Rupee News

Indict Jawaharlal Nehru: Arundhati Roy

Share

My reaction to today’s court order directing the Delhi Police to file an FIR against me for waging war against the state: Perhaps they should posthumously file a charge against Jawaharlal Nehru too. Here is what he said about Kashmir:

1. In his telegram to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Indian Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said, “I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the state to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or state must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view.” (Telegram 402 Primin-2227 dated 27th October, 1947 to PM of Pakistan repeating telegram addressed to PM of UK).

2. In other telegram to the PM of Pakistan, Pandit Nehru said, “Kashmir’s accession to India was accepted by us at the request of the Maharaja’s government and the most numerously representative popular organization in the state which is predominantly Muslim. Even then it was accepted on condition that as soon as law and order had been restored, the people of Kashmir would decide the question of accession. It is open to them to accede to either Dominion then.” (Telegram No. 255 dated 31 October, 1947).

Accession issue

3. In his broadcast to the nation over All India Radio on 2nd November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said, “We are anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide —— And let me make it clear that it has been our policy that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that state. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir.”

4. In another broadcast to the nation on 3rd November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said, “We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given not only to the people of Kashmir and to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it.”

5. In his letter No. 368 Primin dated 21 November, 1947 addressed to the PM of Pakistan, Pandit Nehru said, “I have repeatedly stated that as soon as peace and order have been established, Kashmir should decide of accession by Plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of United Nations.”

U.N. supervision

6.In his statement in the Indian Constituent Assembly on 25th November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said, “In order to establish our bona fide, we have suggested that when the people are given the chance to decide their future, this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations Organisation. The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked force should decide the future or the will of the people.”

7.In his statement in the Indian Constituent Assembly on 5th March, 1948, Pandit Nehru said, “Even at the moment of accession, we went out of our way to make a unilateral declaration that we would abide by the will of the people of Kashmir as declared in a plebiscite or referendum. We insisted further that the Government of Kashmir must immediately become a popular government. We have adhered to that position throughout and we are prepared to have a Plebiscite with every protection of fair voting and to abide by the decision of the people of Kashmir.”

Referendum or plebiscite

8.In his press-conference in London on 16th January, 1951, as reported by the daily ‘Statesman’ on 18th January, 1951, Pandit Nehru stated, “India has repeatedly offered to work with the United Nations reasonable safeguards to enable the people of Kashmir to express their will and is always ready to do so. We have always right from the beginning accepted the idea of the Kashmir people deciding their fate by referendum or plebiscite. In fact, this was our proposal long before the United Nations came into the picture. Ultimately the final decision of the settlement, which must come, has first of all to be made basically by the people of Kashmir and secondly, as between Pakistan and India directly. Of course it must be remembered that we (India and Pakistan) have reached a great deal of agreement already. What I mean is that many basic features have been thrashed out. We all agreed that it is the people of Kashmir who must decide for themselves about their future externally or internally. It is an obvious fact that even without our agreement no country is going to hold on to Kashmir against the will of the Kashmiris.”

9.In his report to All Indian Congress Committee on 6th July, 1951 as published in the Statesman, New Delhi on 9th July, 1951, Pandit Nehru said, “Kashmir has been wrongly looked upon as a prize for India or Pakistan. People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future. It is here today that a struggle is bearing fruit, not in the battlefield but in the minds of men.”

10.In a letter dated 11th September, 1951, to the U.N. representative, Pandit Nehru wrote, “The Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible.”

Word of honour

11.As reported by Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, on 2nd January, 1952, while replying to Dr. Mookerji’s question in the Indian Legislature as to what the Congress Government going to do about one third of territory still held by Pakistan, Pandit Nehru said, “is not the property of either India or Pakistan. It belongs to the Kashmiri people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to the leaders of the Kashmiri people that we would ultimately abide by the verdict of their Plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I would have no hesitation in quitting. We have taken the issue to United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.”

12.In his statement in the Indian Parliament on 7th August, 1952, Pandit Nehru said, “Let me say clearly that we accept the basic proposition that the future of Kashmir is going to be decided finally by the goodwill and pleasure of her people. The goodwill and pleasure of this Parliament is of no importance in this matter, not because this Parliament does not have the strength to decide the question of Kashmir but because any kind of imposition would be against the principles that this Parliament holds. Kashmir is very close to our minds and hearts and if by some decree or adverse fortune, ceases to be a part of India, it will be a wrench and a pain and torment for us. If, however, the people of Kashmir do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means. We will not keep them against their will, however painful it may be to us. I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir, it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but everywhere. Though these five years have meant a lot of trouble and expense and in spite of all we have done, we would willingly leave if it was made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go. However sad we may feel about leaving we are not going to stay against the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose ourselves on them on the point of the bayonet.”

Kashmir’s soul

13.In his statement in the Lok Sabha on 31st March, 1955 as published in Hindustan Times New Delhi on Ist April, 1955, Pandit Nehru said, “Kashmir is perhaps the most difficult of all these problems between India and Pakistan. We should also remember that Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied between India and Pakistan but it has a soul of its own and an individuality of its own. Nothing can be done without the goodwill and consent of the people of Kashmir.”

14.In his statement in the Security Council while taking part in debate on Kashmir in the 765th meeting of the Security Council on 24th January, 1957, the Indian representative Mr. Krishna Menon said, “So far as we are concerned, there is not one word in the statements that I have made in this council which can be interpreted to mean that we will not honour international obligations. I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken.” They can file a charge posthumously against Jawaharlal Nehru too: Arundhati Roy

Related articles

• Black October in Indian Occupied Kashmir (pakistanakhbar.com)
• Black October in Indian Occupied Kashmir (rupeenews.com)
• Did the ‘Article of Accession’ ever exist? (azadkashmirtimes.com)
• Article of Accession: India faked it (kashmirpunch.com)
• India falsified so called Article of Accession (timesofsrinagar.com)
• Nehru’s Commitement to Kashmirs & un-implemented UN resolutions on Indian Occupied Kashmir (timesofsrinagar.com)
• Nehru’s false Commitement to Kashmirs (azadkashmirtimes.com)
• Un-implemented UN resolutions on Indian Occupied Kashmir (kashmirpunch.com)
• Public Statement by Arundhati Roy After New Court Order (leftyprof.wordpress.com)
• They can file a charge posthumously against Jawaharlal Nehru too: Arundhati Roy (thehindu.com)
• Black Day: India Occupied Kashmir on Oct 27th (rupeenews.com)

Indict Jawaharlal Nehru: Arundhati Roy

Share

Mr. Chidambaram: India has not fulfilled it promises

Share

Bharat has not fulfilled its promises to the Dalits of Bharat, the Musalmans of Kashmir, the Sikhs of Punjab, The Assamese of the Northeast, the Naxalbaris of Central and North Hindustan, the Tamils of South Asia and the Muslims of India.

