HVK Archives: Let Kashmir issue linger till Pakistan meets its natural doom
Let Kashmir issue linger till Pakistan meets its natural doom - The Free Press Journal
M.V. Kamath
()
July 30, 1998
Title: Let Kashmir issue linger till Pakistan meets its natural doom
Author: M.V. Kamath
Publication: The Free Press Journal
Date: July 30, 1998
For well nigh fifty long years the United States, along with its
three cahorts in the U N Security Council namely Britain, France
and Nationalist China did everything possible to wrest Jammu &
Kashmir which legally was part of India from the latter's
sovereignty. These four (P-4) nations tried every trick of the
trade to bring India down to its knees. The most sustained
propaganda was unleashed against India to bring it into
disrepute.
In this dishonourable attempt all the international news agencies
like Reuters, Agence France Presse, Associated Press and United
Press were corralled into service. India held its ground against
all odds and after the last anti-India round in 1958, the
Security Council kept its peace. And after the Simla talks
between India and Pakistan a kind of cease-fire was observed by
the United States, though pinpricks continued to be administered
for some years, more whenever it pleased the US State Department
to slap India on its face.
Worse still, the United States in pursuit of its Cold War
compulsions continued to heavily aid Pakistan with military
equipment and technology and when it desperately needed to make
peace with China, sought Pakistan's assistance in routing former
U S Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's visit to Beijing via
Islamabad. In the circumstances the United States has no locus
standi whatever in such dispute Pakistan says exists between it
and India, in the matter of Kashmir.
For that matter China, which too has been openly assisting
Pakistan in its nuclear ambitions, can have no say in this
matter. South Asia is out of bounds both to the United States and
China and India does not need their mediation. Certainly India
would look with positive disfavour at any attempt by these two
hostile countries to interfere with its relations with Pakistan.
If Pakistan wants to discuss the Kashmir issue with India, it has
to be strictly on a bilateral basis. India does not even need the
services of the United Nations which is no more than the hand-
maiden of United States. Pakistan's Foreign Minister Gohar Ayub
Khan may wish to have third party intervention, but India wants
none of it. It is certainly opposed totally to the
internationalisation of the so-called Kashmir dispute.
In this regard all political parties in India are in full
agreement. That is why India has rightly refused to receive three
United Nations envoys, namely Alyaro De Soto, Assistant Secretary
General, Rolf Knutsson, Director in the Executive Office of the
Secretary General and Horst Heitman of the Department of
Political Affairs.
They had allegedly been asked to deliver a letter from the
Secretary General to the Indian Prime Minister. They could have
saved the trouble of coming to India by handing over to the
Indian Permanent Representative at the United Nations for
transmission to Delhi. If the bare truth be told it is this:
India has no trust in the United Nations which does not, in the
first place, deserve that trust. India burnt its hands very badly
when it mistook the world body to be a court of justice.
When Jawaharlal Nehru first submitted the Kashmir dispute to the
Security Council he committed the worst mistake in his long
career. That mistake will never be repeated again. And both the
United States and China are well advised to keep their dirty
noses out of south Asia. India has not asked for their good
offices and for the United States to assign south Asia as coming
within the sphere of influence of China is to insult India.
In any event, the Security Council resolutions of 13 August 1948
ceased to be operative a long time ago. And this has been
admitted as such by the U S government itself. The question of
holding a plebiscite in Jammu & Kashmir just does not arise. Even
if one takes the 13 August 1948 resolution on its face value, it
had clearly stipulated that a referendum could only take place
after the complete withdrawal of all Pakistani forces from the
territory they had occupied. Pakistan has never fulfilled that
obligation. It is relevant at this point to note that the United
Nations at no stage in the long drawn-out dispute ever so much as
questioned the legality of Jammu & Kashmir's accession to the
Indian Union.
Joseph Korbel, a member of the United Nations Commission on India
and Pakistan (UNCIP) whose daughter Madeliene Albright is now the
U S Secretary of State had clearly stated in his thesis on
Kashmir that the United Security Council had avoided any
consideration of the judicial aspect of Jammu & Kashmir's
accession to India and, for that matter 'amazingly, Pakistan also
did not raise the issue".
The accession of Jammu & Kashmir to the Indian Union is complete
and unchallengeable and there the matter rests. That accession
is not negotiable no matter what threats Gohar Ayub Khan wishes
to hurl at India. Madeleine Albright's interest in J&K supposedly
stems from the time, when as a 10-year-old, she used to accompany
her father, Czechoslovakia's Josef Korbel to the U N Security
Council debates on the state. Where Jammu & Kashmir is concerned
it is clear that she has not grown since then. Intellectually,
she is still a 10-year-old.
