Agenda
Kashmir conflict of 1948
Far from the Maddening Crowd
International Press (IP) reporter Harsha Sista, reporting from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), writes about how one’s past affects one’s future, even if the one in question is a legal document.
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) occupies the highest rung in the hierarchy of the organs of the United Nations (UN). Its task is to preserve world peace and to effectively manage any crisis that may arise. All member countries are expected to abide by the resolutions it passes due to the gravity of the events concerned.
When the 3rd Session of the UNSC convened on 1 March 1948, the topic under discussion was the conflicted region of Kashmir. In the session, a lot of importance was given to past resolutions, passed by the UNSC, regarding the issue. In order to discuss this in more detail, a moderated caucus was initiated by the delegates. Resolution 38, dated 17 January 1948 and Resolution 39, dated 20 January 1948, were the ones under discussion. The former talked about steadying the situation through mutual dialogue, while the latter established the formation of a three-member commission to investigate the conflict area.
The Delegate of India established that there were tribal groups and militants present illegally in the country and, in order to conduct a proper plebiscite, they should be pushed out of the country first. The Delegate of Pakistan, on the other hand, questioned the plausibility of the commission, but said that if India was willing to cooperate, then Pakistan would welcome it.
With the two sides of the discussion established, the other delegates brought out their own points to supplement the arguments. The Delegate of France pointed out that a bigger commission would involve more discussion, and thus, lesser bias than the existing three-member commission. This point was brought up by a few more delegates, later in the discussion, and was generally agreed upon.
The Delegate of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) took the side of India, and said that it would act as a mediator between the two disputing parties, because it had the capacity and resources to do so. This shows that the USSR wants to get involved more in world politics, so that it can compete with the United States of America (USA) and cement its place as one of the world’s influential political players.
The USA condemned the branding of Pakistan as an evil country without sufficient proof, and questioned the abstentions of the USSR and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Clearly supporting Pakistan’s cause, this showed that the USA was trying to divert attention to the USSR instead of sticking to the discussion on the resolutions.
The Delegate of Belgium pointed out the non-binding nature of the resolutions, but this aspect was not discussed much in the committee. The discussion deviated from the topic, sometimes, with the withdrawal of Pakistani troops from the disputed region being the favourite distraction. This, however, was agreed to be the most logical way to hold a free and fair referendum in the region.
Although there was an extensive discussion on the merits and the faults of the mentioned resolutions of the UNSC in the committee, it did not help much in reaching a conclusion because of two factors - the Delegate of India still stuck to the stance that Kashmir legally belonged to India, while the delegate of Pakistan stuck to his stance that it is merely a disputed region, wrongly conquered, and that the presence of Pakistani troops is justified. The discussion did bring out fruitful points, though, which helped direct the committee towards the next stage of the conflict – possible solutions.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) occupies the highest rung in the hierarchy of the organs of the United Nations (UN). Its task is to preserve world peace and to effectively manage any crisis that may arise. All member countries are expected to abide by the resolutions it passes due to the gravity of the events concerned.
When the 3rd Session of the UNSC convened on 1 March 1948, the topic under discussion was the conflicted region of Kashmir. In the session, a lot of importance was given to past resolutions, passed by the UNSC, regarding the issue. In order to discuss this in more detail, a moderated caucus was initiated by the delegates. Resolution 38, dated 17 January 1948 and Resolution 39, dated 20 January 1948, were the ones under discussion. The former talked about steadying the situation through mutual dialogue, while the latter established the formation of a three-member commission to investigate the conflict area.
The Delegate of India established that there were tribal groups and militants present illegally in the country and, in order to conduct a proper plebiscite, they should be pushed out of the country first. The Delegate of Pakistan, on the other hand, questioned the plausibility of the commission, but said that if India was willing to cooperate, then Pakistan would welcome it.
With the two sides of the discussion established, the other delegates brought out their own points to supplement the arguments. The Delegate of France pointed out that a bigger commission would involve more discussion, and thus, lesser bias than the existing three-member commission. This point was brought up by a few more delegates, later in the discussion, and was generally agreed upon.
The Delegate of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) took the side of India, and said that it would act as a mediator between the two disputing parties, because it had the capacity and resources to do so. This shows that the USSR wants to get involved more in world politics, so that it can compete with the United States of America (USA) and cement its place as one of the world’s influential political players.
The USA condemned the branding of Pakistan as an evil country without sufficient proof, and questioned the abstentions of the USSR and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Clearly supporting Pakistan’s cause, this showed that the USA was trying to divert attention to the USSR instead of sticking to the discussion on the resolutions.