In 1948, Bharat illegally took over the state of Hyderabad and then destroyed its language, society, and powerful cultural heritage. In the same year, Bharat occupied Kashmir with a fake article of accession which it now claims was lost–as if it ever existed. The Article of Accession was never presented to Pakistan or the United Nations as per various UN resolutions.

Bharat’s occupation of Manvadar, and Junagarh is illegitimate.

In 1962 Bharat tried to wrest control of Tibet from China. It failed to to so.

In sixties, Bharat sent marauding bands of terrorists into Pakistan to spread terror and then imposed aggression on Pakistan in 1971.
Delhi subsequent arrogance against the Sikhs led to horrendous atrocities against the Khalsas and eventually led to the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi

Bharat did not keep its promises to the people of Bengal. The patriots of Dhaka killed the Bharati agent on August 14th, 1975 and sent the Rakhi Bahni packing home.

Bharat has sent terrorists into Nepal and tried to asphyxiate the small Himalayan kingdom. The Nepali Maoists have risen up in revolt and abhor Bharati attempts at imposing its hegemony on it.

Delhi created, armed and supported the terrorist LTTE and dispatched into Lanka. Bharat then tried to take over Lanka ostensibly under the guise of helping Colombo. It was rebuffed Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was murdered by a Suicide bomber.

Bharat failed to keep its promises with Pakistan and in 1980 occupied Siachin. Now it wants to encroach beyond Sir Creek.

Today Bharat has multiple so called “consulates” which send terrorists into Pakistan from Afghanistan. The BLA and the TTP has support from Bharat.

Bharat also uses water terror against Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Chidambaram should stop terror against all her neighbors.

Nehru’s promises on Kashmir

http://rupeenews.com/2007/12/10/nehurs-commitement-to-people-of-kashmir-and-various-un-implemented-resolutions-on-kashmir/

UN resolutions on Kashmir

http://rupeenews.com/2007/12/10/nehurs-commitement-to-people-of-kashmir-and-various-un-implemented-resolutions-on-kashmir/

Proof that the Article of accession was a forgery
http://rupeenews.com/2007/12/07/kashmir-does-the-article-of-accession-exist/

Related articles

• Delhi frustrated at incapacity to dictate to Rawalpindi (rupeenews.com)
• Delhi upset at inability to dictate to Rawalpindi or Islamabad (pakistanakhbar.com)
• Delhi frustrated at impotence to intimidate Rawalpindi (pakistanindependent.com)
• Pakistan’s national nightmare over: Obama leaves Delhi (rupeenews.com)
• Delhi trip: Obama speaks from both sides of his mouth (newpakistantimes.com)
• Obama’s Delhi trip: Gains, Loss and Risks (timesofislamabad.com)
• Obama’s Trip: Who was sold down the river? (pakistanakhbar.com)
• Obama’s trip: The truth and the reality (pakistanindependent.com)
• India will have to resolve Kashmir to become prosperous (pakistanakhbar.com)
• Pakistan must not give India MFN status (pakistanindependent.com)
• List of UN diputes includes Hyderabad, Kashmir, 1971 agression (pakistanledger.com)
• Indian’s chagrined that Obama did not disparge Pakistan (rupeenews.com)
• The case against MFN status to India (rupeenews.com)
• Kashmir creates friction between secular and extremist Indians (rupeenews.com)
• Kashmir, Hyderabad, 1971 agression is alive on UN agenda (rupeenews.com)
• India’s alliances based on delusions (rupeenews.com)
• History records Delhi’s broken policies (pakistanledger.com)
• Parachinar Pyromania (rupeenews.com)
• Mr. Chidambaram: India has not fulfilled it promises (rupeenews.com)

Mr. Chidambaram: India has not fulfilled it promises

Share

Kashmir and Hyderabad

Share

Bharat just keeps on hoping that the Kashmir dipute would just go away and the world would stop mentioning the “K” word. It hasn’t happening and the dispute cannot be forgotten. In the last General Assembly session Libyan president Muammar Qaddafi brought it up. Of course Pakistan and Delhi sparred over it. This year Iran chagrined Delhi by brining up Kashmir and mentioning it as occupied territory. To make things worse for Bharat–the Norwegian parliament is considering solutions to the Kashmir dispute. Norway brought about the Israeli Egyptian reconciliation and has worked on seemingly intractable disputes.

Delhi had a conniption fit when the Obama Administration began talking about it and it is rumored that Ambassador’s hidden portfolio included Kashmir, even though he is not allowed to mention the “K” word publicly.

Bharat illegally occupied Hyderabad in 1948 and this remains on the UN agenda. Bharat illegally sent her forces across an international border into East Pakistan. That act of aggression remains on the UN agenda.

This year Bharat tried to get the international disputes off the UN rosters failed when the Pakistani Ambassador intervened.

The United Nations to mollified Islamabad for what its top diplomat had privately described as an “inadvertent” omission of Kashmir from the annual report of the Security Council.

When the omission was noticed and corrected, Bharat was peeved.

Mr. Farhan Haq, acting deputy spokesperson for the UN secretary-general last week has, instead, drawn attention to documents validates Islamabad’s principled stand revealing that Pakistan has brilliantly kept “alive” at the UN Hyderabad’s merger with India and the aggression against  of East Pakistan on the UN agenda. It is these points that will keep Bharat out of the UNSC.

The Nizam had refused to accede Hyderabad to India after the country's independence Aug 15, 1947. He wanted Hyderabad to remain an independent state or join Pakistan. The princely state finally merged with the India in September 1948 after a military operation.

