The Beginning of the End of the Kashmir Problem

re: #156 by friend

Apologies for confusion over Resolution numbers here. The resolution passed by Security Council on Jan 20, 1948 was Resolution 39, (and not 654). In this resolution, the decision to form a committee was made. The Plebiscite decision was made in Resolution 47 that can be referenced at:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kashun47.htm

It is reproduced here. And as I had already stated in post #153, this resolution established the principle of self-determination by plebiscite but no timeframe.


THE SECURITY COUNCIL
Having considered the complaint of the Government of India concerning the dispute over the State
of Jammu and Kashmir, having heard the representative of India in support of that complaint and the
reply and counter complaints of the representative of Pakistan. Being strongly of opinion that the
early restoration of peace and order in Jammu and Kashmir is essential and that India and Pakistan
should do their utmost to bring about cessation of all fighting. Noting with satisfaction that both India
and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan
should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, Considering that
the continuation of the dispute is likely to endanger international peace and security,
Reaffirms its resolution 38 (1948) of 17 January 1948;

Resolves that the membership of the Commission established by its resolution 39 (1948) of 20
January 1948, shall be increased to five and shall include, in addition to the membership mentioned
in that Resolution, representatives of... and ..., and that if the membership of the Commission has not
been completed within ten days from the date the adoption of this resolution the President of the
Council may designate such other Member or Members of the United Nations as are required to
complete the membership of five;

Instructs the Commission to proceed at once to the Indian subcontinent and there place its good
offices and mediation at the disposal of the Governments of India and Pakistan with a view to
facilitating the taking of the necessary measures, both with respect to the restoration of peace and
order and to the holding of a plebiscite by the two (Governments, acting in co-operation with one
another and with the Commission, and further instructs the Commission to keep the Council
informed of the action taken under the resolution; and, to this end.

Recommends to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following measures as those which in the
opinion of the Council and appropriate to bring about a cessation of the lighting and to create proper
conditions for a free and impartial plebiscite to decide whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir is to
accede to India or Pakistan.

A - RESTORATION OF PEACE AND ORDER

1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours:

(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and
Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes
of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of
material aid to those fighting in the State;

(b) To make known to all concerned that the measures indicated in this and the following
paragraphs provide full freedom to all subjects of the State, regardless of creed, caste, or
party, to express their views and to vote on the question of the accession of the State, and
that therefore they should co-operate in the maintenance of peace and order.

2. The Government of India should:

(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the
Council`s Resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for
the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the
Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing
them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the
maintenance of law and order;

(b) Make known that the withdrawal is taking place in stages and announce the completion of
each stage; When the Indian forces shall have been reduced to the minimum strength
mentioned in (a) above, arrange in consultation with the Commission for the stationing of the
remaining forces to be carried out in accordance with the following principles:

(i) That the presence of troops should not afford any intimidation or appearance of
intimidation to the inhabitants of the State;
(ii) That as small a number as possible should be retained in forward areas;
(iii) That any reserve of troops which may be included in the total strength should be located
within their present base area.

3. The Government of India should agree that until such time as the plebiscite administration referred
to below finds it necessary to exercise the powers of direction and supervision over the State forces
and policy provided for in paragraph 8, they will be held in areas to be agreed upon with the
Plebiscite Administrator.

4. After the plan referred to in paragraph 2 (a) above has been put into operation, personnel
recruited locally in each district should so far as possible be utilised for the re-establishment and
maintenance of law and order with due regard to protection )t minorities, subject to such additional
requirements as may be specified by the Plebiscite Administration referred to in paragraph 7.

5. If these local forces should be found to be inadequate, the Commission, subject to the agreement
of both the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, should arrange for the use of such
forces of either Dominion as it deems t(effective for the purpose of pacification.

B - PLEBISCITE

6. The Government of India should undertake to ensure that the Government of the State invite the
major political groups to designate responsible representatives to share equitably and fully in the
conduct of the administration at the ministerial level, while the plebiscite is being prepared and
carried out.

7. The Government of India should undertake that there will be established in Jammu and Kashmir a
Plebiscite Administration to hold a Plebiscite as soon as possible ()n the question of the accession of
the State to India or Pakistan.

8. The Government of India should undertake that there will be delegated by the State to the
Plebiscite Administration such powers as the latter considers necessary for holding a fair and
impartial plebiscite including, for that purpose only, the direction and supervision of the State forces
and police.

