Kashmir Dispute, Pakistan and the Un Resolutions

By Dr Shabir Choudhry

It is almost a ritual that the new army chief of Pakistan gives a strong statement against India to assure his people that he is also a brave soldier and is fully prepared to take on India. However, the new army chief of Pakistan, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, in his statement sent two messages. While speaking to his soldiers about line of control violations during a visit to the X Corps Rawalpindi, he said, Each violation of any kind must be responded to with full force in the most effective manner.
After assuring his countrymen that he will also be tough with India, he, to the surprise of some, also sent a peace message when he said, The situation at the line of control will hopefully improve soon.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse UK
• Release date: Jan 18, 2017
• ISBN: 9781524667818

Dr Shabir Choudhry

DR SHABIR CHOUDHRY is a renowned Kashmiri intellectual, writer, scholar and a senior leader of United Kashmir Peoples National Party. Throughout his adult life, he has championed the cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir with secular and liberal society. He has courageously spoken for the rights of minorities and oppressed people, and has been a victim of Pakistani establishment.

Book preview

1. PREFACE

What UN Security Council asked India and Pakistan to do?

It is almost a ritual that the new Army Chief of Pakistan gives a strong statement against India to assure his people that he is also a brave soldier, and is fully prepared to take on India. However, the new Army Chief of Pakistan General Qamar Javed Bajwa in his statement sent two messages. While speaking to his soldiers about Line Of Control violations during a visit to the 10 Corps Rawalpindi, he said:

Each violation of any kind must be responded to with full force in the most effective manner. 1

After assuring his countrymen that he will also be tough with India; he, to surprise of some, also sent a peace message when he said: The situation at the Line of Control will hopefully improve soon.

If peace prevails along the Line of Control we will welcome that because we people of Jammu and Kashmir suffer on both sides of the divide as bombs fired do not distinguish between Muslims and no Muslims or between civilians and men in uniform.

The General also reportedly expressed his hope that the Kashmir dispute will be resolved in accordance with the UN Resolutions. I hope that the respectable General has read the UN Resolutions which demand from Pakistan the following:

A. (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. 2

It must be pointed out that India was only asked to withdraw ‘bulk’ of their troops and not all. Pakistan was asked to withdraw all the troops and Pakistani civilians who went there for purpose of fighting because Pakistan was perceived as an aggressor. This is what the UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948 said on this topic:

B. (1) ‘When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission’.

The Pakistani policy makers are criticised for blunders they have committed over the years; but one can compliment them for their shrewd Kashmir policy. They were not a party to the dispute, because after the ‘provisional accession’ the matter was between India and the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Despite odds against Pakistan they did not give up, not only they made themselves a party to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, they have also been calling shots on Jammu and Kashmir and India had been only reacting.

Apart from that they have made China a party to the dispute; and have presented India as a ‘villain’ on Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan successfully made this dispute a religious one; and an issue of an accession and not independence. By and large, Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir State are influenced by the propaganda of Pakistan and they believe Pakistan is their friend, a big brother and a well wisher.

Even though it was Pakistan which refused to comply with terms of the UN Resolutions; and yet they have successfully presented India as a villain country which refused to implement the UN Resolutions.

People sometimes complain that Pakistan has hand in so and so terrorist incident, and ask why they are not accepting it or do something to control non state actors. No country accepts this kind of activity. In any case, did they accept:

• Responsibility of 22 October 1947 attack on Jammu and Kashmir that resulted in death of tens of thousands of men, women and children and kidnapping and rapes of women and forced division of Jammu and Kashmir?

• They requested the UN Security Council to change the name of the complaint from Jammu and Kashmir question to India and Pakistan question?

• They requested the UN Security Council to change the phrase ‘Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people’ with: ‘The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite’. With this move Pakistan limited the choice of people of Jammu and Kashmir to joining either India or Pakistan? This surely is a right of accession and not a right of self determination, which they propagate.

• They refused to withdraw Pakistani troops and individuals from the State of Jammu and Kashmir as demanded by the UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948? Under their propaganda nearly all Pakistanis and many Kashmiris say India did not honour the UN Resolutions.

• That they sent army in Kashmir in 1965 as Kashmiri Mujahedeen to liberate Kashmir, a project known as Operation Gibraltar? This led to India Pakistan war in September 1965.

• They started a proxy war in name of Jihad and under the code name of Operation Topac in Jammu and Kashmir; which resulted in killing of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, rapes destruction and human rights abuses of all kinds?

• This proxy war in name of jihad has continued since 1990, and innocent people are killed. In order to continue this proxy war Pakistani agencies recruit people from Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries and send them to Kashmir, which hurts people of Jammu and Kashmir; and sadly it has changed fundamental character of our society and struggle.

• It is best not to talk of their involvement in Khalistan Movement and other Movements going on in India, as they are not directly related to Jammu and Kashmir, although this proves Pakistani involvement in India. However, I must add that India is also accused of interfering in matters of Pakistan.

