UN failed to fulfill its promises on Kashmir: Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai
WASHINGTON, D.C. Aug 13 (SABAH): The people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the global Kashmiri diaspora will observe the 76th anniversary of unimplemented United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolution of August 13, 1948. The UNCIP submitted proposals to the two governments. Formulated as resolution, it constituted an international agreement upon being accepted in writing by both governments of India and Pakistan.
Part III of the Commission’s resolution of 13 August 1948, agreed to by both India and Pakistan, states: “The governments of India and 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 and, to that end, upon acceptance of their truce agreement , both governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.”
“India, however, was soon undeceived of its delusions over Kashmir’s political yearning. Recognizing that its people would never freely vote accession to India, it contrived excuse after excuse to frustrate a plebiscite. The irony of the fate is that even President Biden would like India to be the member of the Security Council whose resolutions have been blatantly violated by India right from 1948.
We still believe that Biden Administration despite its huge trade agreements with India can and should, lead the effort to achieve a fair and lasting settlement of the dispute – fair to the people most immediately involved and fair to its own commitments to democracy and human rights. By doing so, the United States can strengthen the principles of a just world order. It will also earn the gratitude of generations in Kashmir, in Pakistan and even in India itself,” this was stated by Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Chairman, World Forum for Peace & Justice.
Dr. Fai added that it may not be extraordinary if Antony Blinken, the Secretary of State revisits UN archives and reads what Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. of the United States said at the Security Council on February 15, 1957, “What do these resolutions (on Kashmir) call for? The resolutions of 13 August 1948 set out in successive stages a cease-fire, a truce agreement and the determination of the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the will of the people.”
And again, Ambassador Warren Austin said at the Security Council meeting # 235 on January 24, 1948, “…When India accepted the accession of Kashmir, it made its act stand for a great principle by stating as a part of the acceptance, that it was conditional on fair plebiscite being held to determine the will of the people of Kashmir with respect to accession. I think an example was made in history at that point.”
“But, today, India violates the basic right to the people of Kashmir, like freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom of travel, freedom of assembly and above all freedom to choose their destiny to be a part of India or Pakistan or remain independent. But that freedom to choose has to take place in an atmosphere that is free from coercion, intimidation and the military occupation by 900,000 Indian military and paramilitary forces who pillage and kill at will.
On the top of that India’s design to change the demography of Kashmir by enacting Domicile Law and issuing more thana 4.3 million Domicile Certificates is in violation of international law and in particular in violation of UN Security Council resolution # 91 of 1951 and 122 of 1957 which clearly states that any unilateral material changes by either party could not constitute a solution of the Kashmir dispute,” Fai emphasized.
Dr. Fai asked: Doesn’t Narendra Modi know what Mahatma Gandhi, the founder of nation of India has said that “Kashmir’s real rulers were its people and not its Maharajas. They (Kashmiris) should be left free to decide for themselves.” (Gandhi’s Passion by Professor Stanley Wolpert, Page 247). Ought Prime Minister Modi not agree to the assurance given by Mahatma Gandhi to the people of Kashmir?
And what about the commitment given by Sir Gopalaswami Ayyanger, the Indian delegate to the United Nations at the Security Council on January 15, 1948, “When the Indian Independence Act came into force, Jammu and Kashmir, like other states, became free to decide whether it would accede to the one or the other of the tow dominions, or remain independent.”
And the assurance given by Sir Benegal Rama Rau, the Indian delegate during the Security Council on March 1, 1951, “The people of Kashmir are not mere chattels to be disposed of according to a rigid formula; their future must be decided on their own interest and in accordance with their own desires.”
“I believe that the consistent application of human rights standards would allow a just and peaceful resolution of the seventy-seven-year-old issue. It would directly help India to extricate itself from the quagmire of international conflicts and accumulation of weaponry, to realize its economic and technological potential and truly rise to the stature of a great power. It would also release Pakistan from a crippling economic burden. It would thus bring the lasting credit of United States foreign policy. The refusal of omission to take a well-considered initiative neither responds to a long-term peace strategy nor answers the demand of the human conscience,” Fai concluded.