. For info, Pakistani raiders assisted by regular forces invaded Kashmir in 1947 under the command of Brig Akbar Khan (later Maj Gen) but the Pakistanis always maintain that it was India that invaded Kashmir! And the reason why they call it 'Indian Occupied Kashmir'!!
Secondly, this resolution was signed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter which makes it NON ENFORCEABLE! Why did Pakistan not sign it under Chapter VII which would have made it enforceable?
Thirdly, even if we add the new dimension of grant of independence given the substantial and persistent demand of a certain section of Kashmiris, combined with the costs of a major military presence in the state, might it not be desirable for India to simply grant the state independence and be rid of both the moral opprobrium as well as the material costs of holding onto the territory?
This ostensibly attractive proposition is fundamentally flawed for five major reasons.
First, even if India and Pakistan both granted independence to their portions of Kashmir, and the two portions merged, what would happen to the religious and sectarian minorities- the Hindus, Buddhists and Shia- within the state? Despite their demands for self-determination, Kashmiri Muslim political activists, let alone their insurgent counterparts, have never agreed to protect the rights of such “nested minorities.”
Second, there’s little reason to believe such an entity would be economically viable. Kashmir is indeed a land of spectacular beauty and a tourist haven. However, tourism alone would not be able to provide for the economic needs of the population. Before long it would prove to be yet another ward of the international community.
Third, it is far from clear that if India chose to walk away from the portion of Kashmir that it controls, Pakistan would readily follow suit. Beset with sectarian, class and regional strife, Islamabad would be loath to dispense with a significant part of its country. Indeed Pakistan-controlled Kashmir’s exit could easily trigger a series of demands for secession elsewhere, particularly Balochistan thereby threatening to unravel an already fragile social fabric in Pakistan.
Fourth, a behemoth neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), though hardly sympathetic toward India, would nevertheless fear the demonstration effects an independent Kashmir would have for its own secessionist forces in Tibet and Xingjian.
Fifth, China’s massive investment in the CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) Project of $47 billion may come a cropper as much of it lies in the disputed territory of Gilgit Baltistan which is part of Jammu& Kashmir.
Thus neither the UN resolutions are applicable today, nor is an independent J&K a viable option.
Separate names with a comma.