India has called upon Pakistan not to involve the United Nations in the Kashmir dispute and resolve any conflict through bilateral dialogue, the BBC Urdu reported on Friday.
While speaking at a ceremony of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police, India’s Home Minister Rajnath Singh asked Pakistan to stop ceasefire violations from their side, adding that Indian forces guarding the border possess the “capability to give a befitting reply” to these misadventures.
However, Singh disapproved of Pakistan’s recent move of approaching the UN to ‘internationalise the Kashmir issue’ and seeking the world body’s intervention, saying all issues could be resolved through bilateral talks.
Singh was of the opinion that Pakistan should not try to involve any third-party with intent to mediate the crisis. “Pakistan has accepted a resolution in National Assembly asking for UN’s intervention… but if there is a problem it should be resolved through bilateral talks,” he maintained.
Many analysts in India think that it was wrong on the part of government to halt dialogue process with Pakistan. Congress’ leader and former finance minister P Chidambaram has also criticized the Modi government in this regard.
Meanwhile, India announced setting up of 54 new border outposts and a INR1.75 billion package for beefing up the infrastructure along the border in Arunachal Pradesh, despite concerns raised by China.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 25th, 2014.
COMMENTS (44)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Yes that Kashmir Case needs thrid party (UNO) intervention and that must be done. But the question here is that what about Gilgit Baltistan??? If Pakistan is also ready to vacate Gilgit Baltistan subsequently??. Pakistan Government is violating Human Rights in Gilgit Baltistan for Last 66 Years.
Third party(UNO) inervention is must on this issue and ofcourse the issue must be solved with the will of kashmiri people. If Shimla Agreement was everything to solve the issues between the two countries then who were UNO and USA in 1999 who put pressure on Pakistan and India to stop the war. As a Kashmir, I can see the love for Pakistan in people eg the scene when they rubbed pakistani soil on there faces and chests. It is famously quoted here as ''the name Pakistan is inherited in our genes, even Almighty can not remove those genes''. I bet if self determination is give, people here will choose independent or with Pakistan but never with India.
Plebiscite has already been done. 1.25B people have voiced their opinion that Kashmir is part of India - MODIfy the relationship with Pakistan. Meanwhile, you guys have problems accepting the elections of your own leaders!
Stop shedding crocodile tears and dramatizing your love for the Kashmiris. If they are suffering, who is stopping them from seeking residence in Pakistan? Will you be willing to take those Kashmiris that want to be Pakistanis if they are deported from India? You guys are unwilling to show compassion for your own countrymen of KP. They are not allowed to seek refuge in Punjab!
@G. Din: To remain in force and unenforceable are two different things. Koffi Annan might have expressed his inability to implement the UN resolutions which does not mean the resolutions are not in force. The fact remains that the UN resolutions on Kashmir are still valid
Kashmir has been treated as a land dispute between India and Pakistan, how pathetic while there has been no consideration given to what kashmiris want. The happening in Scotland after so many hundreds of year living with UK shows that the will of the people matter. For Pakistan's and India's larger populace benefit it is vital that Kashmir matter be solved and energy focussed on the larger issues these two countries face.
@ Third Umpire.
True Muslim will not require cancelling UN resolution.
As an ideological Muslim state Pakistan is familiar enough with Islamic jurisprudence to know that the principle of Abrogation does not require a specific Koranic verse to override a Koranic verse. It is merely enough that a more uptodate contradictory Quranic verse exists. As an Ideological Muslim state Pakistan requires no cancelling UN resolution, it is enough that the more uptodate and contradictory Simla Agreement exists. Bottomline, principle rooted in Islamic Jurisprudence cannot be contested by an Islamic Republic like Pakistan.
Gp65, actually it is you who is wrong. The Shimla Agreement clearly stated that force would not be used to alter the status quo and that included "interpretations" of the location of the LOC. India knows quite well what it did to that agreement and it did it quite unilaterally. Another point that continues to be raised here is that Pakistan "gifted" a large chunk of Kashmir to China. Actually India "lost" more than 5 times the size of that "gift" of territory to China in 1962 for refusing to indulge in similar "gifting". The entire border of Kashmir with Tibet/China was not clearly demarcated.
