of the Ufa Communique. Therefore, the insistence by the Indian foreign minister that under the Ufa Communique only terrorism could form the agenda of talks between the NSAs was a deliberate attempt to sabotage the dialogue as was her condition that Sartaj Aziz not meet the leaders of the Hurriyet Conference.
Pakistani leaders have invariably met Hurriyet leaders whenever they have gone to India for talks. It is only since the last year that India started objecting to these interactions and even used them as a pretext for cancellation of talks between the two countries. It unilaterally cancelled talks between foreign secretaries last year. And even now it has used the same reason for cancellation of the talks. India is not only trying to dictate terms for dialogue but is also trying to promote the notion that the Kashmiris are not a party to the dispute between Pakistan and India.
The contention by India that there is no third party to the dispute between India and Pakistan is a travesty of historic facts. The real bone of contention is the Kashmir dispute and the rest of the issues are a corollary to that. This dispute is about the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir promised in the partition plan and in 23 UN resolutions on the subject. It is not a territorial dispute between two countries.
The people of Kashmir are actually the main party to the dispute. It is pertinent to mention that it was India that took the matter to the UN after war broke out between the two countries and it was India which actually proposed plebiscite in Kashmir to settle the question of accession. Since then it has taken several somersaults on the issue to deny this right to the people of Kashmir. It manoeuvred a resolution by the constituent assembly of Kashmir affirming formal accession of the state to India and then had it incorporated in the constitution of the state and started claiming Kashmir as an integral part of India. This move was rejected by the UN, reiterating that the question of accession could not be settled by any method other than a plebiscite held under the auspices of the UN.
In the Simla Agreement India negated its claim of Kashmir being its integral through section 6 which said “Both government agree that their respective heads will meet again at a mutually convenient time in the future and that in the meantime the representative of the two sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for the establishment of durable peace and normalization of relations, including the question of repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and the resumption of diplomatic relations”. Clause 3(6) of the agreement said: “Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line”.
The fact is that India has neither shown any respect for the UN resolutions and its commitments to the international community nor taken any substantive steps to resolve the Kashmir dispute in the light of the Simla Agreement.
While repeatedly expressing desire for normalisation of relations between the two countries, the Modi government has actually made moves to further heighten the tensions. RAW has been assigned the task of sabotaging the CPEC and to increase the frequency of terrorist attacks within Pakistan. The frequent violations of the LoC and the Working Boundary are clear manifestations of the aggressive and hostile Indian stance towards Pakistan. Pakistan’s initiative to normalise relations with India through dialogue and going the extra mile to have it kick-started is a prudent and visionary move. But as they say, it takes two to tango. Pakistan cannot do it unilaterally.
In view of the foregoing realities and the fact that even after more 43 years since the signing of the Simla Agreement the bilateral arrangement has failed to deliver, Pakistan must launch a sustained diplomatic offensive at the international level to unmask India’s role in militancy in Pakistan, and also raise the Kashmir issue at the Security Council. Under the UN charter, UN resolutions on a particular issue take precedence over bilateral agreements on the same subject. So Pakistan is very much within its right to invoke Article 103 of the UN Charter and urge the Security Council to have its resolutions implemented.
Article 25 of the UN Charter reiterates the obligatory nature of the UN resolutions and the Security Council has the power to enforce its decisions and resolutions militarily or by any other means necessary. At the moment there is no other way of putting pressure on India to fulfil its obligations under UN resolutions.
The writer is a freelance contributor.
Email: ashpak10gmail.com