The Delegate of Belgium pointed out the non-binding nature of the resolutions, but this aspect was not discussed much in the committee. The discussion deviated from the topic, sometimes, with the withdrawal of Pakistani troops from the disputed region being the favourite distraction. This, however, was agreed to be the most logical way to hold a free and fair referendum in the region.
Although there was an extensive discussion on the merits and the faults of the mentioned resolutions of the UNSC in the committee, it did not help much in reaching a conclusion because of two factors - the Delegate of India still stuck to the stance that Kashmir legally belonged to India, while the delegate of Pakistan stuck to his stance that it is merely a disputed region, wrongly conquered, and that the presence of Pakistani troops is justified. The discussion did bring out fruitful points, though, which helped direct the committee towards the next stage of the conflict – possible solutions.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
The Executive Angle
International Press (IP) reporter Harsha Sista interviews the Vice-Chairperson of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Ayush R, on the 1948 crisis in Kashmir.
1. As the Vice-Chairperson of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), how useful do you think the UNSC is in actually curbing conflicts that have blown up into a state of war?
Ans: The UNSC has been selectively effective. Being brutally honest, we have not been the most effective or the most efficient organisation. The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) or the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) are idealistic committees and work for the development of all countries. Everybody can come to a consensus. However, the UNSC does not work that way. It has one very important aspect that is imbibed into it – the foreign policy of countries. Regardless of what is happening, if the country’s interests are not being met, they do not really care about how many people are dying, or if a war is breaking out somewhere. Usually, it is these interests and the limitation of foreign policy which has led to vetoes being exercised by the Soviet Union, until the end of the Cold War, and the United States of America (USA), thereafter, on several resolutions. So, in terms of how effective it could have been, it could have been really effective, but it hasn’t been that effective in reality.
2. Do you personally think that Maharaja Hari Singh could have done something so that the accession might have taken place without a glitch?
Ans. Interesting question. Now, Maharaja Hari Singh could have probably played his cards earlier. He thought that Kashmir would try to remain an independent state by negotiating with both India and Pakistan. An interesting fact is that the President of the National Conference, Sheikh Abdullah, visited Pakistan first. Muhammad Ali Jinnah thought that he did not need to meet him because Kashmir was already in his pocket. A dejected and humiliated Sheikh Abdullah returned and then supported the accession of Kashmir to India. What Maharaja Hari Singh could have done better is that he could have taken sides earlier so that he would not have been forced to take a decision. He thought that he could stand out as an independent state, in between two newly-declared independent states, but that did not happen.
3. Do you think that the commission established by the UNSC Resolution 39 will actually be effective in coming up with a viable solution?
Ans. No. In the context of the council, nothing really has changed thus far and, hence, a viable solution seems unlikely.
4. After the update talking about the deployment of Pakistani infantry brigades in various parts of Kashmir, how do you think the countries not directly involved will react?
Ans. It depends on who they are backing. Pakistan has a legitimate claim that when such a thing happened in Junagadh, where were the rest of the countries? Everybody else is letting bygones be bygones, but are accusing Pakistan of playing a two-faced role in the committee. There will probably be a lot of slack that Pakistan faces, but, in terms of its country’s interests and its country’s policies, this is exactly what they do. Actually, I would not be surprised if there are more brigades hiding out somewhere in Kashmir.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
1. As the Vice-Chairperson of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), how useful do you think the UNSC is in actually curbing conflicts that have blown up into a state of war?
Ans: The UNSC has been selectively effective. Being brutally honest, we have not been the most effective or the most efficient organisation. The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) or the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) are idealistic committees and work for the development of all countries. Everybody can come to a consensus. However, the UNSC does not work that way. It has one very important aspect that is imbibed into it – the foreign policy of countries. Regardless of what is happening, if the country’s interests are not being met, they do not really care about how many people are dying, or if a war is breaking out somewhere. Usually, it is these interests and the limitation of foreign policy which has led to vetoes being exercised by the Soviet Union, until the end of the Cold War, and the United States of America (USA), thereafter, on several resolutions. So, in terms of how effective it could have been, it could have been really effective, but it hasn’t been that effective in reality.
2. Do you personally think that Maharaja Hari Singh could have done something so that the accession might have taken place without a glitch?
Ans. Interesting question. Now, Maharaja Hari Singh could have probably played his cards earlier. He thought that Kashmir would try to remain an independent state by negotiating with both India and Pakistan. An interesting fact is that the President of the National Conference, Sheikh Abdullah, visited Pakistan first. Muhammad Ali Jinnah thought that he did not need to meet him because Kashmir was already in his pocket. A dejected and humiliated Sheikh Abdullah returned and then supported the accession of Kashmir to India. What Maharaja Hari Singh could have done better is that he could have taken sides earlier so that he would not have been forced to take a decision. He thought that he could stand out as an independent state, in between two newly-declared independent states, but that did not happen.