9. The Government of India should at the request of the Plebiscite Administration, make available
from the Indian forces such assistance as the Plebiscite Administration may require for the
performance of its functions.

10. (a) The Government of India should agree that a nominee of the Secretary-General of the United
Nations will be appointed to be the Plebiscite Administrator. The Plebiscite Administrator, acting as
an officer of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, should have authority to nominate the assistants and
other subordinates and to draft regulations governing the Plebiscite. Such nominees should be
formally appointed and such draft regulations should be formally promulgated by the State of Jammu
and Kashmir.

The Government of India should undertake that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir will appoint
fully qualified persons nominated by the Plebiscite Administrator to act as special magistrates within
the State judicial system to hear cases which in the opinion of the Plebiscite Administrator have a
serious bearing on the preparation and the conduct of a free and impartial plebiscite. The terms of
service of the Administrator should form the subject of a separate negotiation between the
Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Government of India. The Administrator should fix
the terms of service for his assistants and subordinates.

The Administrator should have the right to communicate directly, with the Government of the State
and with the Commission of the Security Council and, through the Commission, with the Security
Council, with the Governments of India and Pakistan and with their representatives with the
Commission. It would be his duty to bring to the notice of any or all of the foregoing (as he in his
discretion may decide) any circumstances arising which may tend, in his opinion, to interfere with the
freedom of the Plebiscite.

11. The Government of India should undertake to prevent to give full support to the Administrator
and his staff in preventing any threat, coercion or intimidation, bribery or other undue influence on the
voters in the plebiscite, and the Government of India should publicly announce and should cause the
Government of the State to announce this undertaking as an international obligation binding on all
public authorities and officials in Jammu and Kashmir.

12. The Government of India should themselves and through the Government of the State declare
and make known that all subjects of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, regardless of creed, caste or
party, will be safe and free in expressing their views and in voting on the question of the accession of
the State and that there will be freedom of the Press, speech and assembly and freedom of travel in
the State, including freedom of lawful entry and exit.

13. The Government of India should use and should ensure that the Government of the State also
use their best endeavour to effect the withdrawal from the State of all Indian nationals other than
those who are normally resident therein or who on or since 15th August 1947 have entered it for a
lawful purpose.

14. The Government of India should ensure that the Government of the State releases all political
prisoners and take all possible steps so that:

(a) all citizens of the State who have left it on account of disturbances are invited and are free
to return to their homes and to exercise their rights as such citizens;
(b) there is no victimisation; minorities in all parts of the State are accorded adequate
protection.

15. The Commission of the Security Council should at the end of the plebiscite certify to the Council
whether the plebiscite has or has not been really free and impartial.

C - GENERAL PROVISIONS

16. The Governments of India and Pakistan should each be invited to nominate a representative to
be attached to the Commission for such assistance as it may require in the performance of its task.

17. The Commission should establish in Jammu and Kashmir such observers as it may require of any
of the proceedings in pursuance of the measures indicated in the foregoing paragraphs.

18. The Security Council Commission should carry out the tasks assigned to it herein.

The Security Council voted on this Resolution on 21-41948 with the following result:
In favour: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Syria, U.K. and U.S.A.
Against: None
Abstaining: Belgium, Colombia, Ukrainian S.S.R. and U.S.S.R.

HE #153

``UN SC resolution 654 just establishes the principle of plebiscite and noninterference in Kashmiri`s right to self-determination without stipulating when this noninterference would take place. ``

My dear HE, reproduced below is your so called security council resolution number 654. In case you do not understand it, summary of this resolution is ``Let us make a committee``. It does not discuss or makes assumptions about any principle of plebiscite.

--------------------------------------------------------------

KASHMIR RESOLUTION


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



*RESOLUTION 39 (1948) SUBMITTED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF BELGIUM AND ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL AT ITS 230TH MEETING HELD ON 20 JANUARY 1948. (DOCUMENT NO. S 654 DATED THE 20TH JANUARY 1948).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Considering that it may investigate any dispute or any situation which might, by its continuance, endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, and that, in the existing state of affairs between India and Pakistan, such an investigation is a matter of urgency,

Adopts the following resolution:

A. A Commission of the Security Council is hereby established, composed of representatives of three Members of the United Nations, one to be selected by India, one to be selected by Pakistan, and the third to be designated by the two so selected. Each representative on the Commission shall be entitled to select his alternates and assistants.

