|

Kashmir Dispute: A Way Forward

Articles, Uncategorised

The dispute over the status of Kashmir can be settled only in accordance with the will of the people which can be ascertained through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, internationally supervised. This was the common ground taken by all the three parties to the dispute – viz.: the people of Kashmir, India and Pakistan. It was supported without any dissent by the United Nations Security Council – and prominently championed by the United States, Britain and France.

It became a matter of controversy only after India realized that she could not win the peoples’ vote and, in conditions of the cold war procured the support of the Soviet Union for its obstructionist strategy. Therefore, any progress towards a solution was blocked by India’s refusal to accept that the withdrawal of forces on the two sides should be balanced and synchronized. When President Truman and Prime Minister Attlee (of Britain) appealed that the points at issue be submitted to arbitration by the Plebiscite Administrator designate and India turn down the appeal, the Commission terminated its mediatory mission. From 1950 to 1957, a succession of Presidents of the Security Council or the United Nations representatives — General McNaughton (Canada), Owen Dixon (Australia), Frank Graham (United States) and Gunnar Jarring (Sweden) made intense efforts to secure India’s agreement to stage-by- stage demilitarization of the State so that a free Plebiscite could be held. They all failed, as did informal mediators like the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth countries.

Since then the Kashmir situation has been met with studied unconcern by the United Nations. This has given a sense of total impunity to occupation authority. It has also created the impression that the United Nations is invidiously selective about the application of the principles of human rights and democracy and will condone even a blatant breach of these principles when it wishes not to displease the offending party. There is a glaring contrast between the outcry over the massacre in Tiananmen Square, on the one side, and the official silence (barring the faint murmurs of disapproval) over the killing and maiming of a vastly greater number of human beings in Kashmir, through repetitious acts. The systematic violations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions have evoked no official international censure. Reliable estimates of civilian causalities put the number around 100,000 since 1990. Women and children are particular targets of the organized sadism of the occupation forces in Kashmir.

But the potential elements of a peaceful solution have been in place for nearly 67 years. The key principle that the people of Kashmir have the right, and should be provided the opportunity to decide the status of their land is laid out in the international agreements embodied in the United Nations Security Council resolutions and not only the governments of India and Pakistan, but the United Nations itself is committed to it. While alternative modalities can be subject of negotiations, the principle has no substitute as the basis for an enduring settlement – the principle that the wishes and aspirations of the people of Kashmir must be ascertained in seeking any final settlement.

We welcome the confidence building measures both for reducing the human carnage in the 67-year-old Kashmir conflict and for setting a constructive tone for peace talks. However, the dispute will not, and cannot, be solved bilaterally by the two countries. The so-called dialogue now going on between them is a mere charade which is deluding no one. This is only consistent with the whole history of the dispute.

We urge the United Nations to maintain, indeed to intensify, its watch over the situation in Kashmir and not to be lulled into the belief that the dialogue between India and Pakistan, in the form and at the level it appears to be contemplated at present, and without the participation of the accredited leadership of the people of Kashmir, will soften the conflict or lessen the urgent need for mediatory initiatives. The policy that aims at merely defusing the situation, whatever that may mean, and not encouraging a credible settlement have not paid in the past. It is likely to do even less now.

The Kashmiri leadership is mindful of the urgings by the United States that India and Pakistan keep talking to each other. It would be perverse on the part of anyone to oppose that course of action. But to expect a breakthrough in talks is to ask for miracles. We do not believe that all that the United States desires is to lend a veneer of peace and normalcy to a situation which in reality destroys the roots of peace and is strikingly abnormal. It would be irresponsible on our part to encourage the hope that if the Governments of India and Pakistan are willing to depart from the stand of principle, the compromise will be endorsed by the people of Kashmir and by the elements sympathetic to them and thus generate peace. We hope that the world powers, including the United States will persuade the two governments to engage in focused negotiations with the APHC about the procedures to be set in motion to bring about a settlement of the dispute. Despite the grief and suffering of the people of Kashmir, they are prepared to make constructive contributions to that end.

The present situation inside Kashmir makes it clear that, if talks between the New Delhi & Islamabad are to mean anything, they must be accompanied by practical measures to restore an environment of non-violence. The future talks at the official level can be useful if they reflect a sense of urgency and prepare the ground for an earnest effort at the highest level to frame a step-by-step plan of settlement. Mere continuance of talks at a leisurely pace will in no way defuse the situation. Unintentionally though, it will mock the agony of the people of Kashmir rather than assuage it.

The global involvement in Kashmir will not only end the bloodshed and suffering in Kashmir, but also will have a direct positive effect on international security by eliminating regional fighting, national tensions, and the risk of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. It is in everyone’s interest to settle the Kashmir conflict peacefully without further delay. We don’t want to see the horrific nightly scenes from Kosovo and Bosnia replaced by an even greater catastrophe in Kashmir.

The global community has a long and proud tradition of upholding the causes of human freedom and dignity. Kashmir calls urgently for initiatives in accordance with that tradition.

Dr. Fai can be reached on: gnfai2003@yahoo.com or ghulamnabifai@gmail.com

Similar Posts

  • |

    Reflections on Modi’s Visit to the U.S: What’s in it for Kashmir?