3. Do you think that the commission established by the UNSC Resolution 39 will actually be effective in coming up with a viable solution?
Ans. No. In the context of the council, nothing really has changed thus far and, hence, a viable solution seems unlikely.
4. After the update talking about the deployment of Pakistani infantry brigades in various parts of Kashmir, how do you think the countries not directly involved will react?
Ans. It depends on who they are backing. Pakistan has a legitimate claim that when such a thing happened in Junagadh, where were the rest of the countries? Everybody else is letting bygones be bygones, but are accusing Pakistan of playing a two-faced role in the committee. There will probably be a lot of slack that Pakistan faces, but, in terms of its country’s interests and its country’s policies, this is exactly what they do. Actually, I would not be surprised if there are more brigades hiding out somewhere in Kashmir.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
Back Off Now, or Forever be Silenced
International Press (IP) reporter, Harsha Sista, reporting from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), writes about the role of tribal forces in the Kashmir conflict of 1948, and how they affected the civilised people.
The main reason why Pakistan is contesting India’s claim to Kashmir is because Pakistan believes that the Muslim majority of Kashmir would have acceded to Pakistan, instead of India. India, on the other hand, says that the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir is legal, and that a dispute should not arise because of it. When this matter was brought to the notice of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), most of the delegates agreed that a referendum was the most effective way to solve this situation.
However, the primary obstacle in this plan are the tribal forces, allegedly backed by Pakistan, who are present in the conflict region. In order to remove these tribal forces and ensure a smooth referendum, the committee discussed the importance of the removal of these forces and Pakistani troops from the conflict region through the medium of a moderated caucus.
The Delegate of India immediately established that a referendum could take place only when the forces are removed immediately, and the commission talked about in UNSC Resolution 39 came into effect. On the other hand, the Delegate of Pakistan accused India of trying to strip the tribals of their rights. He said that these tribals were only carrying weapons because they realised that violence was the only way to deal with India.
Many countries agreed that removal of troops from both sides was the way to go, but the involved parties – India and Pakistan, kept playing the blame game. Since there were only two sides to this debate, the other countries had to take a side or remain neutral. The United States of America (USA) was the strongest proponent of Pakistan’s cause - he said that the people of Kashmir do not support Maharaja Hari Singh and are protesting for their rights. The Delegate of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic (USSR) asked Pakistan to stop funding the rebels who infringe on the rights of the people of Kashmir. This showed that the USA was strongly against India having Kashmir, while the USSR, although pretending to be neutral, supported India’s cause partially.
At this point, there was an update in the committee stating that there was a coup d’état in Junagadh, which caused the discussion to move in a slightly different direction. The Delegate of USA said that the update further proved that the Indian claim to Kashmir was illogical. The Delegate of Belgium, however, said that Pakistani insurgents entered India, sparking India to retaliate. The Delegate of Ukraine Soviet Socialists Republic brought a fresh perspective to the committee, saying that that coup was a trap set by Pakistan to bait the Indian Army. This point, however, was lost in the general discussion.
This update strengthened the belief of many delegates that the immediate removal of troops was the best step to a peaceful solution. India and Pakistan, however, were not on the same page and their stances were aptly summarised by the Delegate of India’s statement, “any effort by the Pakistani Government to aid the coup would be considered an act of aggression.”
Thus, the discussion was not as fruitful as it initially promised to be, and the prospect of removal of troops from either side looked to be bleak.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
The main reason why Pakistan is contesting India’s claim to Kashmir is because Pakistan believes that the Muslim majority of Kashmir would have acceded to Pakistan, instead of India. India, on the other hand, says that the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir is legal, and that a dispute should not arise because of it. When this matter was brought to the notice of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), most of the delegates agreed that a referendum was the most effective way to solve this situation.
However, the primary obstacle in this plan are the tribal forces, allegedly backed by Pakistan, who are present in the conflict region. In order to remove these tribal forces and ensure a smooth referendum, the committee discussed the importance of the removal of these forces and Pakistani troops from the conflict region through the medium of a moderated caucus.
The Delegate of India immediately established that a referendum could take place only when the forces are removed immediately, and the commission talked about in UNSC Resolution 39 came into effect. On the other hand, the Delegate of Pakistan accused India of trying to strip the tribals of their rights. He said that these tribals were only carrying weapons because they realised that violence was the only way to deal with India.
Many countries agreed that removal of troops from both sides was the way to go, but the involved parties – India and Pakistan, kept playing the blame game. Since there were only two sides to this debate, the other countries had to take a side or remain neutral. The United States of America (USA) was the strongest proponent of Pakistan’s cause - he said that the people of Kashmir do not support Maharaja Hari Singh and are protesting for their rights. The Delegate of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic (USSR) asked Pakistan to stop funding the rebels who infringe on the rights of the people of Kashmir. This showed that the USA was strongly against India having Kashmir, while the USSR, although pretending to be neutral, supported India’s cause partially.