Go keep on going to UN. Nobody listens.
@Third Umpire: to Hari Om " Can you please refer any UN resolution cancelling the Kashmir resolutions?" Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of UN, who ought to know, told Pakistan bluntly that UN Security Council Resolution on Kashmir was UNENFORCEABLE. Read that capitalized word, again!
Keep the issue alive and don't follow the Indias stand on Kashmir . See the result . It is due to Kashmir issue Pakistan is now in a great mess .
ET Mods - 2nd attempt: please allow factual rebuttal. My comment meets all your guidelines.
@RHS:
Wrong, per Simla agreement the LOC was physically demarcated upto NJ9842 and from that point it was conceptually defined as 'thence north to the glaciers'. By that definition Siachen is on Indian sode of LOC. This is why India's proposed resolution for Siachen problem is o simpy physically demarcate what the conceptual demarcation suggests. Pakistan is unwilling to do that.
@Parvez: When you signed a treaty (Simla agreement) in lieu of having 90000 POW released, you are bound to honour it. Simla agreement requires any resolution of Kashmir to be bilateral. Incidentally, the UN resolution could not be implemented initially due to Pakistani army refusing to withdraw from Kashmir which is a term of the resolution. Pakistan has also handed over a aft of Kashmir to China making plebiscite impossible to conduct. For th these reasons the pleiscite is mpossible to conduct. In any case the UN resolution is under ChPter VI which makes it voluntary.
So UN has no locus standii to impose that resolution and in fact can do very little. This is why despite multiple phone calls and letters to BanKi Moon, he has refused to intervene, you may also want to know that the Kashmir issue has not been oted in UN since 1953. The notion that it. Is a Russian veto that saves India is also not true since no veto has been exercised since 1972 by Russia. All that Pakistan does by failing to honor Simla agreement is ensure that talks do not get started. It also reduces the credibility of Pakistan when it fails to honour agreements it has signed which would make the trust deficit wider. If you think this is good diplomacy, go for it for a change, India has a government which willl not get bullied by threats of internationalisation and mplied threats of escalation to nuclear war.
@Hari Om: Simla agreement notwithstanding, UN Security Council resolutions for Kashmir are still outstanding. Can you please refer any UN resolution cancelling the Kashmir resolutions?
It is right that Kashmir is a bilateral issue and Simla Agreement requires it to be solved bilaterally but given the current scenario of the region, if both countries are unable to solve it bilaterally, as they have been, the intervention by a third party becomes inevitable. It is an issue that can't be left unresolved.
@Syed: Has Pakistan done its part which is the first part in the UN resolution? Has Pakistan Vacated the area that it occupied in 1947 forcibly?
No
Has Pakistan maintained the status of occupied land same as before?
No - Pakistan has settled large number of Punjabi and other other people into forcibly occupied territory. It went on to gift large part of Kashmir to China just because China claimed it!!!
An agreement works when both sides do their part. Pakistan was supposed to take first step.. it never did so don't accuse us. Your ignorance of the charter is as amusing as the mullahs and leaders that talk about it in various platforms...
@faisal: There are some sovereign rights which cannot be waived even if a treaty is signed...... So, what you are saying is that it is all right to sign a treaty when it is advantageous to do so, and renege on it at the first opportunity under the plea of sovereignty? And then you wonder why UN doesn't take you guys seriously!
The UN is recognised as a neutral player, involving the UN gives Pakistan the moral high ground position and so, its good diplomacy.
Pakistan must raise the issue of Kashmir in UN as Pakistan should not accept India' s bullying and ensure that a just full resolution to the Kashmir is achieved through big powers like China and America in UN. Otherwise, India will never initiate a meaningful dialogue on the core issue of Kashmir. The people of Kashmir will continue living under oppression of Indian Armed forces in their own motherland which is a big injustice to the people of Kashmir. Both nations can not afford to linger on the issue for next few decades on the issue and delaying tactics of India can not change the ground realities.
