|

To call Kashmir a territorial dispute is to dehumanize it: Ambassador Buch

Articles, Uncategorised

November 12, 2017. New York. “It was an honor to have an hour-long meeting with Ambassador Yusuf Buch at his residence in New York City,” said Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Secretary General, World Kashmir Awareness Forum. While paying homage to Ambassador Buch’s life in exile, Fai said: “Ambassador Yusuf Buch born in Srinagar (Capitol City of Kashmir) was along with few other promising and brilliant youth exiled from the state in 1947 for his political beliefs. Mr. Buch was the Senior Advisor to the United Nations Secretary General for 20 years. His contribution to Kashmir cause has been legendary ever since Kashmir dispute was brought to the United Nations by India in 1948. Working in tandem with Kashmiri diaspora, Ambassador Buch had added vibrancy to the Kashmir cause. The nation of Kashmir salutes his commitment and dedication, and pay tribute to his inspirational spirit. Ambassador Buch is undoubtedly, a living encyclopedia on Kashmir.”

Ambassador Buch told me that “It is of utmost importance to counter the impression that the Kashmir issue has somehow lost its urgency or shed its significance or is being addressed in some kind of a mythical peace process. The impression needs to be countered because it is false, because it ignores the agony of the people of Kashmir and because it thereby hardens the psychological underpinning of the current diplomatic inaction regarding the issue. We owe it to the tens of thousands whose blood has consecrated the cause of Kashmir’s Azadi to try and disentangle it in whatever degree we can.” Buch Sahib added “The attitude that needs to be fought in the context not only of Kashmir but of every major international problem is that of turning our backs to the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter is not scripture or a book of morals but, let us not forget, a multilateral treaty as binding on the largest or most powerful member state of the world organization as on the smallest or weakest. The sanity of international agreements must remain one of the bases of a sane and stable international order. The Kashmir issue involves that principle most pointedly.”

When asked whether Kashmir was a territorial issue between India and Pakistan, Mr. Buch replied “Not much argument is called for to refute the proposition that Kashmir is just a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan. To call it a territorial dispute is simply to dehumanize it. And to go as far as saying that the dispute is not really about Kashmir amounts to saying in effect that Kashmiris are but a mythical people.”

Buch Sahib responded when I asked: Why do the Kashmiris call for third party mediation? “The breaking of the impasse over Kashmir between India and Pakistan would be greatly facilitated by the presence of a mediator who would define the obligations of the parties under the agreements concluded between them, spell out the contentious issues and the conflicting positions and remove the confusion about what needs to be done to narrow the gap.”

Ambassador Buch suggested: “The Governments of Pakistan and India have ample opportunities to articulate their positions and make them known to the world. Not so the people of Kashmir. I neither pretend impartiality nor claim a thorough knowledge of, or adherence to, the position of any particular section of Kashmiri opinion. But I think that an attempt to see the conflict from a Kashmiri – and human – perspective may not be useless in any mental exercise towards its resolution.”

Similar Posts

  • |

    Kashmir is an international issue and not internal matter of India

    Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Secretary General, World Kashmir Awareness said that Ms. Sushma Suraj’s assertion at the United Nations that Kashmir was an integral part of India was factually and legally wrong statement. Because under all international agreements, accepted by both India & Pakistan, negotiated by the United Nations and endorsed by the Security Council, Kashmir does not belong to any member state of the United Nations. If Kashmir does not belong to any member state of the United Nations, then the claim of Ms. Sushma Suraj that Kashmir was an integral part of India does not stand. Again, if Kashmir was not the integral part of India, then Kashmiris cannot be and should not be called secessionist or separatist, because Kashmiris cannot secede from a country – like India to which they have never acceded to in the first place.

  • |

    Why does India have a hard time to accept the disputed nature of Kashmir?

    “Kashmir is an integral part of India, constitutionally, legally and morally something that is non-negotiable.” Ram Jethmalani, Outlook Magazine, October 8, 2016.

    “Let me state unequivocally that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India and will always remain so.’ Sushma Swaraj September 26, 2016

    The fallacy advocated by the most celebrated Indian jurist and the Indian foreign minister deserves some clarification.

    The people of Jammu & Kashmir who number more than 129 other existing independent nations individually and have a defined historical identity, are at present engaged in a mass struggle to win freedom and release from the foreign occupation of their land. This struggle is motivated by no bigotry or ethnic prejudice; its aim is nothing but the exercise of the right of self-determination explicitly agreed by both India and Pakistan.

    To the horrors of the repression from which they suffer are added two other circumstances, each cruelly adverse. One is the apathy of the world outside, including the United States that otherwise are justly proud of their championship of democracy and human rights. The second is the fog of myths and evasive arguments, like Kashmir being an integral part of India. It is my modest attempt to help mitigate these two circumstances. My appeal is directed neither to the religious or ideological sympathies of Indian Public Square nor to their leanings towards any particular political party but solely to their conscience and human concern.

  • |

    Kashmir: Trouble in Paradise

    So much for Ban Ki-moon’s heart and possibly even more so his soul. One can only recall the quote in Matthew and the betrayal of Jesus, “When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.”

    The United Nations has walked away from the slaughter in Kashmir and washed its hands of it, and the world body has told India, “it’s your problem. See to that yourselves.” Even the U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby has deferred all inquiries about the “killing fields” of Kashmir to the Indian government, the very source of all the bloodshed. That’s like referring the problem of foxes in the henhouse to Chief Minister Fox.

  • |

    Kashmir Needs Political And Not Military Solution: Dr. Fai

    Baltimore, Maryland. April 17, 2017. Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Secretary General of ‘World Kashmir Awareness Forum’ voiced his continuing belief that the conflict over Kashmir cannot be resolved through military means. Kashmir is a political issue and has to be resolved through political means by involving all parties to the conflict – the Governments of India & Pakistan and the legitimate leadership of the Kashmiri resistance. He was speaking on the subject of Kashmir at the 42nd Annual Convention of ‘Islamic Circle of North America’ at Baltimore Convention Center. More than 20,000 people participated in this year’s convention. Other panelists included: Mr. Adem Carroll, Dr. M. A. Dhar, Dr. Nakibur Rahman and Bro. Tariq Rehman.

  • |

    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.”

  • |

    The UN and Kashmir: Where Do We Go From Here?

    If we were to judge the UN based upon its history of involvement in efforts to resolve international conflicts, the simplest answer is that it has been an enormous failure. The UN of course is a far more complex organization whose work covers such a wide range of activities that conflict resolution is really only a small aspect of its work. Nevertheless, if we consider the fact that its fundamental mission in being created was to be a means of preventing global catastrophes like the Second World War, then conflict resolution would have to be considered Job One. In addition, the word “conflict” in the phrase “conflict resolution” was defined as conflict among or between sovereign nations. As Chapter I, Article 2, stipulates, ” Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter;”