B. The Commission shall proceed to the spot as quickly as possible. It shall act under the authority of the Security Council and in accordance with the directions it may receive from it. It shall keep the Security Council currently informed of its activities and of the development of the situation. It shall report to the Security Council regularly, submitting its conclusions and proposals.

C. The Commission is invested with a dual function; (1) to investigate the facts pursuant to Article 34 of the Charter of the United Nations; (2) to exercise, without interrupting the work of the Security Council, any mediatory influence likely to smooth away difficulties, to carry out the directions given to it by the Security Council; and to report how far the advice and directions, if any, of the Security Council, have been carried out.

D. The Commission shall perform the functions described in Clause C: (1) in regard to the situation in the Jammu and Kashmir State set out in the letter of the Representative of India addressed to the President of the Security Council, dated 1 January 1948, and in the letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan addressed to the Secretary-General, dated 15 January 1948; and (2) in regard to other situations set out in the letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan addressed to the Secretary-General, dated 15 January 1948, when the Security Council so directs.

E. The Commission shall take its decision by majority vote. It shall determine its own procedure. It may allocate among its members, alternate members, their assistants, and its personnel such duties as may have to be fulfilled for the realization of its mission and the reaching of its conclusions.

F. The Commission, its members, alternate members, their assistants, and its personnel, shall be entitled to journey, separately or together, wherever the necessities of their task may require, and, in particular within those territories which are the theatre of the events of which the Security Council is seized.

G. The Secretary-General shall furnish the Commission with such personnel and assistance as it may consider necessary.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*The Security Council voted on this Resolution on 20-1-1948 with the following result:-

In favour: **Argentina, **Belgium, **Canada, China, **Columbia, France, **Syria, U.K., and U.S.A.

Against: None.

Abstaining: Ukranian S.S.R., and U.S.S.R.

**Non-Permanent Members of the Security Council.

re: #152 by arjun_m

I agree with you on the educational deficiencies of Pakistani Muslims living in UK. But I disagree with your statement that religious/cultural differences are the cause of backwardness.

In many respects, these are related. Uneducated Pakistanis believe that Islam is all about growing a beard, praying five times a day and Jihad. Most of the Pakistanis migrated to UK in the early 1950s, 60s and 70s. Even in UK, this older generation of Pakistani immigrants has created the same 1950s/60s Pakistani culture.

The irony is that when these British Pakistanis visit Pakistan, they suffer a cultural shock. Pakistan society of 2003 is much different from Pakistan society 40 years ago. Education, awareness of women`s right and understanding of Islam today are more profound than 40 years ago. More women are entering the workforce in Pakistan today than 40 years ago. But the older generation of British Pakistanis are still trapped in the 1960s culture.

Therefore, these people are not representative of Pakistani culture any more. A better sample would be the Pakistani Americans. The average Pakistani American is richer, younger, better educated and better integrated with the community than the older generation of British Pakistanis. Instead of using the median income of British Pakistanis, I suggest you compare the median income of Pakistani Americans with Indian Muslims.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#138 by friend

Dear friend, don`t confuse preconditions with timeframe. Clause 2(a) establishes a precondition, but not a time frame.

It does not say that the withdrawal will be done in one week, one month, one year or one decade. Contrast this with the UN SC resolutions passed in 1990 requiring Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait within a specific timeframe.

Similarly the UN SC resolutions passed on Iraq last year, specified certain milestones for cleansing Iraq of its WMD. For example, In January, Iraq was supposed to furnish full documentation of its WMDs. In March, 2003 Hans Blix was required to certify that Iraq had complied with the UN SC resolution.

If you re-read the UN SC 654 on Kashmir, it does not specify any milestones. Technically, Pakistan could withdraw tribesmen next day, next year or 50 years later.

And even if Pakistan withdrew tribesmen the next day, there was no timeframe specified for India to honour its part. Suppose Pakistan withdrew in February 1948. India could keep delaying the plebiscite until February 2048! Or February 3048!

UN SC resolution 654 just establishes the principle of plebiscite and noninterference in Kashmiri`s right to self-determination without stipulating when this noninterference would take place.

rsridhar #145

`` I thought the Sikhs constituted ~ 20% of the armed forces. Am i wrong? ``

There were 100,000-150,000 Sikhs in a 1 million plus army. Pathans are 15-20% in the Pakistani army. About similar numbers and percentages.

ahmadzai #144

There are a lot of problems with governance of the Indian state.

