PAKISTAN'S
VIEWPOINT
|
This dispute dates back to the partition of the British
Indian Empire, in August 1947, into two independent
states, Pakistan
and India. At that time there were also around 565 princely
states, large and small, which were under British suzerainty
but were not directly ruled by the British
Government. Most of these states joined either India
or Pakistan taking into account their contiguity to
one or the other country and the wishes of their people.
There were, however, some states over which problems
arose, primarily because of India's insatiable desire
to grab territory. For example, the Muslim
ruler of Junagarh,
a state with a Hindu
majority population, announced his decision to join
Pakistan.
India responded by aiding and abetting the establishment
of a so-called "Provisional Government" of
Junagarh on Indian territory, which attacked Junagarh
with Indian connivance and support. Subsequently Indian
forces also invaded Junagarh, despite protests from
Pakistan, in order to "restore law and order".
A farcical plebiscite was organized under Indian auspices,
and India annexed Junagarh. Similarly, in Hyderabad,
a Hindu
majority state, the Muslim ruler of the state wanted
to retain an independent status. India responded by
attacking Hyderabad and annexed the state by force.
India sought to justify its aggression against Hyderabad
and Junagarh on the plea that the rulers of Junagarh
and Hyderabad were acting against the wishes of their
people.
In
Jammu
and Kashmir state, the situation was the reverse.
The ruler of the State was a Hindu,
while the population was overwhelmingly Muslim and wanted
to join Pakistan. In this case, India consistently pressurized
the Hindu Ruler to accede to India.
Apprehending that the Hindu ruler was likely to succumb
to Indian pressure, the people of Jammu and Kashmir
rose against him, forcing him to flee from Srinagar,
the capital of the State. They formed their own government
on 24th October, 1947. On 27th of October, 1947, the
Government of India alleged that the ruler had acceded
to India on the basis of a fraudulent instrument of
accession, sent its forces into the State and occupied
a large part of Jammu and Kashmir.
But
Indian leaders, including Jawahar
lal Nehru, the Prime
Minister and Lord
Mountbatten, the then Governor General of India,
solemnly declared that the final status of Jammu and
Kashmir would be decided by the people of the State.
This declaration was reiterated by India
at the UN
Security Council when the dispute was referred
to that august body, under chapter 6 of the U.N Charter
relating to peaceful settlement of disputes. The Security
Council adopted a number of resolutions on the issue,
providing for the holding of a fair and impartial plebiscite
in Jammu and Kashmir under UN auspices to enable the
Kashmiri people to exercise their right of self-determination
and join either Pakistan or India. The UN also deployed
the United Nations Military Observer Group (UNMOGIP)
to monitor the cease-fire line between the Liberated
or Azad
Kashmir area and the Indian
Kashmir . These resolutions were accepted by India
and Pakistan and constitute an agreed legal basis for
settlement of the dispute.
India,
however, thwarted all attempts by the United Nations
to organize a plebiscite in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Eventually, India openly resiled from its commitments
and declared that Jammu and Kashmir was an integral
part of India.
The
Indian armed intervention in the State of Jammu and
Kashmir was illegal and took place against the wishes
of the Kashmiri people. Despite the decision of the
UN Security Council for the holding of a plebiscite
to allow the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine
their own future, India's own pledges to that effect,
and reiteration of their commitment of resolving the
Kashmir issue in the Simla
Agreement of 1972 signed between Pakistan and India
after the 1971 war, India continues to remain in illegal
occupation of a large part of Jammu and Kashmir, refuses
to allow the Kashmiris to decide their own future and
continues its brutal suppression in the territory.
Moreover,
India
went on to violate other aspects of the Simla
agreement, specifically the undertaking that neither
side shall change the ground situation, by occupying
the Chorbat La, Siachen & Qamar sectors, an area
over 2500 sq. kilometres between 1972 to 1988.
