History shows that warfare is not a question of brute strength, but rather losing friends that could once patronize at the time of disparity. Kashmir, the heartland of South Asia, in which two nuclear states burned candle from both ends to come to a resolution, yet, unsuccessful. Since independence Pakistan and India barely escape the skin of one’s teeth conflict with each other and India always wanted to destabilize the Pakistan with its malign and malevolent ideas, propositions and multiple treaties that came across Pakistan. In burning ashes of phoenix for the people of Kashmir, who suffered the most, are the victims of both state’s conflagration upon the resolution of Kashmir. United Nations, on the other hand, has had purported several resolutions to the solution of Kashmir dispute but India’s vicious and malefactor thought to bifurcate Pakistan and dilute its objective to the ability that it would expel the myth of friendship and solution to the problem.
The Kashmir Question 1947-1957
The pre-independence era baffles the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir. Earlier decision Lord Mount Batten advised the state to either accede to Pakistan or India as per the 3rd June plan. However, two months before independence Nehru betrayer his cerebral to Lord Mountbatten in a note arguing: “The normal and obvious course appears to be for Kashmir to join the Constituent Assembly of India, ‘falsely stating, this will satisfy both the popular demand and the Maharaja’s wishes”. Followed such chimerical thought Gandhi payed a surprise visit to Srinagar and conducted a meeting, in which, concentric decision advocated accession to India. Popular opinion of the Muslim party in the state of Jammu and Kashmir showed unacceptable cerebration to the advocacy of the Indian Constituent Assembly and opted a resolution in favor of Pakistan. Unfortunately, this decision was followed by atrocities in the state of Jammu and Kashmir when majority of the population favored for Pakistan, and bombastically celebrated in favor of Muslim Conference resolution.
After independence the castigation for Muslims began and followed by fatal incidents by the Maharja’s ruler and Indian forced. The population of Muslims at the time of independence constitutes 61 percent, where, 200,000 Muslims were exterminated and majority was reduced to minority. In such a brutal attempt to camouflage ‘utter violation’ Lord Mountbatten wrote a letter to Nehru stating that such boisterous policy would subject to dispute between the states, however, in such a condition the question of accession should be decided pursuance to the wishes of the people. Followed by the letter of Lord Mountbatten, Nehru also wrote similar telegram to Liaquat Ali khan stating that the influence of the accession should be decided at the caprice of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
There were number of upheavals and fatal incidents acquitted the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in cataclysm circumstances United Nations steps in in 1948. The debate in Security Council was meant to cease aggression in Kashmir and purported to caption the resolution for Kashmir, however, Chapter VI- Pacific Settlement disputes and with the consent of both parties, security council established UN commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) that would accommodate both the parties to come to a conclusion and cease revolt in the state of Kashmir. Security Council heard both sides of the argument and favored to plebiscite impartial referendum through the democratic way. In 1949, United Nations Security Council proposed a referendum which explicitly stated that the government of Pakistan and Government of India wishes to decide the fate of Kashmir from the people and added fair and equitable condition must be adopted by both side of the states. Further, clause emphasized-on ceasefire line of control in 1949 which was acceptable to both the parties.
Under such brazen episode the role of British was pro-Indian because most member of the security council brought impartial and salutary approach to deliberations on Kashmir question rooted rather than the norms of international law. The incremental support was given to India,’ as India was gaining support from Soviet Union to veto the resolution of impartiality and justice, and pursed to exploit the advantage that could be given to Pakistan.
Dispute fester as Indian government condemn the plebiscite referendum to decide the fate of Kashmir on the basis of the people’s wish and resulted in brutal incidents and upheavals. Article 25 of the United Nations Security Council was breached which dictated that the resolution of the United Nations was binding and carry out the decisions pursuance to the present charter.
The Shimla Agreement under Duress:
After the filthy war of 1971 between India and Pakistan resulted in the dismemberment of East Pakistan, in which Pakistan lost 93,000 soldiers and civilians in Indian possession. Both countries realized that there should be a need to enter into negotiations to prevent any further destabilization of the region.
