The dispute known as KASHMIR and IMPASSE at the United Nations The United Nations recognizes KASHMIR.

 

The dispute known as KASHMIR and IMPASSE at the United Nations The United Nations recognizes KASHMIR. 

It is regarded as the world's most dangerous location.

The source of the nuclear tension in South Asia is the 75-year-old conflict in that disputed, divided, devastated, and illegally occupied territory. It will be futile to attempt to reduce missile and nuclear arsenals and restore normalcy in the South Asian region without a just and lasting peace in Kashmir that upholds self-determination.

23 million people in Jammu and Kashmir are entitled to self-determination under all traditional moral and legal standards.

When British jurisdiction ended on August 15, 1947, the princely state became independent, ending a century of British suzerainty.

Kashmir had not chosen to join Pakistan or India at the time, which had been created as separate nations by a British partition largely on the basis of Hindu-Muslim communal lines.

Kashmir did not have to give up its independence for the sake of being absorbed into a neighboring nation because of partition or the loss of British control.

In his speech to the Security Council on January 15, 1948, Indian delegate Sir Gopalaswami Ayyanger stated, "When the Indian Independence Act came into force, Jammu and Kashmir, like other states, became free to decide whether it would accede to the one or the other of the two dominions, or remain independent."

Pandits, Buddhists, and Sikhs were welcomed religious minorities in Kashmir, which was overwhelmingly Muslim.

Interreligious friendships, neighborhoods, businesses, and mutual celebration or respect of religious holidays all contributed to the ecumenical religious climate in Kashmir.

Historically, its diverse religious community has coexisted with one another, fostering a sense of neighborliness and quick friendships across religious lines.

On March 1, 1951, Indian delegate to the United Nations Sir Benegal Rama Rau stated, "India should like at this stage to try to remove some of the misconceptions and prejudices that appear to have gathered around this subject." This statement was made at the Security Council.

As is frequently misunderstood, the issue of Kashmir is not one of Hindus versus Moslems.

“The people of Kashmir are not mere chattels to be disposed of according to a rigid formula,” he added. Their future must be decided in their own best interests and according to their desires.

However, the Hindu Maharaja who ruled Kashmir was tyrannical and had sparked an indigenous uprising.

Pandit Nehru, who was India's Prime Minister at the time, had expressed the consensus view that, as of August 15, 1947, sovereignty in princely states like Kashmir had devolved on their respective peoples and that, in the event of conflict, the people's voice should prevail in a plebiscite over the sovereignty ambitions of the ruling maharajas.

Nehru made his point by using India's military power in two other princely states, Hyderabad and Junagarh, where Muslim rulers ruled.

Nehru advocated for a referendum to decide Kashmir's sovereign future. As a result, India sponsored resolutions for plebiscites before the UN Security Council in 1948 and 1949.

In close and ongoing consultation with both India and Pakistan, the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) formulated the specific terms of the settlement.

These were made clear in two resolutions that were passed on January 5 and August 13, 1948, respectively.

A treaty-like international agreement was formed as a result of the formally acknowledged acceptance of the commission's recommendations by both governments.

As soon as possible, a ceasefire was imposed. After that, the Commission got to work on a plan for how the Indian and Pakistani armies would leave the state in a way and order that wouldn't hurt either side or hurt the plebiscite's freedom.

Admiral Chester Nimitz, a prominent American, was appointed Plebiscite Administrator in the interim.

India's refusal to accept that the two sides' withdrawal of forces should be balanced and synchronized slowed progress toward a solution.

India, on the other hand, was soon proven wrong about Kashmir's political aspirations. It concocted excuse after excuse to thwart a plebiscite because it was aware that its people would never freely vote for India's accession.

India rejected the United Nations' proposals for arbitration, a reference to the World Court, or any other means of resolving minor disagreements regarding demilitarization.

After a few years, it unilaterally declared its annexation of Kashmir, giving up any pretense of participating in a referendum.

The United Nations has never accepted India's proclamation, and the Security Council's resolutions on self-determination continue to treat Kashmir as disputed territory.

In order to stifle indigenous aspirations for freedom and justice, the Indian government has today deployed a staggering 900,000 military and paramilitary forces in Kashmir at staggering financial costs.

As frequently as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, human rights abuses that go unpunished occur.

Over 100,000 Kashmiris have been killed in conflict since the beginning of the most recent phase of the freedom struggle, which began in 1989 following yet another rigged election.

Indeed, the gloomy deaths have become so commonplace that, like car accidents, they are covered in two or three lines of ink in the back pages of major newspapers.

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Genocide Watch, and even the two reports issued by the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights have all expressed horror and outrage at India's human rights inferno, which has been surveyed by every independent human rights organization.

"Modi Government has carried out a dangerous act of aggression against the people of Kashmir and has savaged all existing obligations pending under UN Security Council Resolutions," Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani, President of JKCHR, wrote to the UN Secretary General.

However, convincing India may take time. In the interim, the people of Jammu and Kashmir should be helped by a number of measures to reduce their suffering and tension.

Human rights groups ought to have greater access. The occupation forces from India ought to be reduced. The political prisoners ought to all be let go.

It is necessary to repeal emergency laws that grant the Indian Army immunity for violations of human rights. Revocation of domicile law is required to alter Kashmir's demographics.

Freedom of speech, expression, opinion, and assembly ought to be granted to all people, regardless of their political views.