"In the name of love"(...). above. India threw the Shimla Agreement into the dustbin when it forcibly occupied the Siachen Glacier in the 1980's. And on top of that it still refuses to climb down even today. So all that is left is the UN or third party intervention...
Unable to fathom Pakistan’s love for dragging in third parties into issues with India. As an Islamic Republic I am sure Pakistani’s do not need to be schooled in the concept of “abrogation” whereby the recent overrides the past. The UN Security Council resolution has been overridden by the Simla Accord which stipulates that issues are strictly bilateral unless agreed to by both parties.
Who cares what India says.
So Pakistan's new secret weapon is the UN ?? What happened to all these weapons? 1. Muslim soldier equal to 10 Hindu soldiers. 2. Superior Muslim intellect. 3. Stronger divine backing. Apparently, like everything else in Pakistan, they all were lies.
On the same logic that india is occupying kashmir some ghoris and ghaznavis are occupying current day Pakistan, please vacate Pakistan first. Return the land to its original inhibitors.
Pakistanis, who are educated and have access to information must read the Shimla Agreement thoroughly. Once they do, they'll realize why the world is not interested in mediating in Kashmir. Pakistan had close 90,000 pow's in india in 71 and in exchange to get them released, the pakistani establishment signed the Shimla Agreement which puts the lid on the Kashmir issue, once and for all. Coz India is not interested in its solution and Shimla agreement is not going to allow any third party intervention. The only way kashmir can get independence is by getting rid of the Shimla agreement. Pakistan, should instead focus on how to get rid of the Shimla agreement and then raise their voice for third party intervention.
Kashmir, Kashmir, Kashmir! It has to be settled by the UN, and only by the UN. India itself is sponsoring unbridled terrorism and puts on a, "Oh me, misery me," look on the face and India lovers say, "Oh dear, poor you." Why did India put off and delay bilateral talks? Why does India go slow on the bilateral talks. Bilateral talks are useless because the USA, UK, and Europe do not want them to progress and succeed. Don't worry India, you will get the rough end of the stick from us because you were the first to attack and occupy Kashmir in December 1947. Also, you made a sneak attack in Siachen in 1984 and occupied a portion. So be very careful because we are waiting patiently.
Pakistan has been acting like a Kid for the last about 70 years. It still continues to be one. It has no idea what a bilateral treaty means. India can hold dialogue with it only when it matures. Till that time India should just sit pretty & relaxed.
We are requesting United Nations in intervene in the dispute Of Kashmir. United Nation should ask Kashmirs what they want? This is 21str century days of slavery are gone. If united Nation does not act now South East Asia will turn to stone age. This is realty.
@Syed: Are you not jumping the gun with a quick fix solution to a complex problem? The state of J&K was governed by Maharaja Hari Singh until August 15, 1947 just like 564 other rajwadas existing in India. Although there was rebellion to the ruler in some areas of the riyasat, the Maharaja held elections in the state which was unprecedented in any of the states and gave a law of 'State Subject'. The British had given option to him to either merge with India or Pakistan but he was undecided and probably wanted to stay independent like all other rulers. It was here Jinnah lost patience and sent in tribals together with it's army regulars, who plundered, raped and killed unabated and advanced towards Srinagar. Kashmir militia and Maharaja's army fought back but could not stop the raiders. At this point the Maharaja requested India but India wanted him to sign Instrument of Accession before Indian army could land there. It was after his acceding to India did the Indian army push back infiltrators to current LOC.
UN resolutions adopted subsequently wanted Pakistan to vacate areas (POK, Gilgit Baltistan, Shaksgam valley) to be vacated followed by India minimizing their military presence so that a fair referendum could be held. Pakistan never initiated this step despite reminders. India waited until 1953 when it got elections done in J&K state and enabled the assembly to make their own constitution. The Simla Agreement signed bilaterally made UN resolution obsolete. Similarly, time moved ahead and came Lahore declaration that was about to reveal an out of the box solution but Kargil spoilt it.