Difference in two struggles

Struggle in Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir is different to the struggle we have in Pakistani occupied Jammu and Kashmir and in Gilgit Baltistan. In Indian Occupied Kashmir struggle was militant in nature where militants were trained and equipped with weapons by the Pakistani secret agencies. Struggle in Pakistani Occupied Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan is peaceful and democratic in nature.

There is an old saying, violence breeds more violence and hatred breeds more hatred. The struggle in IOK was violent and was based on hatred and religious intolerance. Struggle in POK and Gilgit Baltistan is not violent and is not based on hatred and religious intolerance.

Despite this major difference there are human rights violations on the both sides of the divide. I agree on the Indian side there are far more causalities and human rights abuses; but people forget that response to a use of gun is always with a gun or guns, and not with bouquet of flowers. Where the struggle is hundred per cent peaceful, and is not based on hatred and religious intolerance; and still if there are human rights abuses and fatalities then that is a very serious crime.

In response to firing of India and Pakistan along the Line of Control, people of Neelum arranged a Peace March in which thousands of people took part. Message was clear and loud: we want peace, and please don’t kill us.

It was also encouraging that despite fears and rumours the Indian army who witnessed the peace march did not fire at the protesters. In other words they had no objection if unarmed people wanted to protest against across the LOC firing.

Encouraged by this, people of Hajira (POK) also organised a Peace March towards the Line of Control. The Nationalist parties supported this Peace March; and the protestors were waving white flags. Their demand was we want to live in peace, please stop LOC firing.

Some analysts claim peace does not suit people with vested interests; and there are many on the Pakistani side of the divide too. Professor Sajjad Raja, former President Jammu Kashmir National Awami Party, UK says:

‘The protesters wanted to send a message of PEACE, LOVE and HARMONY to India. But the protesters were stopped by the Police and were not allowed to reach the Cease Fire Line. As the protesters insisted to reach the CFL and to give their message of PEACE and LOVE to India, the Police baton charged the protesters and used teargas to disperse them. Many protesters were injured.

1/ This act of Police have raised many questions: Why did Police not allow the Peace March to proceed right up to the CFL?

2/ Should we take it as an attempt by POJK government and ruling Pakistani agencies to stop the people giving any message of LOVE and PEACE to India?

3/ Does it mean that Pakistani agencies and POJK government don’t want any PEACE with India and instead wish to continue the armed conflict where more and more civilians are killed?

4/ Why do PAKISTANI AGENCIES oppose any initiative of PEACE and LOVE by the people of POJK?’ 3

Professor Sajjad Raja further writes:

‘In fact Pakistan wants to continue armed conflict across CFL just to propagate that people of Jammu and Kashmir are being killed by Indian forces.

People of Jammu and Kashmir are being used as animals of sacrifice to achieve Pakistani objectives.

But we, the people of Jammu and Kashmir, condemn this Pakistani policy in strongest possible words and demand immediate secession of hostilities at CFL. We want to live in peace and wish to resolve the J&K issue through peaceful and democratic means. We don’t want our people to be killed mercilessly in a useless and never ending Indian and Pakistani conflict.’ 4

Retired Brigadier Anil Gupta claims that Pakistan is involved in Hybrid War against India. According to him, tools of hybrid war include: conventional warfare, irregular warfare, economic warfare, cyber warfare, subversion, criminal acts, Special Ops, information warfare or propaganda and violence. In hybrid war, conflicts are as much political as military.’ 5

He further claims that ‘Pakistan continues to use terrorism as an instrument of state policy. A section of Indian elite is also a tool of Pakistan’s hybrid warfare against India’. 6 It is interesting that Pakistan also makes similar claims against India, so it becomes difficult who to believe.

A prominent Pakistani diplomat Ashraf Jahangir Qazi while criticising Pakistan’s foreign policy says much of what was said in Amritsar in the Heart of Asia Conference is shared by the World community; and holds Pakistani policy makers responsible for that. He says:

‘Control of our Afghanistan and India policies remain with those who are neither authorised nor qualified for the task. The situation is similar for much of our domestic security and political policies’. 7

The learned diplomat argues about logic of maintaining ‘India-centric’ foreign policy’; and urged Pakistan to ‘move towards a more sustainable working relationship pending a breakthrough on the core concerns of both countries i.e. Jammu and Kashmir and the use of terrorist violence including non-state actors as policy instruments’. He believes continued uncertainty, tension and violence will surely deter potential investors which is essential for a ‘sustainable growth rate’ to reduce unemployment. 8

He points out that international establishment is only concerned about dangers of nuclear conflict. In his opinion, ‘they will not countenance any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan in any foreseeable situation’... and that ‘Pakistan must address India’s core concerns and move towards a principled compromise settlement acceptable to the Kashmiris.’ 9

This is perhaps easy for Ashraf Jehangir Qazi to say or write after retirement, but he knows that this is the foreign policy area where bloody civilians have no say. Many foreign policy experts and analyst believe that those who are in charge of this area of foreign policy don’t like peace or friendship, as this helped them to keep control of many levers of power.

