The topic under discussion at the United Nations (UN) was peacekeeping efforts and the reforms possible in them. The aim of the discussions was suggesting ways of enhancing the ability of those participating in peacekeeping missions. So that they could become more dynamic in responding to contemporary challenges being faced by the UN.
Instead of focussing on that, Pakistan’s representative derailed the discussions and thought of it as an opportunity to talk about J&K. Syed Tariq Fatemi, Special Assistant to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, raised the issue during a Security Council debate on the future of UN peacekeeping. But he later got schooled about facts pertaining to the issue as also etiquettes by the Indian representative.
India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Parvathaneni Harish, dismissed Pakistan’s repeated reference to J&K as “unwarranted’’ and firmly reiterated that the region “was, is, and will always remain an integral part of India”.
Referring to this insolent habit of Pakistan representatives to refer to J&K out of context on most occasions, Harish said in the UN Security Council: “India is compelled to note that the delegate of Pakistan has yet again resorted to unwarranted remarks on the Indian union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Such repeated references neither validate their illegal claims nor justify their state-sponsored cross-border terrorism.”
Going a step further, he said our western neighbour should vacate the areas of J&K it has been “occupying illegally’’. It needs to be mentioned here that the Princely state of J&K had acceded to India on October 26, 1947. On the other hand, Pakistan is in possession of large tracts of J&K’s territory which it had occupied after waging a war and grabbing it as the UN had urged ceasefire in late 1948.
Ironically, despite its propensity to raise J&K issue at different places, different times and often out of context, Pakistan has never ever been able to say that it has any legal rights over J&K. It refers vaguely to UN resolutions pertaining to J&K the most significant of which are those dealing with the question in three clear steps.
At one time, the UN had clearly marked its resolution in three steps defined as Part I, Part II and Part III. In Part I, it had asked for warring India and Pakistan to stop fighting and declared ceasefire. In Part II, which was meant for Pakistan mainly, the UN had asked it to vacate its aggression in J&K. It was told to withdraw all military personnel and armed bandits it backed from the territories of J&K. This was meant to restore status quo ante as it prevailed on August 15, 1947, when Pakistan was born.
Simultaneously with asking Pakistan to withdraw all those who were not ordinarily resident in J&K, the UN allowed India to keep armed personnel, including its Army, in J&K, in sufficient numbers to maintain law and order. Till date, Pakistan has failed to withdraw its armed personnel from J&K territories it had illegally occupied. The relevant UN resolution/s were passed in 1948 and the ceasefire had come into effect in January 1949.
Once Part I and Part II had been implemented and verified by the UN, in Part III, it suggested holding of a plebiscite throughout J&K, including Pakistan Occupied Jammu Kashmir (POJK), including Gilgit Baltistan (territorially a part of undivided J&K ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh). It needs to be emphasised here that Part III could have been implemented by the UN only after it had satisfied itself regarding satisfactory implementation of Part I and Part II of its resolution/s.
Incidentally, India has remained committed to providing military personnel for UN peacekeeping missions from 1948, almost from the inception of the UN. Its personnel have faced great challenges as part of their UN duties and over 160 of them have made the ultimate sacrifice. Overall, India has provided more than 2,50,000 personnel to the UN for its peacekeeping duties in at least 50 missions till date.
In January 2024, at least 6,000 Indian troops were participating in at least 12 UN peacekeeping missions worldwide. Not only that, India has provided some very senior commanders to the UN peacekeeping missions where they excelled in the jobs assigned to them.
In comparison, Pakistan lags far behind having contributed lesser personnel to the UN missions. In UN peacekeeping missions also, besides all other walks of life, Pakistan is a laggard vis a vis India. This was perhaps what motivated the Pakistani representative to go off tangent and raise irrelevant issues at the UN on Monday. However, he got badly mauled by the answers, the facts pertaining to J&K which the Indian side laid before the House on Tuesday.
The disdain in Mr Harish’s voice while responding to “unwarranted’’ reference to J&K was obvious to all delegates. He said: “Pakistan continues to illegally occupy the territory of Jammu and Kashmir, which it must vacate. We would advise Pakistan not to try to divert the attention of this forum to drive their parochial and divisive agenda. India will refrain from exercising a more elaborate Right of Reply.’’
Last week also, Pakistan had to be rebuked for its nonsense about J&K spoken at a UN Human Rights Council meeting. In Geneva, India rejected the Pakistani allegations of human rights violations in J&K and called it a terror sponsor.
“India is exercising its right of reply in response to the baseless and malicious references made by Pakistan. It is regrettable to see Pakistan’s so-called leaders and delegates continuing to dutifully spread falsehoods handed down by its military-terrorist complex,” Indian envoy Kshitij Tyagi said.
It is well known all over the world now that Pakistan has been breeding and spreading terrorism all around for past many decades. Senior US diplomat S Paul Kapur has said that jihad is a grand strategy Pakistan has employed against India right from its birth. He asserts that promoting rabid, radical Islamist militancy (terrorism) is an abiding cornerstone of the Pakistani state which deems it an inalienable element of the national security.
Comments