The summit conference held in 1972 between Bhutto and India Gandhi to come to a table to negotiate further disparity in the dispute that instigated since independence. The agreement laid the foundation to normalize the conflagrated situation between both the states and Bhutto envisaged Kashmir dispute to be settled. However, the conference proposed a treaty of friendship between two countries to abstain the use of force in settling conflict, to refrain from interference in each other’s personal affairs, to desist from seeking third-party intervention in the settlement of their differences and to renounce military alliances direction against each other. Pakistan also purported to curtail the number of troops from Kashmir and withdrawal of Kashmir dispute from United Nations, to which, India showed catcall objection to such proposal. The aim of India to negotiate on the matters primitive to war that took place and preclude any further war to take place between the region, if not the repercussions would be baleful for Pakistan. However, Pakistan also wished to incorporate the Kashmir dispute but malign neglecting of India displayed bristling circumstances for Pakistan.
On July 2, 1972 both countries reached an agreement. Main clauses of Shimla Agreement are:
- “Both countries would put an end to conflict and confrontation and would work for promotion of friendly relations and peace. They agreed to follow United Nations Charter to govern their relations and affirmed to respect each other’s national unity, political independence and territorial integrity.
- Both Governments agreed to avert hostile propaganda against each other.
- For the restoration of normal relations both the governments agreed to resume communications and promote travel facilities. Both agreed for cooperation in economic and cultural activities.
- Both agreed to respect the line of control between Jammu and Kashmir resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971.
- The withdrawal of forces of both countries would come into effect within the 30 days of agreement’s enforcement”.
The Kashmir dispute again came to the core-issue when India and Pakistan signed the controversial Simla Accord in July 1972 in the wake of the Indo-Pakistani war on 1971. The accord converted the 1949 UN "Cease-fire Line" into the Line of Control (LOC) between Pakistan and India which however did not affect the status of the disputed territory:
Moreover, the Article 1 of the clause of Shimla agreement states that “the basic issues and causes of the conflict which have bedeviled the relations between the two countries for the last thirty years” and both sides should abstain from using threat or force in the violation of the ‘Line of Control’.
The Struggle for Kashmir:
After the Shimla accord, the relation between countries began harmonic until the India claims to have nuclear weapon to browbeat Pakistan’s stance as the country. This instigated Pakistan to acquire modern technology to build a nuclear weapon for peaceful purposes. India degraded the Shimla accord in relation to Kashmir issue and continue to carnage Kashmiris. According to Jospeh Korbel, a Czechoslovak member of the UN commission for Pakistan and India, concluded in his book “Danger in Kashmir” as
“The people of Kashmir have made it unmistakably known that they insist on being heard. The accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India cannot be considered as valid by canons of International law….
The issue itself cannot be sidetracked. The history of the case has made it clear that time has only aggravated, not healed the conflict that either the Pakistanis nor the Kashmiris will accept the Status quo as a solution.
…. No high hopes should be entertained that bilateral negotiations will lead to a settlement. The United Nations has a principal responsibility to seek a solution”.
Resisting Indian duress at Shimla Conference in 1972, Pakistan did not compromise its own stance against Kashmiris and not even sustain any prejudice right of self-determination. Pakistan has made colossal and brevity speeches at the United Nations General Assembly to seek world’s attention to the upheavals in Kashmir and its festering issues. Both sides did not took any initiatives at the Shimla conference to settle the Kashmir dispute. Several brackish incidents took place since the Shimla conference such as Valley explosion, kidnap of British consular in England by Kashmiris and Forming a United Muslim Front political parties. The heavy movement took place in Kashmir which was anti-India demonstration which subjected to shutdown of private business and transport. The radical Kashmiri movements gave rise to Hizbul Mujahideen against the Indian aggression and followed by atrocities, brutal deaths, and several injuries to the people of Kashmiris to date caused nothing more than a bouillon. According to Amnesty International, “there are of about 19,866 people died in Jammu and Kashmir since January 1990”. “The number of people disappeared in Kashmir is estimated to be high as 2,000”. Indian political leaders also formed a party called All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) to avenge the Muslim political parties in Kashmir.
Reacting to the atrocities in Kashmir, the volunteers from Kashmir and even former Afghan mujahideen and member of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, began to align with Kashmir’s to reciprocate to the Indian aggression. The number of killing people in Kashmir is as high as the Mount Everest and physical insecurity ignited for the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Following the attack of 9/11, Indian blamed Pakistan for sponsoring terrorism, followed by the attack on Indian parliament in 2003 Pakistan was limelight for such bestial. Pakistan made too many efforts to resolve the heated conflict between both the states, even Organization of Islamic Corporation (OIC) also proposed to mediate the dilemma with regards to the Kashmir issue yet, India was obstructive to such blandishment.
