This Blog provides an insight on the Kashmir-issue, India and Pakistan. The articles on this Blog can be best described as thought-provoking. The articles thrive to trigger debate about the miseries enslaved Kashmiris are facing and discuss also possible solutions to this long standing conflict. It also aims to convince readers why Independent Kashmir is the best solution for all parties involved.

jkdlp

jkdlp

Monday, July 23, 2012

Understanding UN Resolutions on Kashmir

“The truth is what it is, not what should be: What should be is a dirty lie” (L. Bruce)

We are talking of UN Security Council Resolutions on Kashmir. What is their import?India lodged a complaint under Article 35 (Chapter VI) of the U.N Charter in the U.N Security Council on January 1, 1948, charging Pakistan with “aiding and abetting” tribal invasion of Jammu and Kashmir which it said had acceded to Indian Union through an instrument of accession signed by the then ruler.

In its first resolution of 17 January 1948, Security Council called upon India and Pakistan to exercise restraint. Three days later through another resolution (Resolution 39), it created the UN Commission for Indian and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate the dispute and mediate between the two countries.

In another resolution (Resolution 47) of April 21, 1948, SC called for cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of all Pakistani troops and tribesmen and bulk of Indian troops (except for a minimal number required for maintaining law and order), allowing return of refugees, release of political prisoners and holding of a U.N supervised Plebiscite in the princely State of Jammu and Kashmir under a plebiscite administrator to determine the aspirations of her people. It was supported by another resolution of June 3, 1948.

After deliberations with Indian and Pakistani leadership in July 1948, the UNCIP produced a proposal calling for an immediate ceasefire and a truce agreement between India and Pakistan, withdrawal from the J&K of all Pakistani tribesmen and nationals and the bulk of India's troops. India rejected it saying the Security Council failed to blame the aggressor in Kashmir. Pakistan also rejected the proposal saying that Sheikh Abdullah, Prime Minister designated on March 5, 1948 was an ally of India and by, implication, able to influence the plebiscite in India's favour. Pakistan had reservations also about she withdrawing all forces from Kashmir while Indian retaining some of her troops. She argued it could potentially lead to coercion or intimidation of voters by Indian forces jeopardizing the result of the proposed plebiscite.

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

The leadership crisis?


Have our leaders failed us and are we the victims of this crisis?

Peter Druker said, “Leadership doesn’t mean just delivering speeches that are liked. It is not evaluated by its characteristics but by its results”. Only sincere leadership and systematized organizations can bring better future, prosperity, development, peace and security to a community. How many sacrifices does the leadership and organizations demand from the community and how many sacrifices have a nation made cannot be construed as a proof of the sincerity of leadership. Leadership and organizations are evaluated along the criterion of the nation making minimum sacrifices and minimum losses in order to arrive at the destination. This is a universal principle. How does the world look at the leadership and the organization? That will speak of the sincerity and sacrifices of leadership.

Going through the history of national struggle in 20th and 21st century, we must speak about Russia and China. In Russia, Lenin as the leader of the Bolshevik Party united his nation against the tyrannical regime of the Czar and brought about Socialist revolution. Similarly, under Mao Tse Tung’s leadership, China ushered in a revolution that brought the country in line with the progressive nations of the world. This is the same nation that had been paralyzed by the British colonialists by making it addicted to opium.

A cursory look at Pakistan will show that the creation of that country owed more to the leadership of Quid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah than the efforts of the Muslim League. Of course, at the core of the creation of Pakistan was the factor of religion.

Vietnam’s freedom was the result of priceless sacrifices made by the people of that country and impeccable sincerity of its leadership. It was only then that a small country could stand up to a mighty power like the US and forced her to vacate their land in total disarray. At one time Ho Chi Minh, the Vietnamese leader was working as a menial on a French ship. Of course, Palestine’s struggle for freedom has not as yet been crowned with success. But notwithstanding that, Palestinian freedom struggle is recognized by the entire world and they are by and large supporting it. Some of their supporters are even sacrificing their precious lives for their freedom.