Does it occur to you that all the violence are in border states - Kashmir, Punjab, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram, Nagaland, Assam.

re: bbabu

++
The Pakistani army is really dominated by Punjabis.
++

This is not by design, but simply an outcome of demographics. According to 2001 census, the population breakdown of Pakistanis by ethnicity is:

Punjabis: 48%
Pashtuns: 17%
Sindhis: 12%
Seraikis: 10%
Urdu-speaking: 8%
Others: 5%

Since Punjabis already form the largest ethnic group in Pakistan, it is natural to expect a higher proportion of Punjabis

++
There is a sprinkling of Pathans much like Sikhs in the Indian Army
++

Wrong. Pashtuns are over-represented in Pakistan Army. Here is a breakdown of Pakistan Army officer cadres:

Punjabis: 55%
Pashtuns: 28%
Seraikis: 15%
Others: 2%

The number of Punjabis and Seraikis in the Army is comparable to their population percentages (48% and 10% respectively). But the percentage of Pashtuns in Army is much higher than their population percentage (17%).

The Urdu-speaking community of Pakistan (aka Mohajirs) are the the most educated community in Pakistan. Almost all of them are graduates. And many get a Masters, doctorate or professional degree. As a result, they prefer the high paying corporate jobs and professional corporate lifestyle.. instead of a low-salary military career.

In present day Pakistan, Sindhis are perhaps the least prosperous community. IMHO, the feudal system is holding them back by denying them education in rural Sindh. At the same time, they prefer not to apply for military service either.

This explains why Urdu-speaking and Sindhi communities are under-represented by choice in the Army. Frankly, most Punjabis would also prefer to work for Citibank, ABN-AMRO or the federal government.

++
The Bangladesh debacle, oil money from the Gulf, Baluchi revolt, Paktoonistan claim must have persuaded Pakistani army to use Islam as a unifying force.
++

Islam was already a unifying force in Pakistan movement led by Jinnah from 1937 to 1947. It brought Pashtuns, Punjabis, Sindhis, Seraikis, Bengalis, Urdu-speaking and Gujratis on one platform. But during the 1960s, the bone-headed Ayub Khan followed a racist policy. In his autobiography Friends not Masters, he used derogatory terms for Bengalis. Even in office, he used to describe the Bengalis as ``rats``. No wonder, the Bengalis felt estranged from West Pakistan. Not only were they economically deprived, they also had to face racial, un-Islamic slurs from the President!

The Sandhurst-trained Punjabi and Pathan military elite of the 1950s/60s had been raised on a diet of British racism. Darker Indian races were considered ``inferior``, fair-skinned Punjabis/Pathans were considered ``superior martial races``. I believe the same un-Islamic mentality caused problems in Sindh as well. Terms like ``Hindustora`` and ``Bhaiyya`` were reserved for Urdu-speaking community.

The Islamization of Pakistan Army under Zia-ul-Haq changed all that. Professionalism and Jihadi spirit have replaced racist ideas like ``martial races theory``. Islamization is necessary to hold all the ethnic groups together under one umbrella.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#147 fruitcake


YOu are so right. You also forgot to mention how the jews blew up the WTC and blamed it on the innocent muslims. And so on and so forth....

In response to # 146:

Why should we believe that those killed in Kashmir are by Freedom Fighters? They may have been killed by terrorists alright.

The innocents are being killed in Indian occupied Kashmir. However, note that:

1. Not a single terrorist has been caught alive to-date who could provide a hard evidence in favor of Indian accusations. Police is trained in shooting at legs in such a way that culprits can be caught red-handed. However, all those accused of terrorism have been shot dead.

2. It has been confirmed that many Pakhtoon youth from Pakistan`s tribal areas (not NWFP) were caught by the Northern Alliance during anti-Taliban war and handed over to India. They are still languishing in Indian jails. The point to note is that these youth may be shot in fake encounters and accused to be actively involved in terrorism.

But the killings are surely by the terrorists. These could be by the Indian army or its agencies or by some so called Islamic idiots, who cannot be termed freedom fighters in any case.

This one is for Indian friends like bbabu, Jay, arjun, pmishra, m_souza,

How India blames the Koalas for all its ills?

