Kashmir issue: PM Nawaz accuses India of inflexibility
Speaking at a meeting of Azad and Jammu Kashmir Council in Muzaffarabad, the prime minister said that he will consult Hurriyat leaders prior to entering negotiations with India.
Calling for a peaceful resolution of the dispute, PM Nawaz reiterated that all issues should be resolved through negotiations and without the use of force.
"During recent ceasefire violations along the Line of Control, many have been hurt and have suffered; we do not need to use power." PM Nawaz stressed.
Vowing to continue efforts for the Kashmir cause, the prime minister urged the international community to help Pakistan in its attempts to enter talks with India.
"Pakistan has always kept Kashmir issue at the forefront in all world peace forums," Nawaz added.
Shunning Indian accusations related to Pakistan harbouring militants in the country, the premier said it was a lie that Pakistan was providing sanctuaries to anti-India elements,
"India has a propoganda against us that we are harbouring terrorists in order to cover up their wrong doings in Kashmir," he said, adding that Pakistan itself was a victim of terrorism and was doing everything to eliminate it.
Poll
[poll id="1374"]
COMMENTS (34)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1725612926-0/Tribune-Pic-(8)1725612926-0-165x106.webp "article")
ET Moderators, please allow this retort to @unfair who has made statements that are not correct ------------------------------------------------------------------------.
@unfair:
"It is unequal and unfair to equate Baluchistan with Kashmir."
Yes, they are indeed "unequal". Pakistan's annexation of Balochistan by force and subsequent oppression of the Baloch and stealing their resources is a whole lot worse than Kashmir situation. The Baloch never agreed to be annexed to Pakistan; there was no fair and broad referendum. Jinnah sent it the army and forcefully annexed Balochistan against the will of the people. More than 200,000 Baloch have been killed since 1948, with their only fault being their demand for right to self-determination.
Kashmir has been Hindu land for over 5000 years. Kashmir acceded to India in a legal process and the Kashmir assembly passed a resolution of the same in 1954. India still honors Article 370 that prohibits non-Kashmiris from buying property in Kashmir and becoming residents, thus maintaining the pre-partition demography.
Compare this with Pakistan occupied Kashmir. in 1970's Pakistan erased the "State Subject Rule" in effect in AJK/GB/Northern areas that prohibited non Kashmiris settling down in these areas. For the truth about this read:
http://skardu.blogspot.com/2014/07/gilgit-baltistan-state-subject-rule.html
http://www.sharnoffsglobalviews.com/the-institute-for-gilgit-baltistan-studies/
https://www.facebook.com/GilgitBaltistanUnitedMovement
@Sid: It is unequal and unfair to equate Baluchistan with Kashmir. Kashmir is an internationally recognized dispute between Pakistan and India and is and unfinished business of Partition. Further, whereas Kashmir has seen wars between Pakistan and India, Baluchistan has witnessed an insurgency for much lesser period of time. Above all it is an internal matter of Pakistan, whereas Kashmir is not and internal affair of India, though India claims it to be so.
@Shanawar Hashmi: For the same reason why Pakistan will not allow Balochis to decide their faith.
I fail to understand as to why both Pakistan and India don't agree on letting the people of Kashmir decide what they want. Simply withdraw all military and allow UN designated officials to supervise the referendum. This is the only solution for those who are willing to shun their egos in the name of humanity.
There is no point in talks, after many years of talking nothing achieved. Best to leave talks alone.
concentrate on internal affairs. improve the welfare of the people.
@Gunga Din: "...the UN Resolutions are now time-barred and meaningless." Nevertheless, the Kashmir issue cannot be wished and it continues not only to mar relations between the two neighbors but continues to threaten peace in South Asia. And, it would be in the best interests of both Pakistan and India to resolve it amicably.
@Gunga Din: "...the UN Resolutions are now time-barred and meaningless." But Kashmir remains a festering sore and a grave threat to peace in South Asia. Realistically, in the interest of peace, both India and Pakistan must sincerely strive to resolve.
@Candid1,
Refer to UNCIP Resolution S/1100 Para 75 of August 13, 1948, adopted unanimously by UNSC on November 9, 1948.
The Resolution ( Truce Section reads as follows ):
(1) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.
(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.
(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.
India was however allowed to retain as many troops as it needed to maintain peace and order.
(2) Pending the acceptance of the conditions for a final settlement of the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the Commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law andorder. The Commission will have observers stationed where it deems necessary.
Pakistan never pulled back its troops from POK ( including Gilgit Baltistan, Skardu, and Muzaffarabad ). It tried to negotiate with the UN on how many troops it too could retain. That was a non-starter, allowing an invader to remain in the victim's house. Therefore, the plebiscite never happened then. And, now, after Pakistan's invasion ( Gilbraltar, Grand slam) in 1965, Pakistan's surrender and breakup in 1971 and the Shimla Accord of 1972 committing Pakistan to a bilateral solution, the UN Resolutions are now time-barred and meaningless. Every UN Secy General from Boutros Boutros Al Ghali to Kofi Annan to Ban Ki Moon has said so. Yet, Pakistanis still somehow clutch at straws.
@vinsin: The issue of removing Pak forces from Azad Kashmir was resolved through the Dixon Plan. “…Dixon received from Nehru a tentative proposal: "In Jammu the ceasefire line would become the boundary, Azad Kashmir going to Pakistan, the remainder to India. Since the latter included territory north of the Chenab River, India would also agree not to reduce `sensibly, substantially or materially' its flow. The Northern Areas would be conceded but Buddhist Ladakh in the east would remain with India. As to the Valley, which Nehru defined generously, he agreed that prima facie it was in doubt and that a plebiscite must be taken... This would, inter alia, minimise refugee movement while simplifying demilitarisation and administrative arrangements. The Valley, overwhelmingly Muslim but also Sheikh Abdullah's power base, would be subject to a vote. The major difference that arose was about the territory that India claimed automatically. Because of strong pro-Pakistan areas to the east of the ceasefire line in Jammu, Dixon felt it both unwise and mistaken to follow this closely and warned that he would argue against it." See: http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1921/stories/20021025002508200.htm
loved to the fact that most indians are angry over the issue of Pakistani PM meeting Kashmiri freedom fighters .