The Golconda Sultanate, terminating the older Kingdom of Golconda (since c.1364) was established in Telangana in 1463 as a vassall of the Bahmani Sultanate. It was ruled by the Qutb Shahi Dynasty. Golconda declared’ independence in 1518. Golconda served as the capital from 1463 to 1589, when the capital was moved to newly-built Hyderabad. In 1687 Golconda was conquered and annexed by the Mughal Empire.
In the early 18th century the Mughal Empire disintegrated. Chin Qulich Khan Asaf Jah Imir Qamaruddin Siddiqi, granted the title Nizam-ul-Mulk by the Mughal Emperor, established what was to become the Nizamate of Hyderabad, ruled by the Asaf Jahi Dynasty. Hyderabad was one of the largest princely states where the E.I.C., and in her succession, British India, applied indirect rule. In 1853 Berar was split from Hyderabad.

The Nizam's Hyderabad State was forcibly and illegally included into Bharati forces

Pakistan has never accepted this occupation of Hyderabad. It remains on the UN agenda
When India was released into independence in 1947, the Nizam of Hyderabad rejected the call of the Union of India to join it. In 1948 Indian forces occupied Hyderabad; the Nizam was deposed, the territory partitioned. Presently Hyderabad territory is divided among Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Within the region of Telangana (Andhra Pradesh) there is a movement aiming at the formation of a separate state by that name.

The UN roster is a painful reminder to Bharatis who may not wich to remember Bharat’s illegal actions in 1948

The map of Kashmir showing Kashmir as disputed territory

As soon as the omission was discovered Islamabad filed a complaint. The UNs corrective action stemmed from a complaint by Pakistan’s acting permanent representative to the UN, Amjad Hussain Sial, in the General Assembly a fortnight ago that “an inadvertent omission” in the annual report of the Security Council had left out Kashmir as “one of the oldest disputes on agenda of the Security Council.”

Responding to a predictable uproar in Pakistan that Kashmir is no longer on the Council’s agenda, Haq told reporters that the Indo- Pakistan dispute, “by a decision of the Council, remains on the list for this year” of issues which have not been eliminated altogether from its purview.

Haq quoted from Security Council documents to bolster a firm assertion by Pakistan’s permanent representative to the UN here, Abdullah Hussain Haroon that “the (current) president of the Security Council… the UK, is amply clear on the subject and is cognisant of the matter.”

Haroon, was severely criticized in Pakistan for his over-friendliness with the Bharati mission to the UN–and has been fired.

That active list of the Council’s agenda mentions The India Pakistan dispute” with a clear implication to Kashmir.

It is obvious that Bharat wants to keep it out of the UN and as the affected party Pakistan is interested in keeping it alive.

A second part of the document “sets out those items which were identified in the summary statement for 2009 as matters of which the Security Council was seized and which have not been considered by the Council at a formal meeting during the (last) three-year period.”

It explains that “the list indicates the date on which each item was first taken up by the Council at a formal meeting, and the date of the most recent formal Council meeting held on that item.”

That “the India-Pakistan question” — about Kashmir was first brought before the Council in January 1948 and has not figured on the Security Council’s active agenda since November 1965.

In 2008, in an effort to streamline the work of the UN and to make the Security Council more effective, it was decided that items “which have not been considered by the Council at a formal meeting during the (previous) three-year period” would be completely removed from its purview.

Accordingly, at the beginning of this year, secretary-general Ban Ki-moon sent out a circular which mentioned Jammu and Kashmir among the items due for such deletion unless at least one UN member requested otherwise by February 28.

On January 7, Pakistan’s permanent representative shot off a letter to the secretary-general and the president of the Security Council demanding that the India-Pakistan dispute be retained for another year.

Haroon’s letter also demanded that the dispute over Hyderabad and the Bharati agression in 1971 should remain under the purview of the Council.

By stating the legalistic position on Kashmir, Haq  give Pakistani diplomats what they wanted–keeping alive the unfinished business of 1947–an issue that Delhi wishes would go away.

Related articles:

• Syed Geelani Interview: Kashmiris wants accession of Kashmir with Pakistan (viewstimes.com)
• SAS Geelani Interview: Kashmiris wants accession of Kashmir with Pakistan (rupeenews.com)
• Syed Geelani Interview: Kashmiris wants accession of Kashmir with Pakistan (newpakistantimes.com)
• Syed Geelani Interview: Kashmiris wants accession of Kashmir with Pakistan (pakistanindependent.com)
• Kashmiris wants accession of Kashmir with Pakistan: SAS Interview (pakistanakhbar.com)
• The reality that is India (timesofislamabad.com)
• How neighbors see India (pakistanindependent.com)
• India is like a millstone on South Asia (pakistanakhbar.com)
• Failed State: Unsuccessful attempts to form a country–India (greenviewsusa.blogspot.com)
• Kashmir is still listed as a dispute: UN (azadkashmirtimes.com)
• Kashmir is an international dispute: UNSC (pakistanakhbar.com)
• World and UN still consider Kashmir an international dispute (rupeenews.com)
• UN still considers Kashmir a dispute (kashmirpunch.com)
• Kashmir still on UNSCSC’s agenda: Indian media lied (timesofsrinagar.com)
• Kashmir is an international dispute: UN (greenviewsusa.blogspot.com)
• Pakistan objects to UN list of disputes. Wants Kashmir listed (azadkashmirtimes.com)
• You: Kashmir still on SC’s agenda: UN (nation.com.pk)
• Norway on Kashmir (thedawn.com.pk)
• India falsified so called Article of Accession (timesofsrinagar.com)
• Un-implemented UN resolutions on Indian Occupied Kashmir (kashmirpunch.com)
• Obama’s $12 billion sales trip to India (militarystrat.wordpress.com)
• Kashmir creates friction between secular and extremist Indians (rupeenews.com)
• Justice and Fair Play: UNSC seat for Pakistan (pakistanledger.com)
• Pakistan must get UNSC seat in Non-Muslim Club (rupeenews.com)