At this point, there was an update in the committee stating that there was a coup d’état in Junagadh, which caused the discussion to move in a slightly different direction. The Delegate of USA said that the update further proved that the Indian claim to Kashmir was illogical. The Delegate of Belgium, however, said that Pakistani insurgents entered India, sparking India to retaliate. The Delegate of Ukraine Soviet Socialists Republic brought a fresh perspective to the committee, saying that that coup was a trap set by Pakistan to bait the Indian Army. This point, however, was lost in the general discussion.
This update strengthened the belief of many delegates that the immediate removal of troops was the best step to a peaceful solution. India and Pakistan, however, were not on the same page and their stances were aptly summarised by the Delegate of India’s statement, “any effort by the Pakistani Government to aid the coup would be considered an act of aggression.”
Thus, the discussion was not as fruitful as it initially promised to be, and the prospect of removal of troops from either side looked to be bleak.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
To Vote or Not to Vote, That is the Question
International Press (IP) reporter of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Harsha Sista, analyses a poll conducted to gauge the opinions within the committee.
Q. Would the committee support India’s statement about deciding the voting rights of people in Kashmir on the basis of origin and religion of the tribes in question?
Answer in YES, NO, or ABSTAIN.
The question was based on the remarks of the Delegate of India, who said that in order to know who would be eligible to vote in the proposed referendum, their origin and their religion would also be taken into account.
The only country to vote ‘YES’ was India, who supports the motion it believes in. The two countries opposing the motion were Pakistan and the United States of America (USA), while the rest of the countries in the committee abstained.
Now, let us analyse these results. The large number of abstentions shows that the countries in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) do not want to get too involved in the current conflict and want to stay at a safe distance from the implications of the statement made by the Delegate of India. Pakistan and USA are completely against the motion because they believe that it will not allow for a free and fair plebiscite to take place. The Delegate of USA also mentioned, earlier, that such a motion goes against the concept of democracy and would not help in solving the issue. The Delegate of India voted for the motion because India believes that such a background check would help in conducting a referendum in which there is no communal and religious bias.
Thus, we see that the committee is divided, but only a small portion is vehemently for or against the motion.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
Q. Would the committee support India’s statement about deciding the voting rights of people in Kashmir on the basis of origin and religion of the tribes in question?
Answer in YES, NO, or ABSTAIN.
The question was based on the remarks of the Delegate of India, who said that in order to know who would be eligible to vote in the proposed referendum, their origin and their religion would also be taken into account.
The only country to vote ‘YES’ was India, who supports the motion it believes in. The two countries opposing the motion were Pakistan and the United States of America (USA), while the rest of the countries in the committee abstained.
Now, let us analyse these results. The large number of abstentions shows that the countries in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) do not want to get too involved in the current conflict and want to stay at a safe distance from the implications of the statement made by the Delegate of India. Pakistan and USA are completely against the motion because they believe that it will not allow for a free and fair plebiscite to take place. The Delegate of USA also mentioned, earlier, that such a motion goes against the concept of democracy and would not help in solving the issue. The Delegate of India voted for the motion because India believes that such a background check would help in conducting a referendum in which there is no communal and religious bias.
Thus, we see that the committee is divided, but only a small portion is vehemently for or against the motion.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
Walking a Thin Line
International Press (IP) reporter, Harsha Sista, pens a story revolving around the Kashmir conflict of 1948, and how it separated many loved ones, just like the ones described below.
‘“…The entire nation is in turmoil. The beautiful vale is threatened by war and other forces that I can’t comprehend. I can only hope that destiny guides our journey, for I have lost all hope in humanity.”
Her heart stopped beating for a second as she read till the end. Maybe, it just wasn’t meant to be.’
I woke up, drenched in sweat, as the haunting moment passed. I drank a glass of water to calm myself, and went out to the balcony to try and forget the dream.
Let me introduce myself first - my name is Manas Sahay, and I am the Personal Secretary to Mr. Ram Chandra Kak, the former Prime Minister of the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir. When he was dismissed in August 1947, Mr. Kak retired from public life, but he gave me one final thing to do. He told me to travel to Lahore and deliver a message to Liaqat Ali Khan’s office and I did that in September 1947, by travelling down to Lahore. I finished my task and prepared to return home, when the Poonch uprising caused the indefinite closing of the border. Thus, I found myself without a place to stay in a different country, among different people.
