|

Kashmir: Setting the Stage for the Settlement – Part 1

Articles, Uncategorised

“Let us remember here that the future of Jammu and Kashmir is not something that the governments of India and Pakistan can decide without involving the Kashmiri people. How this diverse people’s representatives should be identified, and then associated with the process toward a possible settlement, are crucial if difficult questions, but every human and democratic principle demands this association.” Professor Rajmohan Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, July 24, 2003.

If you intend to build a house, the first prerequisite is that you have a piece of land on which to build it. A foundation for conflict resolution is similar. Yet no platform, formal process, forum, conference, or any agency involved in conflict resolution is now in place, to the best of my knowledge, for mediating the dispute among the countries which purport to have a stake in the future of Kashmir. Since the Simla Agreement of 1972, India has refused to permit any third party, such as the United Nations, to be involved in negotiating a settlement, declaring that the Simla Agreement specifically narrowed such a process exclusively to bilateral discussions. However, this is absolutely not true. A reading of the international law indicates that the point of departure for determining a just and lasting basis for Kashmir dispute should be (a) the Charter of the United Nations which, in its very first article, speaks of “respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” and (b) the international agreements between the parties to the dispute – the Governments of India and Pakistan.

India and Pakistan have concluded multiple agreements which fall in this context. The first is embodied in the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan ( UNCIP) on August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949. These resolutions constitute an agreement because, unlike most resolutions of the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations, their provisions were first negotiated with the parties and, in written statements, explicitly accepted by them.

These agreements were written out in detail and are self-explanatory. Since it binds both India and Pakistan to respect the verdict of the people of Kashmir to be obtained through a free vote under the impartial supervision of the United Nations. When India seeks to propagate the impression that the United Nations resolutions have been superseded by the Simla Agreement, that impression is false.

That the implication is false can be readily seen from a comparison of the two texts: one that of the U.N. resolutions and second that of the Simla Agreement. But even if it were true, it would run counter to a standing principle of international relations which is set out in Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations (accepted by every Member of the United Nations, including India & Pakistan). The Article says:

“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”

What, then, is the relevance of the Simla Agreement as far as instituting a peace process between India and Pakistan, fully recognizing Kashmir’s inherent right of self-determination, is concerned?

The pertinent facts about the Simla Agreement are: The Agreement nowhere precludes a settlement of the Kashmir dispute along the lines laid down by the United Nations with the consent of both India and Pakistan. Nor does it require that the United Nations be by-passed in the effort towards a settlement. On the contrary, it expressly says that the relations between the two countries shall be governed by the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations. One of the basic principles of the Charter ( Article 33) is to seek a solution of any dispute by negotiation, enquiry, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means. The linked principle (Article 34) is that the Security Council may investigate any dispute and (Article 36) at any stage recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment. The Agreement thus reinforces the obligations of both parties to achieve a settlement in accordance with the resolutions endorsed by the Security Council i.e. UNCIP resolutions and, if their bilateral efforts fail, to turn to the United Nations for assistance. Nothing would be more contrary to the Charter — and, therefore, to the Simla Agreement itself — than to bar recourse to the United Nations.

The Agreement makes mention of “a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir” as one of the objectives of the two parties. It provides that, pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation. This obviously is not a license for leaving problems unresolved. If anything, it implies a commitment to making efforts towards a final settlement.

It is thus a misconception that the Simla Agreement has in any way superseded the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) accepted by both parties. Nor can it be supposed to have narrowed the gulf between them and, to that extent, simplified the task of evolving a settlement. Even if it has done so, its impact on the Kashmir situation would have been open to question. Nothing in international law confers on two parties the authority to make decisions or conclude agreements which adversely affect the rights of a third. The third party here is the people of Kashmir.

In ignorance or disregard of all these facts and their logical corollaries, the recommendation is being currently made by some governments friendly to both India and Pakistan ( including the United States) that the two countries must resolve the Kashmir problem in accordance with the Simla Agreement of 1972.

Why is the Simla Agreement put in the forefront rather than the UNCIP resolutions? There can be several explanations. One is deference to India because of its superior might. If this motivates the current U.S. diplomatic stance, it is, to say the least, undignified and contrary to the enduring principles of U.S. policy towards all situations which involve inalienable human rights. Another reason can be the impression that the Simla Agreement, being of more recent origin than the UNCIP resolutions, might be more effective in activating the process. This is wrong in view of the fact that, for 43 years, the Agreement has signally failed to shake India out of its obdurate refusal to negotiate a settlement of the Kashmir problem. The current Indian position is that India is prepared to talk but there is nothing to talk about except how to perpetuate the status question of Kashmir.

If non-implementation were to render an agreement defunct, then the Simla Agreement is in no better state than the earlier, far more concrete and comprehensive agreement painstakingly worked out by the United Nations and concluded under its auspices in 1948-49. If passage of time were allowed to extinguish solemn international agreements, then the Simla Agreement has already suffered the same fate as the UNCIP resolutions. If agreements are to be revived, then why one and not the other?

It may also be that the Simla Agreement is being invoked because of lack of knowledge about its actual terms and the circumstances in which it was signed. India is taking full advantage of this factor to spread the misinformation that the Simla Agreement sanctions the perpetuation of the status quo in Kashmir and absolves her from the responsibility of striving for a settlement of the dispute. By citing the Simla Agreement at this stage, or encouraging others to do so, India obviously seeks to prevent those basic issues of the dispute being addressed that were fully taken into account by the United Nations. The agreement is pressed into service as a formula for evasion.