Related articles

• India falsified so called Article of Accession (timesofsrinagar.com)
• Un-implemented UN resolutions on Indian Occupied Kashmir (kashmirpunch.com)
• Obama’s $12 billion sales trip to India (militarystrat.wordpress.com)
• Kashmir creates friction between secular and extremist Indians (rupeenews.com)
• Justice and Fair Play: UNSC seat for Pakistan (pakistanledger.com)
• Pakistan must get UNSC seat in Non-Muslim Club (rupeenews.com)

Kashmir and Hyderabad

Share

Kashmir, Hyderabad, 1971 agression is alive on UN agenda

Share

Bharat just keeps on hoping that the Kashmir dipute would just go away and the world would stop mentioning the “K” word. It hasn’t happening and the dispute cannot be forgotten. In the last General Assembly session Libyan president Muammar Qaddafi brought it up. Of course Pakistan and Delhi sparred over it. This year Iran chagrined Delhi by brining up Kashmir and mentioning it as occupied territory. To make things worse for Bharat–the Norwegian parliament is considering solutions to the Kashmir dispute. Norway brought about the Israeli Egyptian reconciliation and has worked on seemingly intractable disputes.

Delhi had a conniption fit when the Obama Administration began talking about it and it is rumored that Ambassador’s hidden portfolio included Kashmir, even though he is not allowed to mention the “K” word publicly.

Bharat illegally occupied Hyderabad in 1948 and this remains on the UN agenda. Bharat illegally sent her forces across an international border into East Pakistan. That act of aggression remains on the UN agenda.

This year Bharat tried to get the international disputes off the UN rosters failed when the Pakistani Ambassador intervened.

The United Nations to mollified Islamabad for what its top diplomat had privately described as an “inadvertent” omission of Kashmir from the annual report of the Security Council.

When the omission was noticed and corrected, Bharat was peeved.

Mr. Farhan Haq, acting deputy spokesperson for the UN secretary-general last week has, instead, drawn attention to documents validates Islamabad’s principled stand revealing that Pakistan has brilliantly kept “alive” at the UN Hyderabad’s merger with India and the aggression against  of East Pakistan on the UN agenda. It is these points that will keep Bharat out of the UNSC.

The Nizam had refused to accede Hyderabad to India after the country's independence Aug 15, 1947. He wanted Hyderabad to remain an independent state or join Pakistan. The princely state finally merged with the India in September 1948 after a military operation.

The Golconda Sultanate, terminating the older Kingdom of Golconda (since c.1364) was established in Telangana in 1463 as a vassall of the Bahmani Sultanate. It was ruled by the Qutb Shahi Dynasty. Golconda declared’ independence in 1518. Golconda served as the capital from 1463 to 1589, when the capital was moved to newly-built Hyderabad. In 1687 Golconda was conquered and annexed by the Mughal Empire.
In the early 18th century the Mughal Empire disintegrated. Chin Qulich Khan Asaf Jah Imir Qamaruddin Siddiqi, granted the title Nizam-ul-Mulk by the Mughal Emperor, established what was to become the Nizamate of Hyderabad, ruled by the Asaf Jahi Dynasty. Hyderabad was one of the largest princely states where the E.I.C., and in her succession, British India, applied indirect rule. In 1853 Berar was split from Hyderabad.

The Nizam's Hyderabad State was forcibly and illegally included into Bharati forces

Pakistan has never accepted this occupation of Hyderabad. It remains on the UN agenda
When India was released into independence in 1947, the Nizam of Hyderabad rejected the call of the Union of India to join it. In 1948 Indian forces occupied Hyderabad; the Nizam was deposed, the territory partitioned. Presently Hyderabad territory is divided among Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Within the region of Telangana (Andhra Pradesh) there is a movement aiming at the formation of a separate state by that name.

The UN roster is a painful reminder to Bharatis who may not wich to remember Bharat’s illegal actions in 1948

The map of Kashmir showing Kashmir as disputed territory

As soon as the omission was discovered Islamabad filed a complaint. The UNs corrective action stemmed from a complaint by Pakistan’s acting permanent representative to the UN, Amjad Hussain Sial, in the General Assembly a fortnight ago that “an inadvertent omission” in the annual report of the Security Council had left out Kashmir as “one of the oldest disputes on agenda of the Security Council.”

Responding to a predictable uproar in Pakistan that Kashmir is no longer on the Council’s agenda, Haq told reporters that the Indo- Pakistan dispute, “by a decision of the Council, remains on the list for this year” of issues which have not been eliminated altogether from its purview.

Haq quoted from Security Council documents to bolster a firm assertion by Pakistan’s permanent representative to the UN here, Abdullah Hussain Haroon that “the (current) president of the Security Council… the UK, is amply clear on the subject and is cognisant of the matter.”

Haroon, was severely criticized in Pakistan for his over-friendliness with the Bharati mission to the UN–and has been fired.

That active list of the Council’s agenda mentions The India Pakistan dispute” with a clear implication to Kashmir.

It is obvious that Bharat wants to keep it out of the UN and as the affected party Pakistan is interested in keeping it alive.

A second part of the document “sets out those items which were identified in the summary statement for 2009 as matters of which the Security Council was seized and which have not been considered by the Council at a formal meeting during the (last) three-year period.”

It explains that “the list indicates the date on which each item was first taken up by the Council at a formal meeting, and the date of the most recent formal Council meeting held on that item.”

That “the India-Pakistan question” — about Kashmir was first brought before the Council in January 1948 and has not figured on the Security Council’s active agenda since November 1965.

In 2008, in an effort to streamline the work of the UN and to make the Security Council more effective, it was decided that items “which have not been considered by the Council at a formal meeting during the (previous) three-year period” would be completely removed from its purview.

Accordingly, at the beginning of this year, secretary-general Ban Ki-moon sent out a circular which mentioned Jammu and Kashmir among the items due for such deletion unless at least one UN member requested otherwise by February 28.

On January 7, Pakistan’s permanent representative shot off a letter to the secretary-general and the president of the Security Council demanding that the India-Pakistan dispute be retained for another year.

Haroon’s letter also demanded that the dispute over Hyderabad and the Bharati agression in 1971 should remain under the purview of the Council.

