[Reader-list] Some Points from discussions
Kshmendra Kaul
kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 16 18:37:25 IST 2008
Dear Jeebesh
Do I understand correctly that the specificity you have now given to the "wide area" on "both sides of the border" for which you propose De-militarization is "The State of Jammu and Kashmir" that became a matter of dispute between India and Pakistan in 1948?
What was so difficult about that Jeebesh.
Yes Maps do exist in 'record' about that erstwhile Princely State of Jammu & Kashmir.
Interesting how you discarded it and we will not have to suffer breaking our heads over your "popular suffrage" idea.
Let us now come to the De-militarization.
For the De-militarization, we have to ensure that India, Pakistan and China withdraw their respective "Militaries" to the borders of "the erstwhile Princely State of Jammu & Kashmir". That you would agree is quite easily said and would be more than difficult to do.
How do we bring that about? What are your proposals for that?
I am quite certain that you would not and would be horrified if you did cite UN Resolution 91 of 30th Mar 1951 to serve as a guideline.
Kshmendra
--- On Tue, 9/16/08, Jeebesh <jeebesh at sarai.net> wrote:
From: Jeebesh <jeebesh at sarai.net>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Some Points from discussions
To: "Sarai Reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 5:44 PM
Is it so difficult as you make it out to be?
enclosed is the UN resolution in 1951. Surely many maps and documents
about border was submitted. It can be ascertained and worked out.
warmly
jeebesh
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kashun91.htm
Resolution 91 (1951)
Concerning the India-Pakistan question submitted by the
Representatives of
United Kingdom and United States and adopted by the Security Council on
March 30, 1951.
(Document No. S/2017/Rev. 1, dated the 30th March, 1951).
THE SECURITY COUNCIL,
Having received and noted the report of Sir Owen Dixon, the United
Nations Representative for
India and Pakistan on his mission initiated by the Security Council
resolution 80 (1950) of March
14, 1950.
Observing that the Governments of India and Pakistan have accepted the
provisions of the United
Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August,
1948, and 5 January, 1949,
and have re-affirmed their desire that the future of the State of
Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided
through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite
conducted under the auspices of the
United Nations.
Observing that on 27 October, 1950, the General Council of the "All
Jammu and Kashmir National
Conference" adopted a resolution recommending the convening of a
Constituent Assembly for the
purpose of determining the "future shape and affiliations of the State
of Jammu and Kashmir";
observing further from statements of responsible authorities that
action is proposed to convene such
a Constituent Assembly and that the area from which such a Constituent
Assembly would be elected
is only a part of the whole territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle
embodied in its resolutions 47
(1948) of 21 April 1948, 51(1948) of 3 June, 1948 and 80 (1950) of 14
March, 1950 and the
United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13
August, 1948, and 5 January,
1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir
will be made in accordance with
the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a
free and impartial plebiscite
conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.
Affirming that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended
by the General Council of
the "All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference" and any action that
Assembly might attempt to
take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State
or any part thereof would not
constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above
principle.
Declaring its belief that it is the duty of the Security Council in
carrying out its primary responsibility
for the maintenance of international peace and security to aid the
parties to reach an amicable
solution of the Kashmir dispute and that a prompt settlement of this
dispute is of vital importance to
the maintenance of international peace and security.
Observing from Sir Owen Dixon's report that the main points of
difference preventing agreement
between the parties were:
(a) The procedure for and the extent of demilitarisation of the State
preparatory to the holding
of a plebiscite, and
(b) The degree of control over the exercise of the functions of
Government in the State
necessary to ensure a free and fair plebiscite.
(1) Accepts, in compliance with his request, Sir Owen Dixon's
resignation and expresses its
gratitude to Sir Owen Dixon's resignation and expresses its gratitude
to Sir Owen for the great ability
and devotion with which he carried out his mission;
(2) Decides to appoint a United Nations Representative for India and
Pakistan in succession to Sir
Owen Dixon;
(3) Instructs the United Nations Representative to proceed to the sub-
continent and, after
consultation with the Governments of India and Pakistan, to effect the
demilitarisation of the State of
Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of the United Nations Commission for
India and Pakistan
resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and, 5 January, 1949;
(4) Calls upon the parties to co-operate with the United Nations
Representative to the fullest degree
in effecting the demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir;
(5) Instructs the United Nations Representatives to report to the
Security Council within three
months from the date of his arrival on the sub-continent; if at the
time of this report, he has not
effected demilitarisation in accordance with paragraph three above, or
obtained the agreement of the
parties to a plan for effecting such demilitarisation, the United
Nations Representative shall report to
the Security Council those points of difference between the parties in
regard to the interpretation and
execution of the agreed resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January,
1949, which he considers
must be resolved to enable such demilitarisation to be carried out;
(6) Calls upon the parties, in the event of their discussions with the
United Nations Representative
failing in his opinion to result in full agreement, to accept
arbitration upon all outstanding points of
difference reported by the United Nations representative in accordance
with paragraph five above.