After an entire day of searching, I found a lodge which took me in, and in that lodge, I lay my eyes on her for the first time. Her name was Ashmita, and she was the daughter of the lodge-owner. As the length of my stay increased, so did my feelings for her. It was love at first sight.
I discovered that her family was supposed to move across the border to Punjab, since they were Hindus, and did not want to live in the midst of communal unrest. With the Poonch rebellion, however, their plan was put on hold. However, I was determined to help them get across, as I wanted to marry her on home soil, and I began to search for ways to make that happen.
I wrote a letter to Ram Chandra Kak, saying that I was stuck in Lahore, and in January 1948, he managed to get me out of there and back to India. Ashmita and her family were left behind, though, much to my sorrow. I feverishly hoped that she would make it across the border, because I couldn’t imagine living a life without her. During these difficult times, we exchanged letters full of hope, for both of us knew that it was the only thing that kept us going.
As the Kashmir issue reached the United Nations, it looked like war was imminent and my hope began to diminish. Our letters got increasingly passionate as we did not know if that passion could manifest itself in any other form.
The worst part was the knowledge that if she just made it across the border, then everything would be alright. She would be granted Indian citizenship as a part of the policy of the Indian Government and we could be together for the rest our lives; that dream, however, seemed to be slipping away from me as the days passed. As I sat down today, the third of March, to write this letter, my feelings had reached a breaking point and I poured my heart and soul into it. I dread the moment she will read the letter, and I cannot imagine her reaction. Torn between these overwhelming thoughts, I scream like the wounded soul that I am, hoping against hope that the sound would traverse nations to reach her.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
‘“…The entire nation is in turmoil. The beautiful vale is threatened by war and other forces that I can’t comprehend. I can only hope that destiny guides our journey, for I have lost all hope in humanity.”
Her heart stopped beating for a second as she read till the end. Maybe, it just wasn’t meant to be.’
I woke up, drenched in sweat, as the haunting moment passed. I drank a glass of water to calm myself, and went out to the balcony to try and forget the dream.
Let me introduce myself first - my name is Manas Sahay, and I am the Personal Secretary to Mr. Ram Chandra Kak, the former Prime Minister of the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir. When he was dismissed in August 1947, Mr. Kak retired from public life, but he gave me one final thing to do. He told me to travel to Lahore and deliver a message to Liaqat Ali Khan’s office and I did that in September 1947, by travelling down to Lahore. I finished my task and prepared to return home, when the Poonch uprising caused the indefinite closing of the border. Thus, I found myself without a place to stay in a different country, among different people.
After an entire day of searching, I found a lodge which took me in, and in that lodge, I lay my eyes on her for the first time. Her name was Ashmita, and she was the daughter of the lodge-owner. As the length of my stay increased, so did my feelings for her. It was love at first sight.
I discovered that her family was supposed to move across the border to Punjab, since they were Hindus, and did not want to live in the midst of communal unrest. With the Poonch rebellion, however, their plan was put on hold. However, I was determined to help them get across, as I wanted to marry her on home soil, and I began to search for ways to make that happen.
I wrote a letter to Ram Chandra Kak, saying that I was stuck in Lahore, and in January 1948, he managed to get me out of there and back to India. Ashmita and her family were left behind, though, much to my sorrow. I feverishly hoped that she would make it across the border, because I couldn’t imagine living a life without her. During these difficult times, we exchanged letters full of hope, for both of us knew that it was the only thing that kept us going.
As the Kashmir issue reached the United Nations, it looked like war was imminent and my hope began to diminish. Our letters got increasingly passionate as we did not know if that passion could manifest itself in any other form.
The worst part was the knowledge that if she just made it across the border, then everything would be alright. She would be granted Indian citizenship as a part of the policy of the Indian Government and we could be together for the rest our lives; that dream, however, seemed to be slipping away from me as the days passed. As I sat down today, the third of March, to write this letter, my feelings had reached a breaking point and I poured my heart and soul into it. I dread the moment she will read the letter, and I cannot imagine her reaction. Torn between these overwhelming thoughts, I scream like the wounded soul that I am, hoping against hope that the sound would traverse nations to reach her.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
So Close, Yet So Far
International Press (IP) reporter Harsha Sista writes about the dangers of unresolved bad blood between neighbouring countries.
When relations between two neighbours sour and bad blood develops, things get ugly. Neither of you can tolerate the other, but you have no choice because you are always in each other’s presence. When the neighbours are entire countries, things escalate and you often cannot look back. There are numerous examples worldwide depicting this concept – Israel and Palestine, North and South Korea, and the most controversial of them all – India and Pakistan.
The border disputes between India and Pakistan have been of many sorts, with Kashmir being perhaps the most disputed. Ever since the nations became independent in 1947, the demarcation of the Indo-Pak border has been hotly contested for only one reason – both countries want Kashmir in its entirety and will not settle for anything less.
