- Since the 1948 resolutions, the issue was seen as international
By: Abdul Hadi Piracha
On August h, India revoked Articles 370 and 35-A of its Constitution and it has declared that Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh will become two Union Territories of India. It has locked-down the area by deploying additional forces. The food-supply and markets have also been shut down and a number of innocent people have lost their lives either while directly confronting Indian forces during protests or of a severe hunger. India is another Israel treating brutally Kashmir as Palestine.
The recent session of the UN Security Council proved to be a victory of Pakistan because it has arranged a session after 54 years but behind closed doors. However, why does the UNSC statement make it seem that it is reluctant to get involved in Kashmir conflict?
By and large, it is a generally accepted fact that the foes at loggerheads cannot come to peaceful deals at their-own ends. And would the two arch-rivals, who have fought ‘our lethal wars and also are bogged down in a number of issues (water, terrorism, Siachin, routine skirmishes on LoC), be able to set this issue bilaterally?
We need to highlight the beginning of the UNSC session and resolutions over Kashmir and compare it with the recently held session on August 16. Right after Independence, the first war between India and Pakistan took place in 1948 and for the very first time India approached the United Nations Security Council. After the plea of India, it had not issued any such statement of either it is a bilateral or international issue but it had created ‘Jammu & Kashmir Question’ which was later changed to ‘India-Pakistan Question’ on 22 January 1948. This ‘Question’ was formed to discuss mere Kashmir issue under this banner.
Unlike the recent session, the attached excerpt is of UNSC Resolution, 1948 says: ‘Considering that the continuation of the dispute is likely to endanger international peace and security…’
At the initial stages and the two countries were not involved in manifold issues as like they are in a status quo. And now how it is not putting the international peace in the mayhem and not a violation of international Human Rights laws?
UNSC Resolutions: Under the resolution 39 on January 20, 1948, UNSC had constituted a three-member UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) which was later reconstituted to five members through resolution 40.
In 1949, India and Pakistan inked “Karachi Accord” which stipulates that the LoC would be under the closed supervision of United Nations Military Observer Groups (UNMOG) who would be appointed in India and Pakistan.
In the summer of 1965, the hostilities over Rann of Kuttch around the Southern international boundary between India- Pakistan erupted. The war was brought to an end by the Tashkent Agreement.
The adoption of the resolutions of UNSC including 209, 210, 211 and 215 continued to come to the limelight. All the resolutions from 1948 to November 5, 1965 were pertaining to withdrawal of troops from Kashmir and strengthen the UNMOGs. But, essentially, Kashmir was at that time and still has been in a frenzy. None of the resolutions purely worked!
Tashkent Declaration: In addition to this, on 10 January 1966, the Prime Minister of India Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistan’s General Ayub Khan met in Tashkent, (the erstwhile city of Soviet Union and now capital of Uzbekistan) at the invitation of the Soviet PM Alexei Kosygin to end the war between the arch-rivals. It was a peace deal which brought the 1965 to the end. There is always a third-party on the side lines of the issues who searches for the right time and to come-up with a peace deal.
Moreover, meetings were being held in the 1960s by the UNSC in Amritsar and Lahore by the involvement of military officers of different countries such as: Brigadier General Tollio Morambio of Chile, General Robert Nimmo of Australia and Major General B. F. Macdonald of Canada.
Was that time the issue of Kashmir bilateral or international?
But now after 52 years, no resolution has been adopted without mere giving a statement that the conflict should be dealt bilaterally nor internationally. In addition, as far as International Human Rights are concerned, the UN should not have declared it merely a bilateral issue.
By and large, it is a generally accepted fact that the foes at loggerheads cannot come to peaceful deals at their-own ends. And would the two arch-rivals, who have fought ‘our lethal wars and also are bogged down in a number of issues (water, terrorism, Siachin, routine skirmishes on LoC), be able to set this issue bilaterally?
Such statement of UNSC is a clear testimony of the UN’s failure towards the resolution of Kashmir conflict.