By stating the legalistic position on Kashmir, Haq  give Pakistani diplomats what they wanted–keeping alive the unfinished business of 1947–an issue that Delhi wishes would go away.

Related articles:

• Syed Geelani Interview: Kashmiris wants accession of Kashmir with Pakistan (viewstimes.com)
• SAS Geelani Interview: Kashmiris wants accession of Kashmir with Pakistan (rupeenews.com)
• Syed Geelani Interview: Kashmiris wants accession of Kashmir with Pakistan (newpakistantimes.com)
• Syed Geelani Interview: Kashmiris wants accession of Kashmir with Pakistan (pakistanindependent.com)
• Kashmiris wants accession of Kashmir with Pakistan: SAS Interview (pakistanakhbar.com)
• The reality that is India (timesofislamabad.com)
• How neighbors see India (pakistanindependent.com)
• India is like a millstone on South Asia (pakistanakhbar.com)
• Failed State: Unsuccessful attempts to form a country–India (greenviewsusa.blogspot.com)
• Kashmir is still listed as a dispute: UN (azadkashmirtimes.com)
• Kashmir is an international dispute: UNSC (pakistanakhbar.com)
• World and UN still consider Kashmir an international dispute (rupeenews.com)
• UN still considers Kashmir a dispute (kashmirpunch.com)
• Kashmir still on UNSCSC’s agenda: Indian media lied (timesofsrinagar.com)
• Kashmir is an international dispute: UN (greenviewsusa.blogspot.com)
• Pakistan objects to UN list of disputes. Wants Kashmir listed (azadkashmirtimes.com)
• You: Kashmir still on SC’s agenda: UN (nation.com.pk)
• Norway on Kashmir (thedawn.com.pk)
• India falsified so called Article of Accession (timesofsrinagar.com)
• Un-implemented UN resolutions on Indian Occupied Kashmir (kashmirpunch.com)

Related articles

• India falsified so called Article of Accession (timesofsrinagar.com)
• Un-implemented UN resolutions on Indian Occupied Kashmir (kashmirpunch.com)

Kashmir, Hyderabad, 1971 agression is alive on UN agenda

Share

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) or just Morocco

Share

East of the berm is the territory controlled by the Polisario Wikipedia

The long lingering disputes in Western Sahara are a legacy of Spanish colonial rule over the areas and a colossal impediment to “Maghreb” Unity. This cancer is a constant source of tensions between Morocco, Mauritania and Algeria.

• Morocco claims and administers Western Sahara, whose sovereignty remains unresolved while a 1991 UN ceasefire holds.
• Attempts to broker a deal have so far failed, but several states have opened diplomatic relations with the exiled ‘Sahrawi Arab Democrat Republic’.
• East of the River Berm is the territory controlled by the Polisario
• Morocco controls most of the Western Sahara (SADR).
• Will it ever give it up?
• Solar energy, regional politics dominate discussion between Germany and Morocco
• The Moroccan capital Rabat is the site of bilateral German-Moroccan talks

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle is spending the early part of this week in Morocco. He wants to talk about energy, but his hosts have put a different issue on the agenda.

The Western Sahara is an important region for a variety of reasons.

The prevalence of sun makes it an ideal location for solar energy facilities, and the area is rich in phosphate. The disputed territory is also the subject of a tug-of-war between Morocco and the Algerian backed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), which wants it to become an independent state.

When German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle arrived in the Moroccan capital on Monday for the first day of a three-day visit, he was confronted with the issue. He chose his words with care.

“The main thing is that everyone involved places their faith in negotiations and dialogue,” Westerwelle said. “What we want to communicate to our partners is the message of non-violence.”

Westerwelle is having to tread lightly

Moroccan Foreign Minister Taieb Fassi Fihri interpreted that statement as an expression of support for his government’s position vis-a-vis the Sahrawi national liberation movement Polisario and its Algerian backers.

“You have heard the German Foreign Minister, who said appeals to violence, such as those unfortunately issued by Polisario and Algeria, will not lead to a solution,” Fihri said. “We greatly value the statement that negotiations are the most important thing.”

But it is unclear whether dialogue will be sufficient to resolve a conflict that has existed for decades.

Fence sitting

Morocco and Algeria both have interests in the region

The Western Sahara was part of Spain’s African colonies from the late nineteenth-century until 1975, when the Spanish withdrew, and both Morocco and Mauritania tried to annex the territory.

That drew resistance from Polisario, the nationalist movement for the Sahrawi, an Arab-Berber ethnic group of over 250,000 people, who claim to be the original inhabitants of the region.

By 1979 a campaign of violent resistance by Polisario, with the backing of Algeria, had forced Mauritania from the Western Sahara. Morocco, however, expanded its control, and in 1991, a UN peace-keeping mission succeeded in establishing a ceasefire.

The UN has recognized SADR as a representative of Western Saharans, and a referendum was planned to let them decide between independence or remaining part of Morocco with increased autonomy. That referendum has been stalled, though, for the past two decades.

The future of the Sahrawi is up in the air

Morocco voted for Germany to be given a two-year seat on the United Nations Security Council. Now Rabat would like a political favor in return.

“We consulted with Germany before we presented our autonomy plan, a plan of compromise that fulfills the criteria of the UN Security Council,” Fihri said.

But Polisario and Algeria would like to see an independent Western Saharan state, and Westerwelle was careful not to throw clear support in one direction or the other.

“We are not taking sides in this question,” Westerwelle said. “We’re a conversation partner, and above all, we place our faith in the mediating role of the United Nations.”

Indeed, in Morocco, Westerwelle is more interested in talking economics than politics.

Here comes the sun

Morocco is one of the few countries in the Arab world that doesn’t produce oil, and Rabat is investing heavily in solar energy. That represents a convergence of influence with Germany, which has enormous technical expertise in that area.

Solar energy is becoming more important in the Middle East

So Westerwelle’s visit is also an opportunity to drum up some business in a country that has traditionally been oriented more toward Spain and France.

“We Germans have top technology, and I’m thinking especially of solar-energy technology,” Westerwelle said. “And in cooperation with Morocco, we can use this solar technology particularly well. That also represents a major chance for German companies to do business.”