When the conflict began to escalate in 1948, this issue was brought to the notice of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), two resolutions were passed to try and contain the situation, but they did not do much. In the next meeting of the UNSC, the committee witnessed a dramatic turn of events. There were various updates within the council, which served as catalysts to further escalate the situation to the brink of war.
The first update was about the movement of Indian troops to retake the Zojila Pass in the area of Ladakh, which was previously unaffected by the conflict. This showed the mentality of the Indian Army, who was ready to retaliate to any threat to security of the country.
The second update talked about a coup d’état in the region of Junagadh, where the military had overthrown the interim government and sought help from the Pakistani government to relieve the situation. The Delegate of Pakistan argued that the situation leading up to the accession of Junagadh and the current situation of Kashmir were similar, and that, if there was no outcry when India forcefully intervened, there should be none at this point in time. This concept, however, was not discussed by the committee and Pakistan got a lot of negative comments for its stance.
In the opinion of the International Press (IP) member, the stance of Pakistan is justified because India used forceful means to annex Junagadh, and then held a referendum that was obviously influenced to make the annexation legal. The similarity with Kashmir is that the question of the plebiscite has been put forth again, but the troops of both countries are present in the region. This means that the military threat exists from both sides, and a free and fair plebiscite cannot be conducted in a region fraught with such tensions.
On the second day, another update was issued in the council, which talked about the capture of Pakistani nationals in Indian territory. The Pakistanis were believed to be sent to kill innocent Muslims in the guise of the guards of Maharaja Hari Singh. In the opinion of the IP member, there are only two implications that can be gained from the report. One opinion is that the ones captured were actually false flag operatives of Pakistan, looking to create communal interest in India, while the other opinion is that the report was falsified by the Indian media to accuse Pakistan of conducting covert operations. Different delegates interpreted the update in different ways and the discussion moved on to the next stage.
The fourth update escalated the conflict to a whole new level as the presence of three Pakistani brigades in various parts of Kashmir was established. This resulted in an intense discussion in the council, with the threat of war looming large over the territory of Kashmir. Although radical decisions were not taken, the situation did not deescalate. In the opinion of the IP member, such a situation is really dangerous because it will not be limited to a bilateral conflict.
As is evident from the council, the United States of America supports Pakistan while the United Soviet Socialists Republic (USSR) is in support of India. With the two largest winners of World War II supporting the opposing factions, and the other countries taking sides as well, this could very easily flare up into World War III and that situation should be avoided under all circumstances.
Therefore, we see that souring of relations can have implications much farther than the boundaries of the nations involved. These nations should recognise the gravity of the situation, and try to resolve the conflict in peaceful ways before even thinking about military intervention because the future of the entire world might be at stake.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
When relations between two neighbours sour and bad blood develops, things get ugly. Neither of you can tolerate the other, but you have no choice because you are always in each other’s presence. When the neighbours are entire countries, things escalate and you often cannot look back. There are numerous examples worldwide depicting this concept – Israel and Palestine, North and South Korea, and the most controversial of them all – India and Pakistan.
The border disputes between India and Pakistan have been of many sorts, with Kashmir being perhaps the most disputed. Ever since the nations became independent in 1947, the demarcation of the Indo-Pak border has been hotly contested for only one reason – both countries want Kashmir in its entirety and will not settle for anything less.
When the conflict began to escalate in 1948, this issue was brought to the notice of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), two resolutions were passed to try and contain the situation, but they did not do much. In the next meeting of the UNSC, the committee witnessed a dramatic turn of events. There were various updates within the council, which served as catalysts to further escalate the situation to the brink of war.
The first update was about the movement of Indian troops to retake the Zojila Pass in the area of Ladakh, which was previously unaffected by the conflict. This showed the mentality of the Indian Army, who was ready to retaliate to any threat to security of the country.
The second update talked about a coup d’état in the region of Junagadh, where the military had overthrown the interim government and sought help from the Pakistani government to relieve the situation. The Delegate of Pakistan argued that the situation leading up to the accession of Junagadh and the current situation of Kashmir were similar, and that, if there was no outcry when India forcefully intervened, there should be none at this point in time. This concept, however, was not discussed by the committee and Pakistan got a lot of negative comments for its stance.
In the opinion of the International Press (IP) member, the stance of Pakistan is justified because India used forceful means to annex Junagadh, and then held a referendum that was obviously influenced to make the annexation legal. The similarity with Kashmir is that the question of the plebiscite has been put forth again, but the troops of both countries are present in the region. This means that the military threat exists from both sides, and a free and fair plebiscite cannot be conducted in a region fraught with such tensions.