All these years the United States has treated Jammu & Kashmir
strictly in terms of the Cold War. It is no secret that at one
time, the US sent Adlai Stevenson to Srinagar to bribe Sheikh
Abdullah into asking for independence for J&K, so that the State
as a whole could be used as a vantage point to spy on the Soviet
Union. That did not work out and the Sheikh himself had to suffer
imprisonment for falling into the American trap. Presently the
United States (and China) are guided not by any desire to bring
about a settlement between India and Pakistan but by their own
post-Cold War strategic interests. In any event China which
will not countenance either independence or even autonomy for
Tibet has hardly any moral right to interfere in Jammu & Kashmir,
or even suggest a plebiscite in that state. Why doesn't China
hold a plebiscite in Tibet? And why doesn't the United States
suggest it? Incidentally Ms Albright might wish to know what her
own father, Josef Korbel had to say about plebiscites. As he
wrote: I told him (Zafrullah Khan who was then representing
Pakistan in the Security Council) about the experience we had in
Europe with plebiscites which had turned into mere instruments of
propaganda, pressure and falsification and I cited those
conducted by Hitler and the Communists".
A plebiscite is out of question even if Pakistan, in its wisdom,
vacates its aggression in territories occupied by it. Vacate its
aggression, Pakistan must. There can be no two opinions about it.
The territory must revert to India without any question, or
argument. The UNCIP resolution of 13 August 1948 says, Part 11 A
(I): ' AS the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of
the State of Jammu & 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 the State. (2) The Government of
Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal
>from the State of Jammu & Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan
nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the
State for the purpose of fighting..."
Instead of withdrawing its forces as also its nationals, Pakistan
has refused to do so; additionally- certainly in recent years- it
has been busy training tribesmen and other nationals for
terrorist activities in Jammu & Kashmir. In the circumstances, it
has forfeited all moral rights even to ask for a plebiscite.
Plainly Pakistan must be asked to clear out of the territory it
presently occupies, illegally and insolently. There is no
question of treating the Line of Control as an international
boundary. At no stage in the long drawn out dispute was partition
of Jammu & Kashmir ever discussed. And it is not going to be
discussed now.
There remains the issue of how to handle the Pakistan-sponsored
terrorists who have been regularly indulging in murder and mayhem
in the Valley in an effort at ethnic cleansing. When LK Advani
suggested that India should go in hot pursuit, the United States
in a clear effort to rescue Pakistan, said it was opposed to the
idea. What the United States would have done, if, in a dispute
with its southern neighbour Mexico, Mexican terrorists had
wreaked havoc in Texas, is another matter. India is supposed to
meekly put up with the regular terrorisation of Hindu Pandits by
hostile tribesmen and Muslim fundamentalists hired from other
nations.
If we are to believe defence minister George Fernandes the Indian
Army will not adopt a policy of 'hot pursuit' to strike at
training camps in the Pakistan-occupied territory, nor will the
Indian Army cross the Line of Control. That may be high-
mindedness but it just won't do. Pakistan must be clearly told
that if it attempts monkey business, it will be treated like a
monkey.
Advani said India will follow a pro-active policy in Kashmir.
There is as yet no sign of it. A four-point plan has been
reportedly worked out which involves (a) neutralising the ultras'
plans through pro-active response (b) isolating militant outfits
>from the people (c) strengthening democratic process in the State
and (d) speeding up development programmes. This is a bit of a
joke. More money has been put into development activity in Jammu
add Kashmir over the years than in any other state. Where has all
the money gone? What is there to show for all the millions poured
into the state. Why should India continue to be on the defensive
every time?
The United States should be firmly told that unless it tells its
client Pakistan to behave properly, it must expect India to take
strong action in self-defence. Pious wishes take us no where,
which we should have learnt by now. America is not about to give
up on its client nor is China so inclined. Both want Pakistan as
their errand boy and will see to it that no harm comes to it.
That is the grim reality. And as long as that is so, there can be
no settlement of the Kashmir issue.
We might as well learn to live with that fact, until such time
Pakistan collapses out of its own internal contradictions. And
that can't be too far away. Pakistan is hardly a State. It is a
cruel joke perpetrated on south Asia. And it has to come unstuck.
All that India needs now is patience.
Back
Top
|