Underscoring the tight connection between economics, energy and politics is the fact that the head of Morocco’s ONE power utility, Ali Fassi Fihri, is the Moroccan foreign minister’s brother.

Morocco is currently engaged in a massive solar-energy project that will cost $9 billion (6.6 billion euros) and hopefully provide 38 percent of the country’s energy needs by the year 2020.

On its own, Germany has invested 43 million euros in solar energy in Morocco, and the European Union has pumped many millions more into the project.

As Westerwelle is experiencing first-hand, involvement in Moroccan politics is tricky business. But the rewards are potentially very great.

Author: Marc Dugge (jc), Editor: Michael Knigge

Related Articles

• Deadly clashes stall western Sahara-Morocco peace talks (guardian.co.uk)
• Morocco accuses West Sahara activists of killing police (reuters.com)
• Morocco Wins German Energy Aid (devex.com)
• Diplomacy over Western Sahara: Morocco v Algeria (economist.com)
• Polisario demands U.N. council probe of Sahara clash (reuters.com)

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) or just Morocco

Share

Asma Jahangir's Fraud

Share

Image via Wikipedia

Asma Jahangir got prize.

The day before Eid-ul-Azha dozens of factory worker including female workers were beaten by Punjab police outside Hala spinning. These poor workers were demanding their outstanding salaries and allowances. Factory management with the help of local police brutally dispersed protest and protesters got multiple injuries. Only few local news papers dare to publish this terrible story because this factory belongs to none other than human rights champion Asma Jahangir.

Hala Spinning, Hala Enterprise and Data Ago were financed by IFC (a United Nations agency that invests directly in companies) for promoting local trade and increase towel exports of Pakistan but the balance statements of these companies will tell you the truth as they have shown tremendous losses (what we can expect under the leadership of Asma). UN gave billions to Asma in the name of investment and she digested UN funds in few years now Asma Jahangir awarded UN prize for promoting human rights.

In the search of fake rape victim Asma forgot her female factory workers. Recently she captured Supreme Court bar association presidency with the help of ruling party and gang of lawyers she successfully turned court into Hala Enterprise. Her gang of lawyers are using bar rooms as torture cells. Her anti-human activity is not limited to Pakistan her support to militant hindu leaders like Bal Thackeray clearly reflects her anti-human nature. UN should reconsider this prize and extract millions from Asma. www.hotmaal.wordpress.com, hotmaal.wordpress.com. sorgerichard@rocketmail.com. Submitted on 2010/11/20 at 1:38 am.

Zulfiqar Ali adds:

Mr Nawz Sharif is a funny character in our political history,he is only looking for revenge he did this to lots of Pakistanis, he did to Leghari, Ishaq Khan, Asif Nawaz, Sajjad Shah, to name a few. He only wants to be on the top so that he can teach a lesson to Pervez Musharraf. He did this to the late Benazir. It is a fact that he used the un-describable language for BB which can be confirmed from one of the news paper owner of this day.

Don’t be mislead by his statements that they were doing business in 1938. They had a Bhatti of Dhalai in 1947. One should recall the words of Giyani Zail Singh, the then president of India, when he met Nawaz Sharif. x2zak@yahoo.co.uk.  Submitted on 2010/11/20 at 9:43 am.

Related Articles

• What the PPPPs Asma Jahangir victory means (rupeenews.com)

Asma Jahangir's Fraud

Share

The politics of the UNSC seat

Share

Image via Wikipedia

Pakistan’s predictably strong reaction to the announcement reflected the depth of its opposition to a move that will seriously upset the regional balance of power. Resolutions adopted by both the Cabinet and Parliament conveyed Pakistan’s protest and said the move disregarded Pakistan’s principled position and sensitivities on SC reform.

Hours before US President Barack Obama’s address to the Indian Parliament last week the American ambassador in Islamabad informed the Foreign Ministry that his President was about to announce US support for India’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council (SC). No indication was given to Pakistan earlier that a move with such far reaching strategic implications was in the offing.

In contention is not whether Islamabad could have influenced a decision that was America’s to make but that Washington could do so with little concern about the consequences for its relations with Pakistan.

President Obama’s endorsement did more than offer verbal support to India’s longstanding ambition for a seat at the big table. It confirmed that Washington is now embarked on a strategy to build India as a counterweight to China’s growing political and economic power. The nature of Obama’s Asia tour – to India, Indonesia, South Korea and Japan – and recent policy pronouncements, such as its offer to “mediate” ocean border disputes in South East Asia (while refusing to help resolve Kashmir) and on the currency dispute with Beijing, are all signs of a more overt policy to contain China.

To draw India closer behind Washington’s objectives Obama handed Delhi virtually everything it wanted from his visit: recognition of its global leadership, easing of controls on high-tech exports, endorsement of its role in Afghanistan and backing for India’s membership of four multilateral export control regimes.

Obama maintained silence on Kashmir other than anodyne statements about the need for India and Pakistan to resolve their differences. His support for a step-by-step process to first tackle the ‘easy’ issues endorsed the Indian approach to the dialogue. He lectured about human rights in Myanmar but couldn’t bring himself to utter a word about Kashmir, where stone throwing youth continue to demand ‘Azadi’ (freedom).

The strategic prize for India was Obama’s support for permanent membership of the SC. The principle that enlargement of the primary global security forum was not something to be unilaterally decided among select powers but based on an international consensus did not weigh on Obama’s mind.

This is at sharp odds with Pakistan’s position that SC reform should ensure fair representation for all 192 UN member states – large, medium-sized and small – and be determined by consensus to enjoy international legitimacy.

The gridlock on reform in the UN’s intergovernmental negotiations means that change will not come quickly or easily. But President Obama’s pronouncement marks a major policy shift by Washington which had so far only declared support for Japan’s permanent membership. India will now seek to leverage this by mobilising the Group of Four (Germany, Brazil and Japan or a broader coalition) to secure the endorsement of the UN General Assembly (GA), probably well before its next session.

The view that Islamabad should not react to what some describe as a “symbolic” US move overlooks the recent history of reform efforts at the UN. It is instructive to recall what happened in 2005. In March that year the UN Secretary General called for an early decision on UNSC reform. This spurred India along with the other G4 countries to mount what was described as one of the biggest lobbying exercises in UN history.