On the second day, another update was issued in the council, which talked about the capture of Pakistani nationals in Indian territory. The Pakistanis were believed to be sent to kill innocent Muslims in the guise of the guards of Maharaja Hari Singh. In the opinion of the IP member, there are only two implications that can be gained from the report. One opinion is that the ones captured were actually false flag operatives of Pakistan, looking to create communal interest in India, while the other opinion is that the report was falsified by the Indian media to accuse Pakistan of conducting covert operations. Different delegates interpreted the update in different ways and the discussion moved on to the next stage.
The fourth update escalated the conflict to a whole new level as the presence of three Pakistani brigades in various parts of Kashmir was established. This resulted in an intense discussion in the council, with the threat of war looming large over the territory of Kashmir. Although radical decisions were not taken, the situation did not deescalate. In the opinion of the IP member, such a situation is really dangerous because it will not be limited to a bilateral conflict.
As is evident from the council, the United States of America supports Pakistan while the United Soviet Socialists Republic (USSR) is in support of India. With the two largest winners of World War II supporting the opposing factions, and the other countries taking sides as well, this could very easily flare up into World War III and that situation should be avoided under all circumstances.
Therefore, we see that souring of relations can have implications much farther than the boundaries of the nations involved. These nations should recognise the gravity of the situation, and try to resolve the conflict in peaceful ways before even thinking about military intervention because the future of the entire world might be at stake.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
The Kashmir Key
International Press (IP) reporter Harsha Sista expresses his opinion on the reason behind the current dispute regarding the Princely State of Kashmir.
At the root of any conflict, big or small, lies one fundamental difference that the ones fighting for it have. It can be an ideological difference, a difference of opinion, a difference in methodology, or even a difference in upbringing. When two siblings fight over the last piece of cake, it is their difference in opinion that lies at the bottom of this conflict. Each thinks that it is his right to have the last piece and, when they face resistance, they become aggressive and try to use force to achieve their objective.
Now, apply this concept to the disputed region of Kashmir. What makes India and Pakistan fight over it? Is it an ideological difference, is it a difference in culture, or is it merely a difference in perception? Let us embark on a journey to find out the truth.
We begin our journey at a time when Bengal was recovering from the initial shock of its partition, and the Indian National Congress (INC) was one of the most important stakeholders in the political scenario. We begin in 1906 – the year of the formation of the All India Muslim League, more popularly known as the Muslim League. It was formed with the objective of safeguarding the rights of the Muslims, who were in a minority in the country. Thus, started a movement that would ultimately define the fate of an entire country.
The turning point in this tale comes in 1930 – via, what else, but an idea spoken out. Philosopher Sir Mohammed Iqbal wanted to unite the four provinces of North-West British India, giving rise to the first embers of the two-nation theory. The surge in popularity of the Muslim League in the 1930s, and the rise of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, gave the necessary impetus for the idea of Pakistan to grow.
World War II had a devastating effect on the British Empire and was one of the major causes for its rapid decline. Therefore, it became pretty evident by the mid-1940s that British India would get independence, but the question remained – will the country remain whole, or will it be torn apart? In the answer lay the essence of the conflict.
Jinnah desperately wanted Pakistan, while Nehru wanted India to remain whole. In the opinion of the International Press (IP) member, the reason why Jinnah wanted a separate country was because he realised that he did not have the support to become the Prime Minister of a united India. The leaders of the INC tried to convince him otherwise, but he would not budge from his stance.
Our journey reaches its climax with the dawn of 1947. By now, the British had decided to carve up the country into two pieces, but the dimensions of those two pieces were not known. One of the main issues was the accession of the princely state of Kashmir. Pakistan considered Kashmir to be a natural extension of the state, and expected Kashmir to join Pakistan. However, Kashmir remained undecided for a long time, as compared to the rest of the princely states. This caused Pakistan to grow restless and they began interfering in the internal proceedings of Kashmir by infiltrating the region. This action, however, convinced the Maharaja’s mind and he acceded to the Dominion of India so that the Indian Army could offer some protection against the Pakistani insurgency.
In the opinion of the IP member, the reason why Pakistan reacted to Kashmir’s accession is because of the concept of denial of a desire. When a person really desires something, his mind is always thinking about the moment he gets his hand on it. When this is denied to him, he, at first, refuses to believe the fact. When realisation finally dawns on him, he tries to obtain his desire by all means possible.
This is what happened with Pakistan. Jinnah was confident that he would obtain Kashmir, because of the Muslim majority in the region. When Kashmir was denied to him, he tried stamping his claim upon the region by claiming that the Instrument of Accession is not legal and, thus, Kashmir is not a legal part of India. Pakistan even took this argument to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), while the conflict raged in the background. While the IP member believes that India could have done a better job of being transparent in the accession process, the Pakistani uprising against it was not completely justified.