So going back to defunct UN resolutions without even understanding the background makes you a laughing stock and no one takes Pakistan seriously. Please take care of your provinces like Balochistan, Sindh, KP & FATA and improve human rights in GB and POK.
Kashmir has nothing to do with Hindus and India. All Kashmiris want to be with Pakistan and Pakistan should involve all world organisations to show them the true face of India committing atrocities in Kashmir
@Syed: Read the resulution 47 and you will find your answer of why no Plebicitite before vacating POK. No?
India will not discuss Kashmir with Pakistan in any forum (Bilateral or the UN). It feels rightly that if it sits down and starts negotiating with Pakistan or the Kashmiris it will lose. That is a fact that needs to be faced. Pakistan cannot win Kashmir in a war either. The bottom line is that the Kashmiri misery continues. If there can be no agreement between India and Pakistan, the third option of an independent Kashmir Valley(only) should be a consideration. But that will require third party intervention, one which the two countries might regret.
No sovereign will ever approve of a third party intervention in dispute relating to its territory.
Pakistan should first approach UN to resolve the matter of who is the competent authority in Pakistan to handle the Kashmir issue; is it Parliament or the Military? Most of the time the two are pulling in opposite directions. Remember Kargil?
Start bilateral talks Pakistan won't go to UN
Kashmir has to be resolved as per the wishes of people of Kashmir, period!
They want to join India, its ok with us; they want join Pakistan, we welcome them; and it if they want to be indep, it should be good with both India and Pakistan. WHO R WE TO DECIDE
Doesn't the act of sponsoring terrorism itself contravene the principles endorsed by the UN.
@Samrat - That's the perfect policy in my opinion ... not to be friends, just neutral strangers without any attempts to pull each other down. But you have made it very simple by vindicating your country as if it has nothing to do with creating probs for us. Takes two to tango mate.
Pakistan has not adopted the UN resolution of vacating its forces from Azad Kashmir. It does not make sense to demand India to adopt the resolution, even though it was India which sought the UNO intervention.
UN knows that Pakistan can't be trusted.
Sure. Lets resolve it with bilateral talks. Hold a plebiscite like you promised. No? Like your government submitted in the UN I repeat. No? Your founder Nehru promised I repeat. No?
I am sorry, don't complain if we are skeptic of trusting you with your words again. Love you anyway, neighbour.
"Pakistan has accepted a resolution in National Assembly asking for UN’s intervention… but if there is a problem it should be resolved through bilateral talks".
Wow. the first step to solving a conflict revolves around knowing that there is a problem. Clearly their Home Minister is not even sure if there is a problem. Somebody tell him whats been going on for the last 67 years. Somebody didn't do their homework it seems. To be fair Singh is a home minister and Kashmir doesn't fall under the 'Home' category. It's your foreign intervention in a land that raises Pakistan's flag every year.
What's the purpose of UN if not to assist in resolving conflicts between nations? What does India has to fear by having UN help in attempting to settle this dispute?
Come on Pakistan.. stop this childish attitude for God's sake.. Cooperate and compete with us in economy and development, not in military prowess. There's no point in trying to play proxy games to pull India down. Either cooperate or else just leave us alone. if friendship is not viable, then let's just live as total strangers instead of enemies.. Deal??
It's unfortunate that Pakistan's National Assembly has found it appropriate to unanimously approve the resolution to seek UN intervention in the Kashmir dispute.
Most of the lawmakers were perhaps still running around in their shorts when the Shimla Agreement and later the Lahore Declaration sealed the fate of the Kashmir issue - to be resolved through bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan. They make themselves look foolish with their vote because it's indicative of how little they understand the history of Pakistan and its rights and responsibilities as a party to an international agreement.
For those lawmakers that might still not understand what it means, a bilateral agreement is one between two willing parties agreeing to resolve their outstanding issues without the influence or interference from a third party, whether it be the worthless separatists from Kashmir or the august body of the United Nations.