This stand taken by Pakistan would also backfire like many others in past two months. Pakistan needs to understand that it is no position to defy India as UN and USA support India which is quite evident from snubs received by Pakistan from both.
To all the indian trolls: Thank you for proving the PM's point. Also, stop tryuing to re-write the UN Resolutions on Kashmir. Pakistan's obligation was to remove the tribals from Kashmir, which it did, and India's obligation was to remove its military from Kashmir, which it did not. So take your lies somewhere else, you have no buyers in Pakistan.
@Menon: What about people that live in it. Does it matter what they want?
@vinsin: "There is no issue of inflexibility, UN resolutions are very clear on this, it is the Pakistan who has committed that it would move it’s army and then plebiscite to happen within a decade." Not true, Pakistan never made any such commitment although the UN resolutions called for it. But in 1950, both India and Pakistan agreed to the Dixon formula wherein both agreed to hold plebiscite in areas under their control and divide Kashmir as per the result of the plebiscite. India reneged and therefore the Kashmir issue lingers on and is a veritable threat to peace.
Statement of NS is for domestic consumption.
There are no issues with Kashmir as far as India is concerned. Jammu and Kashmir is state in the Republic and that is it.
The recent statements from Mr.Aziz, Mr.Sharif and Pakistani Govt. explain the recent LOC firings. Recent events such as Mr.Sharif's speech at the UN about Kashmir, India's cancelled the Foreign office meeting have not garnered much world attention. The only way to get the world to notice Kashmir is to stir up trouble at the border. I think this is the motivation for Pakistani military to start firing at the border ( it is no longer an 'LOC', for all practical purposes it is the official border) and the new Indian govt. appears to be more than willing to respond vigorously.
Pakistan seems to be in pre Kargill 2 Mode ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Just listen to the PM, Sartaz Aziz and COAS.
Pakistan wants a just and fair solution of Kashmir Issue ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ namely the handing over of Jammu and Kashmir and a couple of other Indian states to Pakistan.Is it too much to ask?:)
@ET - Do Pakistani's also leave any comments? Or is this space exclusively for Indians? Please try to give balanced views from both sides instead of giving this space to our very very friendly, wise, and always correct Indian firends!
Thanks.
Nawaz knows that times have changed! India under Modi will never accept this condition. So after failing to get a meeting with Modi at the forthcoming SAARC meeting and utter failure of international community to even respond to Pakistan's desperate plea for third party to get involved in Kashmir issue, our PM is now pandering to the Pakistani domestic audience.
kashmiris are talking of only 2 solutions. One is to stay with India and the other is independence. There are hardly any takers of going with pakistan. Therefore, it is now only a matter between India and Kashmiris. Pakistan has no role to play whatsoever. Infact, such statements by the Pakistani PM do not help ties between the 2 countries.
Pakistan got exactly the land as demanded by Jinnah, 25% for 25% Indian Muslims, that included Kashmiri Muslims also. Pakistan was inflexible in Bangladesh, is inflexible in case of Baluchistan. Is Pakistan ready to take all Indian Muslims or atleast those who would prefer to move? If tomorrow Indian Muslims demand for another Muslims state which they will do in future what would be Pakistan position? Separatists are not part of UN resolution.
" the prime minister said that he will consult Hurriyat leaders prior to entering negotiations with India" +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bravo....or Bravado?
What a volte-face by Nawaz Sharif! Thank you, Imran Khan!
Listen to your own adviser Mr.Sartaj Aziz's comments on BBC and you will know what India is talking about. Enough of the double-talk. The Kashmir problem is really simple. Vacate PoK and the problem is solved.
What inflexibility? We were flexible in 1947. We ended up creating a blunder. This time not a single inch of land will be spared.
So basically what he wants is flexibility as in "do a mumbai" - the mastermind and his group who are banned for their act by most of the world roam free as heroes giving press interview in his country but we should not mind it and be flexible. Do Kargil, border voilation - infiltration, behead soldiers, kill civilians but we should not retaliate and still be flexible. Talk to separatist in our "own" land india not theirs for "tea" and then violate Shimla agreement - "condition only pak and india can talk no third person." And who are these people, when there is elected representatives in jk voted by the people? Will China talk if you talk to tibetian xinjiang separatist before both country bilaterals, or india meets Baloch separatist before pakistan meet in your own country? I am glad modi is focusing economy and world trade and solving country's problems and not on countries with no such ambitions but conflicts. We had enough of their guns and roses strategy.
I do agree that India has created Kashmir issue. But I disagree that Pakistan is not harboring terrorist. Dawood Ibrahim, Masood Azhar, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar and people who were involved in mumbai 2008 attacks are still in Pakistan.
There is no issue of inflexibility, UN resolutions are very clear on this, it is the Pakistan who has committed that it would move it's army and then plebiscite to happen within a decade. UN resolution is same as what Jinnah committed to Mountbatten. As long as Pakistan army is there UN cannot do and will not do anything.
PM in action. Mr. PM we need this kind of attitude from you, not the one which you had for past 16 + months.
at this time nawaz sharitf last mistake in breakdown his government last time saved shariff family saudia arabia but now people of pakistani not give chance
Keep consulting.They will solve the issue.India won't start any dialogue in near future