The G4 tabled a ‘framework’ resolution in July 2005. This called for four new permanent seats for themselves, two for Africa and another four non-permanent seats. The resolution was co-sponsored by 23 countries in the GA, which has to approve by third-thirds any proposal to amend the UN Charter. This must then be accepted by all five permanent members of the SC.

Calculating that adding veto-wielding members would be opposed by the P5 the resolution left this issue for the new permanent members to decide.

Opposing this was were nations grouped in the Uniting for Consensus (UFC) led by Pakistan and Italy and supported by Mexico, South Korea and Argentina among around 35 countries. The UFC’s alternate proposal rejected new permanent seats and instead called for increasing non-permanent members to twenty-four, elected on a regional basis.

The G4 sought support from the 53 member African Union in order to secure the required two-thirds. But their efforts foundered when an African Summit declined to endorse their position. Algeria and Egypt successfully insisted that the longstanding African position – demanding two permanent seats with veto powers to be selected by the African nations – ought to be reflected in the G4 resolution. G4 expectations that South Africa and Nigeria would deliver the Africans failed to materialise.

This led to the collapse of the G4 effort. Not being able to count on the votes of the African group, the G4 was obliged to withdraw their resolution. Even with the 80 or so votes that G4 nations claimed to have mustered, without significant support from Africa, they could not achieve a two-thirds majority.

Since then negotiations in UNGA’s inter-governmental group have swirled around rival reform proposals pressed by the G4, UFC and other countries.

After President Obama’s declaration, the G4 along with Brazil and South Africa will try to renew their offensive to change the dynamic at the UN. This promises a major diplomatic battle ahead between the G4 and its allies and the UFC countries, including Pakistan.

There is nothing inevitable about the outcome of reform maneuvers at the UN. But President Obama’s Asia tour has generated dynamics that will likely see Pakistan and China draw even closer together not only over Security Council reform but in response to solidifying Washington-Delhi ties that seem to be largely predicated on countering Beijing’s rising influence.

Maleeha Lodhi served as Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States and the United Kingdom. A decision that would matter a lot for the region Dr Maleeha Lodhi, 19 November 2010

Related Articles

• Justice and Fair Play: UNSC seat for Pakistan (pakistanledger.com)
• Pakistan must get UNSC seat in Non-Muslim Club (rupeenews.com)
• Pakistan, China, CfC to scuttle India’s UNSC bid (rupeenews.com)
• You: UNGA hears arguments on raise in SC’s permanent seats (nation.com.pk)
• India for UNSC: Pakistan conveys disappointment to US envoy – Economic Times (news.google.com)
• Garmany, Japan, Brazil mad: CfC, China oppose Indian UNSC seat (rupeenews.com)
• India’s UNSC seat tied to NPT: US publicly denies (rupeenews.com)
• India in UNSC is ‘incomprehensible’: Delhi shouldn’t hold its breath (rupeenews.com)
• Pakistan blasts US backing of India UN seat – AFP (news.google.com)
• UNSC seat for Pakistan is a fair and just demand (timesofislamabad.com)
• Pakistan informs UN about concern on UNSC (timesofsrinagar.com)
• Damanding the UNSC seat: Its Pakistan’s right (pakistanakhbar.com)
• China, United for Consensus (UfC) oppose India’s UNSC seat (newpakistantimes.com)
• Pakistanis want to claim thier right to UNSC seat (newpakistantimes.com)
• Pakistanis want to claim UNSC seat (pakistanindependent.com)
• Pakistanis want their right to UNSC seat (thedawn.com.pk)
• Pakistan informs UN of concerns on US’s UNSC support for India (pakistanakhbar.com)
• USA dashes Bharat’s hopes over UNSC seat (rupeenews.com)

The politics of the UNSC seat

Share

India's UNSC seat tied to NPT: US publicly denies

Share

The denials are loud, but the whispers in Washington and Delhi inform analysts that Preisdent Obama made the American support for Bharat’s UNSC seat conditional to Bharat signing the NPT. Since Bharat is unlikely to sign the NPT, the seat is simply an ephemeral goal which is far far away.

The United States says it does not see its support for India becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council at odds with New Delhi’s refusal to sign two nuclear treaties.

“Well, we don’t see those as being at odds,” State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley told reporters Tuesday when asked to explain US support for India’s bid despite its refusal to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) andthe nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Asked if given President Barack Obama’s interest in removing nuclear weapons from the world, India’s candidature should be looked at par with Japan and South Africa, which have shunned nuclear weapons, he said: “India has shown itself to be a responsible global stakeholder.”

“And the President announced our position on India’s membership in the Security Council. And our support for India is not exclusive of our support for other countries as well,” Crowley said.

But “We are supportive of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,” he said. US had also “encouraged Pakistan to sign on to the Fissile Material Cut-Off Regime.” UNSC seat for India not linked with NPT: US, Washington, Nov 17 (IANS).

WASHINGTON: The United States has acknowledged that despite its support, India was unlikely to get a permanent seat in the UN Security Council anytime soon.

Robert Blake, US Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs, told a briefing at Washington’s Foreign Press Centre that the expansion of UNSC was, “a very complex process that has to take place — many, many contenders for permanent seat — there is a whole question of veto”.

The United States, he said, “needs to have a very serious and detailed conversation with all our friends who are competing for these seats”.

During a visit to India last week, President Barack Obama endorsed India’s bid for a permanent seat in the UNSC saying that the world body needed reforms to accommodate the changes that have taken place since the World War Two.

“I would caution against expecting any kind of breakthrough anytime soon,” Mr Blake said.

“I think the President and others have made it clear that this (reform) is going to be a long and complicated process and that we are committed to a modest expansion both of permanent and non-permanent seats,” he said. The official said the only “real change” Mr Obama announced was US support to India’s permanent seat in the 15-membered UNSC, but “we have always been clear that this is going to be a long-term and very complicated process”.

Mr Blake, however, said that the US support for India’s bid was unconditional.

He noted that in statements made during his visit to India, President Obama had emphasised the need to fight terrorism in South Asia but he was also “very clear that Pakistan itself has been the chief victim of international terrorism”.