Our journey has brought us to the present, where the UNSC is debating the steps to be taken to deescalate tensions in the conflict region, but the question which began our quest has remained unanswered. What made India and Pakistan fight over Kashmir?
In the opinion of the IP member, it was a difference of ideology. Pakistan was formed on the ideology of religious divide – the ideology that the Hindus should stay in India while Pakistan was reserved for the Muslims. Therefore, the Muslim majority state of Kashmir appealed to Pakistan like a moth attracted to a flame. India, on the other hand, had no such preconceived notion and just viewed Kashmir as an integral organ of her body.
Thus, the IP member comes to the conclusion that the root cause of the conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir was the basic ideological difference between the two parties involved.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
At the root of any conflict, big or small, lies one fundamental difference that the ones fighting for it have. It can be an ideological difference, a difference of opinion, a difference in methodology, or even a difference in upbringing. When two siblings fight over the last piece of cake, it is their difference in opinion that lies at the bottom of this conflict. Each thinks that it is his right to have the last piece and, when they face resistance, they become aggressive and try to use force to achieve their objective.
Now, apply this concept to the disputed region of Kashmir. What makes India and Pakistan fight over it? Is it an ideological difference, is it a difference in culture, or is it merely a difference in perception? Let us embark on a journey to find out the truth.
We begin our journey at a time when Bengal was recovering from the initial shock of its partition, and the Indian National Congress (INC) was one of the most important stakeholders in the political scenario. We begin in 1906 – the year of the formation of the All India Muslim League, more popularly known as the Muslim League. It was formed with the objective of safeguarding the rights of the Muslims, who were in a minority in the country. Thus, started a movement that would ultimately define the fate of an entire country.
The turning point in this tale comes in 1930 – via, what else, but an idea spoken out. Philosopher Sir Mohammed Iqbal wanted to unite the four provinces of North-West British India, giving rise to the first embers of the two-nation theory. The surge in popularity of the Muslim League in the 1930s, and the rise of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, gave the necessary impetus for the idea of Pakistan to grow.
World War II had a devastating effect on the British Empire and was one of the major causes for its rapid decline. Therefore, it became pretty evident by the mid-1940s that British India would get independence, but the question remained – will the country remain whole, or will it be torn apart? In the answer lay the essence of the conflict.
Jinnah desperately wanted Pakistan, while Nehru wanted India to remain whole. In the opinion of the International Press (IP) member, the reason why Jinnah wanted a separate country was because he realised that he did not have the support to become the Prime Minister of a united India. The leaders of the INC tried to convince him otherwise, but he would not budge from his stance.
Our journey reaches its climax with the dawn of 1947. By now, the British had decided to carve up the country into two pieces, but the dimensions of those two pieces were not known. One of the main issues was the accession of the princely state of Kashmir. Pakistan considered Kashmir to be a natural extension of the state, and expected Kashmir to join Pakistan. However, Kashmir remained undecided for a long time, as compared to the rest of the princely states. This caused Pakistan to grow restless and they began interfering in the internal proceedings of Kashmir by infiltrating the region. This action, however, convinced the Maharaja’s mind and he acceded to the Dominion of India so that the Indian Army could offer some protection against the Pakistani insurgency.
In the opinion of the IP member, the reason why Pakistan reacted to Kashmir’s accession is because of the concept of denial of a desire. When a person really desires something, his mind is always thinking about the moment he gets his hand on it. When this is denied to him, he, at first, refuses to believe the fact. When realisation finally dawns on him, he tries to obtain his desire by all means possible.
This is what happened with Pakistan. Jinnah was confident that he would obtain Kashmir, because of the Muslim majority in the region. When Kashmir was denied to him, he tried stamping his claim upon the region by claiming that the Instrument of Accession is not legal and, thus, Kashmir is not a legal part of India. Pakistan even took this argument to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), while the conflict raged in the background. While the IP member believes that India could have done a better job of being transparent in the accession process, the Pakistani uprising against it was not completely justified.
Our journey has brought us to the present, where the UNSC is debating the steps to be taken to deescalate tensions in the conflict region, but the question which began our quest has remained unanswered. What made India and Pakistan fight over Kashmir?
In the opinion of the IP member, it was a difference of ideology. Pakistan was formed on the ideology of religious divide – the ideology that the Hindus should stay in India while Pakistan was reserved for the Muslims. Therefore, the Muslim majority state of Kashmir appealed to Pakistan like a moth attracted to a flame. India, on the other hand, had no such preconceived notion and just viewed Kashmir as an integral organ of her body.
Thus, the IP member comes to the conclusion that the root cause of the conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir was the basic ideological difference between the two parties involved.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)