Why A Plebiscite In Kashmir Is A Non-starter

Discussion in 'Internal Security' started by Mikesingh, Sep 10, 2015.

  1. Mikesingh

    Mikesingh Regular Member

    Sep 7, 2015
    Likes Received:
    Pakistanis keep harping on the the Kashmir issue as the 'unfinished agenda of partition' at monotonously regular intervals. But they just don't seem to get it.

    Here's why the 'issue' can never be implemented. It's now dead as a dodo. The sooner they realise it the better. The only unfinished agenda is the return of POK including Gilgit/Baltistan to India which they forcibly took by attacking Kashmir with their lashkars and regular forces under then Brigadier Akbar Khan in 1947.

    Here are some facts regarding the issue of holding a plebiscite in Kashmir, which renders it a non-starter..

    I will touch upon the preamble which is the crux of the issue. The remainder details are in the link provided. However before I do that, I would like to mention that Resolution 47 was passed by the United Nations Security Council under chapter VI of UN Charter. Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability, as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII.


    The Government of Pakistan should undertake:

    To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State.

    The Government of India should:

    When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council's Resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order.

    Firstly, Pakistan has yet to comply with their part of the resolution, ie, to withdraw tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting. Failure to withdraw their troops resulted in the inability of India to put into effect their part of the undertaking.

    Secondly, these Resolutions were passed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter and therefore non enforceable. Why did Pakistan agree to this? Why did they not insist on including it under Chapter VII which would have made it enforceable?

    Thirdly, there is nothing in this Resolution that mentions the so called ‘third option’ which is independence to the entire J&K that Pakistan is now pushing in what they say is ‘In accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people’.

    Fourthly, since the whole of J&K is disputed according to the resolutions, what about the area of Kashmir ceded unilaterally to China by Pakistan in the Shaksgam Valley - all 5000sq km of it?

    Sartaj Aziz and their baby-face pudgy chief need to answer since they are obsessed with the 'K' word and bring it up at the drop of a hat.

    And then the question is, are they really interested in the 'welfare of the Kashmiris' as they keep harping about? Far from it. They want Kashmir for controlling the waters flowing into Pakistan. The Kashmiris are just a side show.

    Last edited: Sep 10, 2015
    OneGrimPilgrim likes this.
  3. Nicky G

    Nicky G Senior Member Senior Member

    Nov 24, 2014
    Likes Received:
    Obviously. This is why India is well situated both in short and long term.

    In the short order, no need to talk about Kashmir unless Paki terror stops. Even so, ask them to vacate PoK.

    In the long run, the disparity will only increase and as Pak disintegrates into different states, we need deal only with China, which can be done much more rationally.

Share This Page