Related articles

• Garmany, Japan, Brazil mad: CfC, China oppose Indian UNSC seat (rupeenews.com)
• ‘Hunooz Dilli door ast’: FM Qureshi to India on UNSC quest (rupeenews.com)
• Pakistan, China, CfC to scuttle India’s UNSC bid (rupeenews.com)
• India for UNSC: Pakistan cabinet criticises US support (topinews.com)
• Will Obama’s Unsc Permanent Seat Assurance to India See The Light of Day? (socyberty.com)
• ‘US support on India’s UNSC seat aimed against Pakistan’ (topinews.com)
• Pakistan must get UNSC seat in Non-Muslim Club (rupeenews.com)
• China checkmates India in Trilateral statement (rupeenews.com)
• China supports Pakistan-nixes Indian rhetoric in joint-statement (pakistanledger.com)
• Justice and Fair Play: UNSC seat for Pakistan (pakistanledger.com)

India's UNSC seat tied to NPT: US publicly denies

Share

USA dashes Bharat's hopes over UNSC seat

Share

WASHINGTON: The United States has acknowledged that despite its support, India was unlikely to get a permanent seat in the UN Security Council anytime soon.

Robert Blake, US Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs, told a briefing at Washington’s Foreign Press Centre that the expansion of UNSC was, “a very complex process that has to take place — many, many contenders for permanent seat — there is a whole question of veto”.

The United States, he said, “needs to have a very serious and detailed conversation with all our friends who are competing for these seats”.

During a visit to India last week, President Barack Obama endorsed India’s bid for a permanent seat in the UNSC saying that the world body needed reforms to accommodate the changes that have taken place since the World War Two.

“I would caution against expecting any kind of breakthrough anytime soon,” Mr Blake said.

“I think the President and others have made it clear that this (reform) is going to be a long and complicated process and that we are committed to a modest expansion both of permanent and non-permanent seats,” he said. The official said the only “real change” Mr Obama announced was US support to India’s permanent seat in the 15-membered UNSC, but “we have always been clear that this is going to be a long-term and very complicated process”.

Mr Blake, however, said that the US support for India’s bid was unconditional.

He noted that in statements made during his visit to India, President Obama had emphasised the need to fight terrorism in South Asia but he was also “very clear that Pakistan itself has been the chief victim of international terrorism”.

Related articles

• Garmany, Japan, Brazil mad: CfC, China oppose Indian UNSC seat (rupeenews.com)
• ‘Hunooz Dilli door ast’: FM Qureshi to India on UNSC quest (rupeenews.com)
• Pakistan, China, CfC to scuttle India’s UNSC bid (rupeenews.com)
• India for UNSC: Pakistan cabinet criticises US support (topinews.com)
• Will Obama’s Unsc Permanent Seat Assurance to India See The Light of Day? (socyberty.com)
• ‘US support on India’s UNSC seat aimed against Pakistan’ (topinews.com)
• Pakistan must get UNSC seat in Non-Muslim Club (rupeenews.com)
• China checkmates India in Trilateral statement (rupeenews.com)
• China supports Pakistan-nixes Indian rhetoric in joint-statement (pakistanledger.com)
• Justice and Fair Play: UNSC seat for Pakistan (pakistanledger.com)

USA dashes Bharat's hopes over UNSC seat

Share

World and UN still consider Kashmir an international dispute

Share

UNITED NATIONS – The United Nations Tuesday set the record straight when it declared that the Jammu and Kashmir dispute remains on the UN Security Council’s agenda, while rejecting as “inaccurate” that it has been removed from the list of unresolved issues.

“Some articles today on Kashmir are inaccurate,” UN Spokesman Farhan Haq said, referring to those reports, especially in Indian media.
He said the latest list of matters the Security Council is seized of “continues to include the agenda item under which the Council has taken up Kashmir which, by a decision of the Council, remains on the list for this year,” the spokesman added.

Earlier, a spokesman for the Pakistan Mission clarified that Pakistan’s Acting Ambassador Amjad Hussain Sial, in his speech to the General Assembly on Friday, November 12, had referred to the omission of Jammu and Kashmir dispute in a statement by the President of the Security Council, and not from the Council’s Annual Report – as reported in a section of press.

“The agenda item entitled, ‘India and Pakistan Question’, which covers Jammu and Kashmir dispute, is duly mentioned in the Annual Report of the Security Council and is also present on its agenda,” Spokesman Mian Jehangir Iqbal said in a statement.

In his statement, the 15-member Council’s President for the current month, British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, while presenting the Annual Report to the 192-member assembly, did not mention the Kashmir dispute in the context of unresolved long-running situations, despite the fact decades-old issue is included in the Annual Report.

“We understand this was an inadvertent omission, as Jammu and Kashmir is one of the oldest disputes on agenda of the Security Council,” Ambassador Sial remarked, after Ambassador Grant’s statem-ent.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s UN Ambassador Abdullah Hussain Haroon, who is on a visit to Pakistan, said there was no question of the Kashmir issue being dropped from the Council’s agenda. “The Security Council Report in its annexure is explicit,” he said in a statement.

“The President of the Security Council, the Permanent Representative of the UK, is amply clear on the subject and is cognizant of the matter. I would request all concerned not to speculate unnecessarily upon the subject”.

Related articles

• You: Kashmir still on SC’s agenda: UN (nation.com.pk)
• You: India should not be given authority on Kashmir: FO (nation.com.pk)
• Pakistan objects to UN list of disputes. Wants Kashmir listed (azadkashmirtimes.com)
• Nehru’s false Commitement to Kashmirs (azadkashmirtimes.com)
• India falsified so called Article of Accession (timesofsrinagar.com)
• Un-implemented UN resolutions on Indian Occupied Kashmir (kashmirpunch.com)
• Article of Accession: India faked it (kashmirpunch.com)
• Nehru’s Commitement to Kashmirs & un-implemented UN resolutions on Indian Occupied Kashmir (timesofsrinagar.com)
• Did the ‘Article of Accession’ ever exist? (azadkashmirtimes.com)

World and UN still consider Kashmir an international dispute

Share