I appreciate your patience. I do have doubts regarding “the elected contituent assembly representing the people of Kashmir.” I fully admit ignorance on how these representatives were elected and how much they actually represented the will of the people.
Do you have a link regarding the plebiscite being subject to Pakistan withdrawing forces from the disputed territory? Pennylane suggests that the plebiscite was linked to the instrument of accession.
Regardless, to my knowledge, there has never been a national plebiscite for the Kashmiri’s to clearly show whether they want to be part of India, Pakistan or independant.
U can look at the link with documents that ChinaGuy has posted for various letters and other documents in the public record. Also the following 2 sites have some relevant information. The invasions themselves were never disputed.
The plebiscite was never held coz of factors I’ve stated in my previous post. However, This document was duly ratified by the constituent assembly. Kashmir was autonomous and in the absence of a plebiscite, I’d say that the ratification was highly indicative.
Can u elaborate how it is a contravention ?
As regards separatist movements, India did have some problems in Punjab in the past. There are also some problems in the North-East. Other than that, there are no separatist movements.
And I appreciate your interest in this matter.
About the elected assembly, All I can say is that Kashmir was autonomous before the Accession was ratified. The prime-minister of Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah, and this National Conference party were the majority winners in these elections.
The idea of a plebiscite was not a legal obligation in the Instrument of Accession itself. However the Indian government felt that it was the right thing to do and re-iterated this desire as late as 1951.
However, a plebiscite cannot really be held if a third of the region is under foreign control. From India’s POV, Pakistan was illegaly holding Indian territory. While it was important that a plebiscite be held, it was even more important that the territorial boundaries of Kashmir be respected. A partial plebiscite would mean that Pak-occupied-Kashmir is in a state of legal limbo.
If a plebiscite were to be held in only the Indian occupied region, U can imagine that the results are open to dispute as being partial. When even a legal document like the Instrument of Accession is disputed, a partial plebiscite has a much smaller chance at legality, No?
The UN resolutions call for respecting the cease-fire line, withdrawal of troops and a halt to hostilities before the plebiscite can take place. This never happened. U can look at the UN resolutions text which address this matter.
In the absence of a plebiscite, The Instrument of Accession was put up for ratification in the constituent assembly of Kashmir.
Its a fact that the plebiscite never took place. But I believe, that there were some very valid reasons for it. And the alternatives pursued were democratic.
I’m actually of the opinion ( and it is only an opinion ), based on what I’ve read, that both of the above are correct.
It seems pretty apparent that the Maharajah, Hari Singh, was seeking to become a fully independant state, a possibility that neither Pakistan, nor India seemed willing to tolerate ( witness the “forced” incorporation of the Hyderabad state in 1948 ). I also think it is pretty clear that Pakistan did indeed take advantage of their overland connections to Kashmir and tried to either intimidate the Maharajah into either surrendering his sovereignty to Pakistan or to outright oust him by proxy. Under this threat, the Maharajah acceeded to India. No dispute there.
But in the end it was the decision of the Maharajah rather than the people. It was ratified by an assembly, yes ( though I understand that Sheikh Abdullah in later years became increasingly anti-India ). But I think it still left up in the air what the people, many of whom may not have had much connection ( and this is supposition on my part based on presumed class differences between the educated intelligentsia and peasantry at the time, so I welcome correction ) to the elected assembly.
Do I think India has sovereignty? Yes, I do - The accession was legal, far as I can tell. Do I think Pakistan is *more * to blame for the current situation? Yes, I do.
But I think a plebiscite would be fair. And though I accept that the divided nature of Kashmir makes it difficult, I reject the notion that it is impossible. Not if it was administered on both sides by an outside ( presumably U.N. ) body. Although I definitely think Pakistan is the worse player in this dispute, I think both sides are being a bit intransigient.
Again, just MHO, and I am open to others . I admit, it may well be that my view is too simplistic
About the Maharajah's decision, He had appealed to Pakistan first. I've always wondered why Pakistan didn't make use of this opportunity to get a deal on Kashmir. If Pakistan had, India wouldn't have had any buisness being in Kashmir.
A plebiscite on both sides observed by a UN entity would definitely have been fair 50 years back.
Today, I think India will find it very difficult to accept such a demand. India has a lot invested into Kashmir. It fought 3 wars defending the territory. There have been huge economic concessions over the years. And its highly unlikely that India will accept a partial plebiscite without a parallel process in POK.
But even before a plebiscite can be discussed, there has to be peace in the Valley.
The past decade has seen some of the worst chapters of the Indian army. And the political instability at the Central government level has meant that no politician would risk cracking down on the security forces. Add to that the active involvement of Pakistan, and u get the trauma that was the last decade.
I think its very important that UN human-rights observers be allowed to enter Kashmir. That would make it expedient for the Indian government to force the Indian army to clean up its act in Kashmir. But for that to happen, It's very important that Pakistan stops aiding terrorists. U cannot fiddle around with the army while a foreign power actively interferes in ur territory.
So I guess it depends on how much political will the Indian political entity displays, and what political pressure the international community can bring to bear on Pakistan.
IMO, The Indian Prime Ministers Lahore trip in 1999 as a token of peace was a good start. But then the Kargil incursion by the Pak forces really messed things up.
Well, you can read these resolutions at http://www.klc.org.pk/klc/pumphlet/resolution.htm. Resolution 80, for example, called upon the Governments of India and Pakistan to “make immediate attangements, without prejudice to their rights or claims and with due regard to the requirements of law and order, to prepare and execute within a period of five months… a program of demilitarization…” and decided to appoint a United Nations Representative to assist in this program. These resolutions repeatedly stipulate that the disposition of the State of Kashmir be undertaken “in accordance with the will of the people through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations”. Of course, I am not saying that it is solely the fault of the Indian Government that this plebiscite has not been undertaken. I agree with your reasons for this.
. I admit, it may well be that my view is too simplistic