    “Is it true Narendra Modi just boarded a flight to visit India?” Tweeted a critic of Indian Prime Minister’s globe-trotting jaunts. “Welcome home, Pradhan Mantriji! How long will you be staying this time?” Modi has already been to 33 countries just this year alone. The Donald Trump of South Asia, the man out to make India great again, a nationalist and sectarian, divisive at home but the man with the grand plan on the global stage, on June 7, 2016 marked his fourth visit to the U.S. since taking office in 2014.

    The joint statement of Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India and President Obama on the occasion, noteworthy for its lack of any real substance, in part says, “…the leaders reviewed the deepening strategic partnership between the United States and India that is rooted in shared values of freedom, democracy, universal human rights, tolerance and pluralism, equal opportunities for all citizens, and rule of law.”

  • |

    How I became Involved in the Cause of Kashmir at the international level

    I want to tell you a little story that touched my life in a very personal way in 1979. It is important to consider, I assure you, because of its historic significance, not only in having an impact in a very real way upon my own survival and the personal vision I came to adopt for the rest of my life, but how it came to shape the very destiny of Kashmir itself. My own life became inextricably linked just as intimately as a man and woman united in marriage. Each detail of this story is integral to understanding who I was then, who I am now, and the process that formed my calling and the rest of my life.
     
    I was in my late 20s then with a driving zeal, as is in every young man’s heart in Kashmir, to make a significant impact somewhere and somehow on life’s stage. At this particular time, I had been placed in charge of the international section of a major conference being held in the Capitol of Kashmir, Srinagar. I was inspired to invite a speaker of an international stature whose presence could be used to energize and internationalize the issue of Kashmir on the right of self-determination.
  • |

    Kashmir: Where the Truth Doesn’t Matter

    NPR’s Julie McCarthy was in Kashmir earlier in September and reported on how different the unrest seems now compared to previous years. “First of all, there’s this unprecedented kind of force being used. There’s these high-velocity pellet shotguns for crowd control. And it’s left thousands of people riddled with pellet injuries. And a lot of them have damaged eyesight. And some demonstrators have thrown stones, attacked police stations and government buildings. And, unusually, this started in rural areas. And it has spread throughout the Kashmir Valley. And it’s lasted over 60 days. That’s also unusual.”

    Perhaps it’s not enough to point out that the champion of this latest uprising, a person who was slain in a fashion frequently called “extrajudicial” by others in the press, and whose killing was the primary provocation for the current uprising, was a self-declared militant who had used social media to resist the Indian occupation. He was someone who had become a symbol of the true spirit of resistance in the hearts of all Kashmiris.

  • |

    Kashmir: challenge to the World Conscience: Dr. Fai

    Peoria, Illinois. August 18, 2014. “India cannot disentangle from her responsibility by just calling off the foreign secretary level talks with Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan must realize that the people of Kashmir must be the integral component of ongoing peace process as they are the primary stakeholders. The Kashmiri leadership should be included as it will facilitate permanent, durable and honorable settlement of Kashmir dispute. Both countries should understand that they cannot and must not try to resolve the Kashmir dispute by themselves. If they try without the the involvement of Kashmiri leadership, they will be performing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark,” said Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Secretary General of ‘World Kashmir Awareness’ while addressing a forum at Peoria Convention Center, Illinois entitled “Muslims Around the World Series” subtitle, “Kashmir: Challenge to the World Conscience.” The event was a part of the ICNA Midwest Convention.

  • |

    Peace still possible in the region of subcontinent: Dr. Fai

    Washington, D.C. February 6, 20114. “The United Nations Security Council resolutions on Kashmir were not resolutions in the routine sense of the term. Their provisions were negotiated in detail by the United Nations Commission with India and Pakistan and it was only after the consent of both Governments was explicitly obtained that they were endorsed by the Security Council. They thus constitute a binding and solemn international agreement about the settlement of the Kashmir dispute,” said Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai in a paper read during a seminar organized by Mohtaram Shabir Ahmed Shah Sahib in Srinagar entitled: Kashmir Dispute and the Role of the United Nations.

  • |

    Kashmiri American community vowed to continue the struggle for self-determination

     

    bombay1

    Washington, D.C. June 5, 2012. The Kashmiri-American community in the Washington metropolitan area has vowed to continue their struggle for right to self-determination. At an impressive gathering at Bombay Tandoor, Tysons Corner, members of the community including academics, political activists and friends of Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai, pledged to carry forward his work during the period of his incarceration.

    Speaking on the occasion, Dr Fai said there is no restriction on him to continue his work for a universally acknowledged cause. He clarified to his well-wishers that the prosecution had withdrawn charges initially leveled against him to be the agent of a foreign government.

    Judge Liam O’Grady, while announcing the verdict for two-year imprisonment earlier this year, had made it clear that “it’s (sentencing) necessary, even though you have done some very moving things on behalf of the Kashmir people and that your cause is a wonderful cause,” Fai told the gathering.

    Dr. Fai urged the community members to continue to support the cause of Kashmir. He quoted again Judge O’Grady who said, “I sincerely hope that while you’re at a minimal security facility like Cumberland, that I see no reason why you can’t continue to advocate on behalf of the Kashmiri people and to write. I know that the KAC is dormant, I guess is the word for it at this stage, but there may be an opportunity to arrange conferences through other people in the future, and I hope that cause continues to be identified as an important international matter. And good luck to you.”

    “No solution to the 65‑year‑old Kashmir conflict that does not command a consensus among the 17 million Kashmiri people can endure, Dr. Fai stressed, just as no solution to East Timor held a chance of success until the East Timorese leadership was consulted and a referendum on independence from Indonesia was held.”