A malicious map of the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir was posted on social media and a US website. This map showed the disputed Jammu and Kashmir and Aksai Chin as part of the Indian Union. The USA later removed the controversial map.
In the past also India tried to hoodwink the international community by misrepresenting reality (Chanakya’s maya yuddha, warfare by deceit).
India is always on the lookout to hoodwink the international community, particularly the USA. The USA needs to be more circumspect vis-a-vis wily India. As the phrase goes `When America Sneezes, the World Catches Cold’ (Klemens Wenzel Furst von Metternich).
At India’s behest, US Congressman Stephen Solarz elicited the statement from Bush Administration high-level diplomat, John H. Kelly, that plebiscite was no longer possible in Kashmir.
Here is an extract of Solarz’s grilling questions and the gullible answers thereto.
Mr. Solarz: What is the position of the United States with respect to whether there should be a plebiscite?
Mr. Kelly: First of all we believe that Kashmir is a disputed territory…
Mr. Solarz: Well, how did we vote upon that resolution at the U.N. back in 1949?
Mr. Kelly: In favor, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Solarz: Right. So at that time we favored a plebiscite. Do we still favor a plebiscite, or not? Or is it our position now that whether or not there should be a plebiscite is a matter, which should be determined bilaterally between India and Pakistan?
Mr. Kelly: Basically, that’s right, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Solarz: So we are no longer urging a plebiscite be held?
Mr. Kelly: That’s right.
To India’s chagrin, John R. Mallot, the US State Department’s point man for South Asia in 1993, corrected Kelly’s faux pas. He told the House Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee on Asia and the Pacific on April 28, 1993 that John Kelly ‘misspoke’ in 1990 when he said that the USA no longer believed a plebiscite was necessary in South Asia. Mallot clarified that Kelly made his comment after ‘continued grilling’ by the panel’s (pro-India) chairman, Stephen J. Solarz of New York.
Avid readers may refer to the Solarz-Kelly conversation and corrective policy action taken by the US State Department in Robert G. Wirsing’s book India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir Dispute. They may also see Mushtaqur Rehman’s Divided Kashmir: Old Problems, New Opportunities for India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri People.
The Kashmir conflict is a maleficent legacy of the British raj. India, not Pakistan, took the Kashmir issue to the UN in 1948 under article 35 of Chapter VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes) which outlines the means for a peaceful settlement of disputes. India avoided presenting the Kashmir case under the UN Chapter VII which relates to acts of aggression. Obviously, it did so because it knew that Kashmir was a disputed state. And, the issue of its integration with India or Pakistan remained to be resolved.
Many a time, India and Pakistan went to fisticuffs to settle this dispute. Following their first war on Kashmir, both India and Pakistan accepted a ceasefire from 1 January 1949 under supervision of UN observers. No UN resolution incorporates India’s view that the Maharajah had acceded to India. The main resolutions on Kashmir are: (a) United Nations’ Commission for India Pakistan (UNCIP) Resolution dated August 13, 1948. Para 75 (Serial110) in Part III of this resolution states ` The Government of India and the 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 and to that end, upon acceptance of the 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. (b) The UNCIP Resolution dated January 5, 1949 Para 51 (Serial 1196) states ‘The question of 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’.
Despite lapse of decades, India has not fulfilled its promise of a plebiscite in Kashmir. It ‘annexed’ a part of it. It annexed Junagadh though it had acceded to Pakistan. India’s attitude negates the cardinal principles in inter-state relations, that is, pacta sunt servanda` treaties are to be observed’ and are binding upon signatories. The UN observers are still on duty on the line of actual control. They submit an annual report to the UN’s secretary general. This report identifies Kashmir as an unresolved international problem.
On 2 November 1947, Nehru declared in a radio broadcast that the government of India was “prepared, when peace and order have been established in Kashmir, to have a referendum held under international auspices like the United Nations.”
Till 1953, India was, at least verbally, committed to the plebiscite. But, in subsequent periods, it had been making frantic efforts to warp the United Nation Organization and woo the USA in her favour. It began to say that UN resolutions are mediatory, not mandatory. Nehru’s perfidious stand on Kashmir is exposed in Avtar Singh Bhasin’s 10-volume documentary study (2012) of India-Pakistan Relations 1947-2007. It contains 3,649 official documents which gave new perspectives to Nehru’s state of mind. In his 2018 book, India, Pakistan: Neighbours at Odds, Bhasin debunked Nehru.
The UN even admonished India on the accession’ farce. Aware of India’s intention to get the ‘Instrument of Accession’ rubber-stamped by the puppet occupied Kashmir assembly, the Security Council passed two resolutions to forestall the foreseeable accession’ by the puppet assembly. Security Council’s Resolution No 9 of March 30, 1951 and affirmative Resolution No 122 of March 24, 1957 outlaws accession or any other action to change status of the Jammu and Kashmir state.
Despite lapse of decades, India has not fulfilled its promise of a plebiscite in Kashmir. It ‘annexed’ a part of it. It annexed Junagadh though it had acceded to Pakistan. India’s attitude negates the cardinal principles in inter-state relations, that is, pacta sunt servanda`treaties are to be observed’ and are binding upon signatories. The UN observers are still on duty on the line of actual control. They submit an annual report to the UN’s secretary general. This report identifies Kashmir as an unresolved international problem.
Source: Pakistan today
Note: Shafaqna do not endorse the views expressed in the articl e