Such arbitration to be carried 'out by an arbitrator, or a panel of
arbitrators, to be appointed by the
President of the International Court of Justice after consultation
with the parties;
(7) Decides that the Military Observer Group shall continue to
supervise the cease-fire in the State;
(8) Requests the Governments of India and Pakistan to ensure that
their cement regarding the
cease-fire shall continue to be faithfully observed and calls them to
take all possible measures to
ensure the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere favourable to the
promotion of further
negotiations and to refrain from any likely to prejudice a just and
peaceful settlement;
(9) Requests the Secretary-General to provide the United Nations
Representative for India and
Pakistan with such services and facilities as may be necessary in
carrying out the terms of this
resolution.
The Security Council voted on this Resolution on 30-3-51 with the
following result:
In favour: Brazil, China, Ecuador, France, Netherlands, Turkey, U.K.
and U.S.A.
Against: None
Abstaining: India, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia.
On 16-Sep-08, at 4:50 PM, Kshmendra Kaul wrote:
> Dear Jeebesh
>
> You are overstepping yourself. We are still on Point 1 of your
> "possible ways" arising from your "some friends were
talking about
> different way of thinking about Kashmir."
>
> "Referendum" was not in the menu of "possible ways"
you floated. Let
> us get back to your "Demilitarized Zone"
>
> You say that a "wide area" has to be De-militarized. That is a
> meaningless generality. Specify that "wide area" if you can. You
> will not be able to do it if you have not thought over the "possible
> ways" you have floated. Do some thinking first.
>
> You suggest a "popular suffrage" to mark the "border".
Over what
> "area" do you propose that this "popular suffrage"
will take place?
> In that "area" who will participate?
>
> Obviously the "suffrage" cannot take place specifically in any
> proposed "wide area" on "both sides of the border"
which you seek
> to De-militarize because the very purpose of the "suffrage" is
to
> demarcate precisely that "wide area".
>
> Kshmendra
>
>
>
> --- On Tue, 9/16/08, Jeebesh <jeebesh at sarai.net> wrote:
>
> From: Jeebesh <jeebesh at sarai.net>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Some Points from discussions
> To: "Sarai Reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 4:14 PM
>
> Another Floater :)
>
> For a serious referendum to happen a very wide area has to be
> demilitarized on both side of the present border. There can be a
> popular suffrage to mark the border and hopefully something better
> than the present situation may emerge.
>
> But my floater was not so much about the real-politic of border
> making. It was about thinking a side ways to get out of this
> "bleeding" politics and use all the various available
international
> institutions and instruments to arrive at some new arrangements.
>
> warmly
> Jeebesh
>
>
> On 16-Sep-08, at 3:38 PM, Kshmendra Kaul wrote:
>
>> Dear Jeebesh
>>
>>
>>
>> The "Demilitarized Zone" is your proposal and not mine. You
> should
>> be the one to specify its borders. Unless, as is more than likely
>> and is apparent, you have done very little thinking over the idea
>> you have floated.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kshmendra
>>
>> --- On Tue, 9/16/08, Jeebesh <jeebesh at sarai.net> wrote:
>>
>> From: Jeebesh <jeebesh at sarai.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Some Points from discussions
>> To: "Sarai Reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
>> Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 1:15 PM
>>
>> On 15-Sep-08, at 11:33 PM, Naeem Mohaiemen wrote:
>>
>>> But I think a BD led UN peacekeeping force in Kashmir would not
fly.
>>
>> Why not? :) It will be South Asia in a complex entangle.
>>
>> And Kshmendra, borders are always a contested lines. You could
>> suggest
>> what it could be.
>>
>> _________________________________________
>> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>> Critiques & Collaborations
>> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
>> subscribe in
>> the subject header.
>> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>> List archive:
<https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>>
>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in
> the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in
the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
More information about the reader-list
mailing list