|

Modi – Sharif Meeting Offers Hope for Peace In South Asia: Dr. Fai

Articles, Uncategorised
Washington, D.C. May 28, 2014. “The meeting between Mr. Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India and Mian Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan in New Delhi on May 27, 2014 offers hope for peace in South Asia if the course of justice is followed and both leaders undertake to abide by their international commitments.  The people of Kashmir want the people of India and Pakistan to live in peace and prosperity.  That is why they believe that Kashmir conflict has to be resolved not through military means but through peaceful tripartite negotiations between Governments of India and Pakistan & the people of Kashmir, stated Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Secretary General, World Kashmir Awareness at Baltimore Convention Center.
 
Speaking on the topic of ‘Kashmir Dispute: Opportunities and Challenges “ to a large gathering during the 39th Annual Convention of ICNA-MAS, Fai said that this change in atmosphere will lead to the use of friendlier language in relations between the two governments.  The change reflects only partly the warm, spontaneous exchanges at the popular level which have blown away the perverse thesis, sometimes muttered even by foreign powers, that hostility between the two peoples is innate and can never be eradicated.
 
It is a fact that peace, amity, and harmony between India and Pakistan will open vistas of opportunities to shift resources to domestic development.  It is also a fact that the nuclear capabilities of the South Asian nations heighten their responsibility to avoid conflict that could conclude with a gruesome mushroom cloud.
 
The persistence of Kashmir problem has been a source of weakness for both India and Pakistan.  It has diminished both these neighboring countries. So long as Kashmir is in turmoil, India and Pakistan will be at loggerheads and economic investment and trade relations will be inconsequential.
 
Fai proposed that now is an opportune moment for both India and Pakistan  to defuse the present situation and promote stability throughout the region.  Both prime Ministers should understand that any attempt to strike a deal between two without the association of the third, will fail to yield a credible settlement.  The contemporary history of South Asia is abundantly clear that bilateral efforts have never met with success. Both leaders should take an active role in finding a lasting settlement on Kashmir.  It is obvious that no settlement can last if it is not based on justice to the people of Kashmir and recognition of their inherent rights.  Only then can the crisis in South Asia and the possible disastrous consequences be averted.
      
The essential guiding principles of the negotiating process must be not to answer what is the correct or best solution of the Kashmir problem but how that solution can be arrived at.  In other words, it should by itself neither promote nor preclude any rational settlement of the dispute, be it accession to India or Pakistan or independence.  Rather than seek to impose a settlement on Kashmir, it should engage the peoples of each region of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir to work out a settlement themselves without any external constraint.
   
We do not need to invoke principles because principles will not help us launch a peace process.  Principles can be easily twisted and the principles can lend themselves to different interpretations.  But the principles that are involved in the Kashmir dispute should remain the guiding force in any final settlement. What are these principles?  There are two: It is the inherent right of the people of all zones of the State of Jammu & Kashmir to decide their future according to their own free will and second principle is that it is impossible to ascertain that will except through a vote under impartial supervision in conditions which are free from external coercion, intimidation and compulsion.

Similar Posts

  • |

    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 aspirations must be respected

    “If parties (India & Pakistan) come here and both of them call upon the Security Council to make recommendations for the solution of their (Kashmir) dispute, ought they not in advance agree to abide by it? They are not bound to ask the Security Council to make such recommendations, but if they do, I ask the Committee of Experts if they have not thereby implied that they will conform or try to conform to them.” Ambassador Warren Austin of the United States at the Security Council on May 26, 1948.

    If promises are made to be broken, then Kashmir may be summoned to prove the treacherous proposition. Broken promises haunt Kashmir’s history, and explain its tragedy.

    The Kashmir issue is simply this: the people of a large territory which is not part of any existing sovereign state were assured by the entire international community represented by the United Nations that they would be enabled to decide their future by a free vote. Until now, this assurance has not been honored.

    With the lapse of British paramountcy on August 15, 1947, broken promises over Kashmir came not like single spies but in battalions, to borrow from Hamlet. Princely states enjoyed three options: accession to India, accession to Pakistan, or independence. But the choice, according to India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and tacitly endorsed by the British,

  • |

    Kashmir Event Held in Washington, D.C.

    Washington, D.C. February 15, 2104. “Our efforts should be to persuade the world community including the United States to urge both India and Pakistan to include the leadership of the people of Jammu & Kashmir in the negotiations to peacefully resolve the dispute over Kashmir. When we talk of Kashmir, we talk of the sentiments and enormous sacrifices made by the Kashmiri people during the past 67 years for a cause dear to all inhabitants, be they Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists. It is time that both India and Pakistan realize that until the Kashmiri leadership is included in the peace process, these negotiations between India and Pakistan may not lead them to any logical conclusion,” said Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai at a seminar, held at Holiday Inn Hotel and organized by Kashmir Form, Washington, D.C.

  • |

    Preventive Diplomacy: Successes & Failures

    “It is also true that there is no peace and sustainable development without respect for human rights.” Antonio Guterres, Secretary General- elect of the United Nations

    “Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.” President John F. Kennedy

    It has always been a challenge to exchange views on conflict prevention and the summoning into being a peaceful and prosperous world. The intellectual debate is great, but the stakes are even greater. Men and women have yearned for peace and prosperity for ages. President Abraham Lincoln in his second inaugural address declared, “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.” Winston Churchill brilliantly recognized that it is invariably better to jaw-jaw than to war-war.

  • |

    Human Rights: Are They Universal?

    “Only on paper has humanity yet achieved glory, beauty, truth, knowledge, virtue, and abiding love.” George Bernard Shaw

    It is tragic that civilized nations have fallen from their lofty calling: namely, human rights for all mankind. There is a sad commentary on the state of human rights all over the globe. It seems to me that until there evolves a generally accepted moral duty among peoples and nations to assist all victims of widespread human rights violations by force or other stiff retaliation, human rights enforcement mechanisms will operate haphazardly and whimsically for reasons unrelated to the harm to the victims or the villainy of the perpetrators. It is the job of all human rights defenders to jump-start that moral evolution.