Analysis for such minatory atrocities in relation to International Law
Since the fall of twin towers in America, Pakistan was blatantly brought into limelight by the American administration voicing a weapon “either you are with us or against us”. No choice left for Pakistan to align with American forces to curb the bluster of terrorist in Afghanistan. The relation between Pakistan and American bolstered but under the policy of “Afg-Pak” America was in seek to render pecuniary funds to Pakistan in order to have hands on nuclear weapon, to which, India was supporting the malevolent policy. American so-called policy scattered Pakistan into ashes of Phoenix from establishment to democratic value and clear violation of international law the West Philia System of sovereignty 1948. The relation between America and Pakistan began to paralyze as America breached all norms of International law and instigated its relation with India.
According to the United Nations article 33 states to resolve a dispute between the states there are four elements from which a state could resolve their conflicts.
Pakistan seeks to arbitrate the matter of Kashmir but India unreliably denied its stance to resolve the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
Pakistan request America to mediate the matter of Kashmir yet the oppressive response of America gave Pakistan to affirm its action to take decisive steps against American philosophy of aiding Pakistan. It is evident that America wanted to tackle China the rising dragon of the region and the world, and it is known fact to the world at large that China heavily invested in Pakistan to have access to Indian ocean. America is fearful that if China gets the access it would give China ability to become more super-power. As one of the American Navy officer Meaher dictated that “Sea power is the key to the world power” to which America is threatened and wanted to cease China’s access to Indian ocean. India, on the other hand, also wanted to confront China’s power to the Indian ocean in the minatory fear that China to have regional power in the Indian Ocean. Thus, in the above-mentioned context India who wanted to destabilize Pakistan would never accept to mediate the matter in relation to Kashmir.
Pakistan tried many fruitful efforts to conciliate the Kashmir issue primitive to mutual trust and friendship but India’s neglecting on such dilemma is meant a message for Pakistan of becoming harmonic to face boisterous browbeats. China, who is the fraternal friend of Pakistan purported to negotiate on the Kashmir matter but the Indian aggression rendered fecundity response to the Chinese officials for conciliation with regards to Jammu and Kashmir.
Thus, to curtail the malevolent cerebration of India, China has instigated regional organization Shanghai Cooperation Organization (“SCO”) which is the predecessor of ‘Shangia 5’ to flourish trade, mutual trust, respect and friendship. However, there are 6 members to such organization and Pakistan and India also the pleasure of the SCO. This would create and vehemently under the charter of the SCO to cooperate with mutual trust, respect and furnish friendship amongst the neighbors that could facilitate globalization. This in the long term be very helpful between the two nuclear states to resolve Kashmir issue.
It is evident that India never wanted to negotiate even under the paradigm of International Law because India is fearful of Pakistan becoming a developed state as Chinese investment proved to be advantageous to Pakistan and its economy. At the SCO Pakistan’s Prime minister Nawaz Sharif congratulated Modi of becoming a member of the SCO and further emphasized to corporate with mutual trust and respect in order to resolve any conflict that could be hazardous for the region. Unfortunately, the response from Modi was very obstructive and oppressive, which means India never wanted to resolve any conflict between the States especially Jammu and Kashmir.
It has become evident that United Nations is the puppet of America and American administration could easily subside the binding agreement that United Nations has purported for any states in the world. The main grail for United States is to confront China and potentially harm its provocative investment in Pakistan, to which, India caldron America in such barbaric circumstances.
In summation, Kashmir issue has never been resolved because of the muddling of external forces in the region. To accommodate the fundamental principle of people and human rights, it is incumbent for both Pakistan and India to have a dialogue on the Kashmir Issue and resolve all the heated aggressions against each other. Also, there should be no mollycoddling of any external powers because national interest is the object for any state that could accommodate the dilemma of Jammu and Kashmir. United Nations security council resolutions are of no importance because American system neglects the realm of such resolution and incorporate its own interest. It is also significant for all Muslim states to come together to solve the Kashmir issue before it is too late for the state Kashmir becoming another “Jerusalem” by the aghast and malign though of external forces.
“Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding and dialogues”.