After more than four decades of a peaceful struggle
against Indian repression, manipulation and exploitation,
the Kashmiri people, convinced that India
would never honour its commitments, and inspired by
similar movements for freedom in other parts of the
world, rose against the Indian occupation towards the
later part of 1989. Their struggle was, and remains,
largely peaceful. India sought to suppress their movement
with massive use of force, killing hundreds of innocent
men, women and children. This led some of the Kashmiri
youth to take up arms in self defence. Since 1989, more
than 60,000 Kashmiri people have been killed in a reign
of terror and repression unleashed by over 600,000 Indian
troops. Many more languish in Indian jails where they
are subjected to torture and custodial deaths. There
have been numerous cases of gang rapes of Kashmiri women
by the Indian forces and the deliberate burning down
of entire localities and villages.
These brutalities have been documented by International
and even Indian Human Rights Organizations. Organizations
such as Amnesty
International and Human
Rights Watch as well as Indian human rights NGOs
have extensively documented the gross and systematic
violation of human rights of the Kashmiri people by
Indian military and para-military forces. Extra judicial
killings, involuntary disappearances, arbitrary detentions,
rapes and torture continue to be reported on a large
scale. The Kashmiri leaders have been repeatedly harassed
and physically intimidated. They have also been denied
travel permission to prevent them from exposing Indian
human rights abuses in Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. The
massive suppression by India is clearly designed to
silence the people of Jammu and Kashmir through sheer
brutality bordering on genocide and ethnic cleansing.
India
refuses to acknowledge that the people of Indian Kashmir
have become totally alienated and there is complete
rejection of Indian occupation. Several Kashmiri political
parties have formed the All Parties Hurriyat Conference
(APHC) to continue the political struggle for self-determination.
The APHC, therefore, constitutes the true representative
of the Kashmiri people.
Instead
of accepting the existing reality, India has sought
to blame Pakistan for allegedly promoting the Kashmiri
uprising. The fact is that this movement is completely
indigenous and enjoys mass support. The Indian allegations
against Pakistan are a ploy to mislead the International
Community and to create a smokescreen behind which they
can continue repression in IHK. Pakistan has offered
to enable the UNMOGIP or any other neutral force to
monitor the LoC, along which India has deployed several
thousands of its troops and has mined the entire area.
Indian refusal to accept these proposals, exposes their
false allegations.
A
peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Kashmir dispute
in accordance with UN resolutions remains on top of
Pakistan’s foreign policy agenda. To demonstrate
its sincerity in finding a peaceful solution to this
core issue, Pakistan has always sought a meaningful
and substantive dialogue with India. However, the Indians
have refused to engage in meaningful talks on Kashmir,
claiming the territory as an integral part of India.
Only when compelled by extraneous factors or international
pressure, such as in 1962-63, 1990-94 and again after
May 1998, have the Indians agreed to talks on Kashmir.
But this dialogue has been sterile because the Indian
objective has never been to find a settlement but to
deflect international pressure by creating the facade
of talks.
During
1962-63, the Indians agreed to talks on Kashmir under
U.S.
persuasion at a time when their relations with China
had deteriorated and the Sino-Indian war took place
and it was necessary for India to protect its western
flank with Pakistan. Between 1990-94, India was hard
pressed for a dialogue, again due to international pressure
following the indigenous Kashmiri uprising which began
in the end of 1989. Under pressure from the US, following
the mission of the American President's Special envoy,
Robert Gates to the region, India engaged in seven rounds
of talks at the Foreign Secretary level. Due to continued
Indian intransigence, however, this process broke down
in January 1994. After a hiatus of three years, talks
were resumed at the initiative of Pakistan’s former
Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif, after he assumed office in March 1997. Following
Foreign Secretary level talks in June 1997, an agreed
agenda was adopted which includes the specific issue
of Kashmir. More importantly, in the meeting between
Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India in September 1998,
the two leaders agreed that resolution of the Kashmir
dispute is essential for peace and security in the region.
During Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee’s visit
to Lahore in February 1999, the Lahore
Declaration was adopted committing both sides to
intensify efforts to resolve the Kashmir issue.
Indian
willingness to hold specific talks on Kashmir has been
compelled by growing international concern over the
Kashmir issue following the nuclear tests by India and
in response by Pakistan in May 1998. This nuclearization
of South
Asia has converted Kashmir into a nuclear flash
point and the U.N. Security Council through resolution
1172 as well as the G-8 and P.5 countries, apart from
a number of world leaders, have expressed the urgent
need for a dialogue to resolve this root cause of tensions
between Pakistan and India.