Please read at:

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20030514&fname=northeast&sid=1

Salient paragraphs:

``The insurgencies are indigenous all right but many of them get help and shelter from neighbouring countries like Bhutan, Bangladesh and Myanmar. The Pakistan Inter-Services Agency (ISI), may not be as active as it in Kashmir but it definitely has designs in the north-east. At least that`s what the MHA keeps saying. ``Cross-border`` terrorism is not a fashionable word in the region as yet but the fact remains that militant groups such as ATTF, NLFT, the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB) have several camps in Bangladesh and Bhutan.

About three months ago, in fact, New Delhi, stung by repeated denials from Dhaka, had specifically identified ``99 training camps`` of North-east insurgents in Bangladesh, Border Security Force (BSF) officials had said. The list of locations has been handed over to Dhaka for action, these officials claimed.. At a border coordination meeting held in New Delhi, BSF and Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) had differed on existence of such training camps of North-East insurgents in Bangladesh. The issue of training camps was taken up by BSF Director General Ajai Raj Sharma with BDR Chief Maj Gen Rezaqul Haider during the two-day bi-annual talks in Delhi.``

Yes, yes, yes - India has good relations with all its neighbors alright ;)

re:#141 by bbabu

``The Pakistani army is really dominated by Punjabis. There is a sprinkling of Pathans much like Sikhs in the Indian Army.``
I thought the Sikhs constituted ~ 20% of the armed forces. Am i wrong? Have things changed recently?
Sridhar

friend #138

I am glad that you have posted the text of the original UN resolution and the manner in which has been ignored by Pakistan. Now that ethnic cleansing in indian J&K and systematic settelemnt in POK has moved forward, it is more convenient to claim: ``indians will not allow UN resolution to go forward`` !

It is also easy to get gullible liberals (in the West) and others to think: wow, there really must be something here. Basically, it is a badly used propaganda tool and one whose time has come and gone.

Meanwhile, here is more freedom from our friends across the border:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eleven die in Kashmir violence
At least 11 people have died in fresh violence in Indian-administered Kashmir.
In the worst attack, suspected militants killed six Muslim villagers in a remote mountain village.

Two Indian security personnel were killed in a separate gunbattle with militants in Poonch district.

In another incident, police said Indian troops shot dead three militants of the Hizbul Mujahideen group in an operation in Anantnag district.

The violence comes at a time when India and Pakistan have taken steps to defuse tensions over the Kashmir dispute.

Family killed

In a midnight attack, four women and two children were killed by unidentified militants in a remote village in Rajouri district, some 180 kilometres (112 miles) north of Jammu.

The dead were all family members of Mehboob Iqba, a 55-year-old shepherd, including his wife, three daughters-in-law and two children, aged two and four.

Mr Iqba was not at home at the time.

No group has said it carried out the attack, which took place in an area known for militant activity.

Three of Mr Iqba`s sons, whose wives were among those killed, work for the Indian army and police.

The BBC`s Binoo Joshi in Jammu says militant groups have been targeting the families of soldiers.

Peace initiative

The latest attack comes amid fresh moves to resolve the long-running Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan.

HisExcellency #137

`` Beg to differ on this assertion. Agreed that India is more multiethnic than Pakistan, Bangladesh, Europe, etc. But India does NOT have the same degree of diversity that USA has. Most of the people living in India are Indo-Aryan or Dravidian by decent. In contrast, American society comprises Mandarin/East Asian, Caucasian, Latino, Jewish, Persian, Hindu, Arab, Buddhist, Sikh, African, Muslim and countless other groups. In America, you will find nationals of every country in the world. ``

If you look at races proportionally
Whites in USA = Browns in India
Browns in USA ~ fair skinned in India
Blacks = Darks
Orientals = North Eastern peoples of India

If you exclude first generation Hispanics 95% plus of Americans use English. In India there are 20 different major languages - each with its own script.

India has more religious diversity than America.

Plus America is a melting point. India is not really a full feldged melting pot. Some of the diversity is lost over time.

USA had a strong economic base even as immigrants were coming. Most Indian immigrants studied advanced degrees in American universities and had their first job stint in an American company. It is not like immigrants are turning an improvished society into a prosperous one. They are making a rich society even richer.

USA was the richest society by the 1920`s. Everything immigrants brought after that is sort of icing on the cake. It was mutually benefical.