A sincere and serious effort towards a just settlement of the Kashmir dispute must squarely deal with the realities of the situation and fully respond to the people’s rights involved in it. The Simla Agreement does neither. Indeed, it was not intended to do so; at best, it is reticent on the issues that need to be grappled with. A peace process mounted on its fragile platform is bound to collapse. Indeed, any process that ignores the wishes of the people of all five zones of the State of Jammu & Kashmir and is designed to sidetrack the United Nations will not only prove to be an exercise in futility but can also cause incalculable human and political damage.

Note: This is the first part of the series of articles on, “Kashmir: Setting the Stage for the settlement.”

Similar Posts

  • |

    Kashmir Beyond Platitudes: The Responsibility to Protect

    Oh let the sun beat down upon my face, stars to fill my dream / I am a traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been / To sit with elders of the gentle race, this world has seldom seen / They talk of days for which they sit and wait and all will be revealed….  –lyrics by Jimmy Page from the song Kashmir, performed by Led Zeppelin

    Why, after 67 years of dispute, is the question of Kashmir, land of the “gentle race,” still lurking in the shadows of international relations, still unresolved, despite its seemingly relative unimportance to global interests in matters of resources and international trade?

  • |

    The fundamental human rights are universal: Dr. Fai

    Washington, D.C. December 10, 2012. “The fundamental human rights are universal. That is the tacit assumption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which needs to be applauded. Even if all of its lofty provisions safeguarding fundamental human freedoms and liberties remain dishonored in many parts of the globe, it stands as a moral reproach to wrong doing nations that may facilitate reform,” said Dr. Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai from Cumber Prison Camp in Maryland, USA.

  • |

    Kashmir: Legal and Moral History

    These are my views on the principle of ‘right of self-determination’ and its applicability to the 67-year-old Kashmir conflict to be considered during the United Nations Working Group meeting that is taking place this week at its headquarters in New York. What I do hope to offer is an unstarry-eyed view of the fate of self-determination in Kashmir; and, the indispensability of convincing India that its national and economic security would be strengthened, not weakened, by ending its military occupation.

  • |

    Observance of October 27th as Day of Occupation in Kashmir

    Cumberland, Maryland. October 27, 2012. “The international community must intervene on humanitarian grounds to ease the suffering of the innocent and unarmed Kashmiri population. The suffering and abuses are so pervasive as to extend beyond those directly affected. The pattern of abuses reaches every man, woman and child in the Valley of Kashmir. The people live under the constant threat of the abuses. The prevalence of military personnel and bunkers serve as a constant reminder to Kashmiris of the potential for them to fall victim to such a horrible occurrences,” this was stated by Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai from Cumberland Prison Camp in Maryland, USA. Fai warned that India may be the largest democracy but its policies in Kashmir has been uniformly brutal and deceitful.

  • |

    Dr. Fai Addressed a Forum of Journalists in Washington

    WASHINGTON, D.C. June 27, 2012 (APP): Jammu and Kashmir is an internationally recognized disputed territory and has never been an integral part of India, a veteran Kashmiri leader said.

    “I want to debunk this myth created by India that Kashmir is an integral part of India —- this is a matter of historical record that India occupied the region on October 27, 1947 when the very first Indian soldier set foot on the soil of Kashmir —- the highest diplomatic forums including the United Nations and the United States have recognized the disputed nature of the region,” Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai told a forum of journalists in Springfield, Virginia.

    The Kashmiri-American activist said in the post-9/11 world, New Delhi has tried to weave a smokescreen with some unfounded myths, which seek to discredit the genuine struggle of the people. But these ploys will never be able to cover up the reality and sufferings of people in the Occupied Kashmir, he added.

    “India has failingly tried to equate Kashmiri people with terrorists — how can a people, who believe in the UN-mandated right to self-determination and then hold demonstrations to go to the UN office in Srinagar to remind the international community of its pledge, be terrorists? Terrorists don’t believe in the UN system or any other global forum.

    “Also, how can an entire population of millions be dubbed as terrorists when they hold peaceful demonstrations for their promised rights?” he questioned.

    Dr. Fai also said that India would like you to believe that Kashmir is an issue of fundamentalism. He explained that “the term fundamentalism is quite inapplicable to the Kashmiri society. One of the proud distinctions of Kashmir has been the sustained tradition of tolerance and amity between the members of different religious communities. It has a long tradition of moderation and non-violence. Its culture does not generate extremism or fundamentalism. The fact is that Kashmir conflict was never a fight between Hindus and Muslims. It was never a struggle between theocracy and secularism. Nor was it a border dispute between India and Pakistan. It has always been about the hopes and future of 17 million people of Kashmir, be they Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhists.”

  • |

    Kashmir: Restoring the Vision

    There is something very high schoolish and unsophisticated about the barbs and threats being traded between Pakistan and India, where fully grown men given the responsibility to manage nations shout at one another like two boys in a park squabbling over some Barbie Doll standing on the sidelines, who invariably has a look of disgust on her face. Think Kashmir. Yes, there have been two wars between the two over Kashmir, but too much is at stake. The statesmanship dictates that neither of these two countries should go to war, not nuclear war, because that might prove devastating to both countries. But they’ve got to beat their chests , behaving as though they’ve got something to prove.