While
the first round of talks on Kashmir was held in October
1998 between the Foreign Secretaries, as per the agreed
agenda of June 1997, there was no change in the Indian
position. India rejected Pakistan’s frame work
proposal for a structured and substantive dialogue on
Kashmir, maintaining its intransigent position that
the status of Kashmir was not open for discussion.
Even
though India agreed in the Lahore Declaration to intensify
efforts to resolve the Kashmir issue, in February 1999,
it resorted to delaying tactics for holding the next
round of talks. In May 1999, India dealt a severe blow
to the dialogue process by launching massive military
operations, involving air and ground forces, on the
Kashmiri Mujahideen
in the Kargil
Sector and across the Line of Control on Pakistani controlled
areas. The Indians also rejected our efforts to defuse
the situation, including the proposal for immediate
cessation of hostilities, mutual respect for the LoC
and resumption of the dialogue process in accordance
with the Lahore Declaration.
At
the invitation of President Clinton,
former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif visited the US on
4-5 July 1999 and held indepth discussions with the
US President on all aspects of the Kashmir situation.
A Joint Statement issued as a result of these talks
reflects identity of views on the need to resolve the
current situation as well as the larger issue of Kashmir
which is central to durable peace and stability in South
Asia. It recognizes and underscores the need for
both India
and Pakistan to respect the LOC in accordance with the
1972 Simla Agreement. It also speaks about concrete
steps to be taken for restoration of the LOC. As Pakistan
has no presence across the LOC the only concrete step
on our part can be to appeal to the Mujahideen who have
already achieved their objective of bringing the Kashmir
issue back to the international focus of attention.
The
two leaders agreed that the Lahore process provides
the best forum for resolving all outstanding issues
between Pakistan and India including Kashmir. According
to the Joint Statement the President of the United States
stands committed to his personal involvement to expedite
and intensify the process for resolving the Kashmir
dispute. This is for the first time that the US has
agreed to play a direct role in the search for a final
settlement of the Kashmir dispute. India continues to
rely on brute force to silence the Kashmiri people.
Not only has the campaign of repression been intensified
in Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir, but additional
forces were inducted in November 1998 as part of the
new “pro-active” policy and later in the
Kargil
operation, Indian forces have now been increased to
over 730,000. This clearly points to the failure of
the current Indian policy to hold the Kashmiri people
against their wishes by force.
Pakistani public opinion remains deeply incensed with
the wide-spread atrocities committed against the innocent
Kashmiri people by Indian military and para-military
forces.
The
government's policy on the Jammu and Kashmir issue enjoys
national consensus. Pakistan maintains its principled
stand in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council
resolutions that call for a plebiscite under UN auspices.
It is in keeping with the solemn pledge made to the
Kashmiri people by Pakistan, India and the international
community.
In order to find an early and just solution to the 50-year
old Jammu and Kashmir dispute, Pakistan has welcomed
offers of good offices and third-party mediation. It
has encouraged the international community to play an
active role and facilitate the peaceful settlement of
disputes between Pakistan and India.
While
Pakistan is committed to a peaceful settlement of the
Jammu and Kashmir dispute, adequate measures have been
taken to safeguard the country's territorial integrity
and national sovereignty.
Pakistan
will continue to extend full political, diplomatic and
moral support to the legitimate Kashmiri struggle for
their right to self-determination as enshrined in the
relevant United Nations resolutions. In the context
of the bilateral dialogue, it calls on India to translate
its commitments into reality. At the same time, it will
encourage the international community to support and
supplement our efforts to establish lasting peace and
stability in South Asia on the basis of equitable resolution
of all disputes between the two countries, in particular
the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir.
We
hope that India will join us in our efforts to bring
durable peace to the region for the common benefit
of all our peoples. For half a century our region
has remained mired in tensions and conflicts. It is
our sincere desire to see South Asia enter the next
millennium at peace with itself.
|