Peace, friendship and political and economic stability in the region may not be a priority of the Pakistani elite, but surely people want peace, especially people of forcibly divided Jammu and Kashmir. In this regard, a Kashmiri leader Professor Sajjad Raja, former President JKNAP UK, said:

‘We want PEACE. We want to live with love and friendship. We don’t want to kill and to be killed. We only believe in peaceful democratic struggle.

India and Pakistan both must stop this shelling and firing across Cease Fire Line. On both sides of the LINE innocent civilian citizens of the State of Jammu and Kashmir are killed, their properties are destroyed and their lives have been turned into a living hell. This is not acceptable. Let India and Pakistan try their military might on their international borders. We would have no objections. But we can’t bear it all silently. India and Pakistan should fight, but not in the name of the people of J&K.’10

It must be understood that the Jammu and Kashmir dispute is very complex, and has many dimensions; however it is not a territorial dispute and it is not a religious dispute as Pakistan their foot soldiers try to present. The former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir is multi religious and multi ethnic state, and any decision based on religion will repeat tragic drama of 1947.

Pakistani leaders and officials repeatedly tell lies to fool people of Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir that they want solution of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the UN Security Resolution, knowing full well that Pakistan refused to comply with the demands of the Resolution. In 1972 both India and Pakistan agreed to resolve the Jammu and Kashmir dispute bilaterally; and since that date term of reference on Kashmir at international level is the Simla Agreement, and not the UN Security Resolutions. So why keep telling to the people?

In this book I have tried to discuss various aspects of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, and hope that the readers will be better informed after reading this book.

Dr Shabir Choudhry

Chairman South Asia Watch, London

09 December 2016.

References:

1. Daily Times, Pakistan, 06.12. 2016. http://dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/06-Dec-16/baneful-discourse

2. UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948, part 2

3. https://www.facebook.com/oneninewholesellers

/posts/1266927403329694?notif_t=like_tagged

¬if_id=1481193674561199

4. ibid

5. Is India Prepared To Deal With Hybrid War? DECEMBER 8, 2016 HTTP://WWW.EURASIAREVIEW.COM/08122016-IS-INDIA-PREPARED-TO-DEAL-WITH-HYBRID-WAR-ANALYSIS/

6. ibid

7. Old Challenge new approach, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, former ambassador to the US, India and China and head of UN missions in Iraq and Sudan. Dawn, December 6th, 2016

8. ibid

9. ibid

10. https://www.facebook.com/oneninewholesellers/posts/1266927403329694?notif_t=like_tagged¬if_id

=1481193674561199

2. BIRTH OF PAKISTAN AND CREATION OF THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR DISPUTE

We must look at the origins of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, and what role Pakistan played in creation of this conflict, that has caused so many problems in South Asia; and which continue to endanger peace and stability of the region. However, it is pertinent to briefly explain how Pakistan was created, which resulted in death of more than half million people. Tens of thousands of human beings were ruthlessly killed before the Partition of India - before Pakistan was created; Hundreds of thousands were butchered and burnt alive during the Partition process, and killing, victimisation and suffering has not ended yet.

Muslims of undivided India were led to believe that they must establish a separate country for Muslims where they can practise Islam. They were told it was not possible anymore to share the same country with Hindus and Sikhs, and believers of other faiths, even though they lived side by side for centuries.

There is plenty of evidence to prove that Pakistan was not established to serve Muslims and Islam. I agree name of Islam was used to motivate and inspire Muslims. I will not spend too much time discussing about creation of Pakistan, as it is not the topic; and in any case people who have been fed lies in name of religion for the past 70 years will not believe anything other than what they have been preached.

Mardan Ali Shah Pir of Pagara, a powerful religious and political leader who openly claimed that he was a spokesman of the GHQ of Pakistan, pronounced that ‘Pakistan was established by the British’.1 He was part of the powerful establishment and was taken as the voice of the powerful army which ruled Pakistan directly or indirectly for many decades.

Some excerpts of his interview are now published again. He claimed communal riots were planned to create religious hatred among the followers of different religions. 2 (One can understand what the idea behind these riots was). He said to the interviewing panel, ‘If you want to hear truth then, according to my information the British Government had decided to establish a Muslim State in India before the Pakistan Resolution was passed by the Muslim League. When Wali Khan gave an interview regarding this, he was called by President General Zia Ul Haq to explain this further. In return he sent a photo copy to General Zia Ul Haq which unambiguously explained that a decision to establish a Muslim State was taken before 1940. After reading this, Zia Ul Haq was silenced.’ 3

When the Panel demanded some evidence to support this further, Pir Pagara said: ‘The British