Terrorism in India: The Challenge for the Global Anti-terrorism
\ncoalition<\/p>\n
G.S. Edwin
\nManagement Consultant
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. sent a shudder
\nthrough the spines of most people on this planet. Fortunately,
\nonly a few are bent on perpetrating terrorism, while most are
\nkeen that it should be eradicated.<\/p>\n
India has been battling terrorism since 1971, to no avail.
\nExpecting Pakistani's Gen. Musharaff to control cross-border
\nterrorism is not the way to put an end to terrorism in India. It
\nis the issue of Kashmir that needs to be resolved.<\/p>\n
The global anti-terrorism coalition, treading with more
\ncaution than purpose, has advised India and Pakistan to resume
\ntheir talks. So far, the talks have reached deadlock. India says,
\n\"let us talk, but Kashmir is not negotiable\". Pakistan says,
\n\"let us talk, Kashmir should be the only agenda\".<\/p>\n
India should break the stalemate and invite Pakistan for talks
\nwith this agenda: to accept the present Line of Control as the
\ninternational border between India and Pakistan, and to restore
\nall the special provisions on Kashmir figuring in the
\nConstitution of India, which was adopted on Jan. 26, 1950.<\/p>\n
Talks, even if they have a solution-oriented agenda, will not
\nyield any results because the 1948 United Nations Resolution says
\nthe outcome of a plebiscite should decide the fate of Kashmir.
\nSo, to make meaningful progress, the 1948 U.N. resolution must be
\nannulled forthwith.<\/p>\n
It is indeed a drastic step, but necessary. First, the
\nresolution is more than 51 years old, yet the U.N. has still not
\ngot around to implementing it. Second, the U.N., not being a
\nsovereign body, cannot set aside the sovereign act of the
\nMaharaja of Kashmir in acceding his kingdom to India in 1948, an
\nact which was legitimate, final and irrevocable, and substitute
\nin its place, a plebiscite. A plebiscite was not provided as a
\nmeans to transfer power from the crown to the people of India,
\nupon the granting of independence in 1947. Third, it has made
\nKashmir a playground for terrorists, who have hounded Kashmir
\nrelentlessly to death and destitution. More than 60,000 people
\nhave died. India and Pakistan have fought three wars and the
\nworld is threatened with a nuclear war - all because of a
\nresolution that will remain in limbo forever and go on preventing
\na settlement.<\/p>\n
In the absence of legal competence, the basis of the
\nresolution, however tenuous, was the consent given by India,
\nagreeing to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir in 1948. The reasons for
\ngiving this consent were historical and sentimental.<\/p>\n
Pakistan, through a proxy invasion, occupied about 40 per cent
\nof Kashmir territory, which subsequently became Indian territory
\nby virtue of accession. India had two options: Fight with
\nPakistan or approach the U.N. to regain its territory peacefully.
\nIndia, a votary of non-violence, chose the latter in good faith,
\nand expected the U.N. would hold a plebiscite in 1948 or soon
\nthereafter, which in the light of the context then existing,
\nwould have been a walkover for India.<\/p>\n
The plebiscite did not take place because Pakistan did not
\nkeep its side of the bargain to quit the occupied Kashmir
\nterritory, a precondition for holding the plebiscite. However,
\nIndia went ahead and adopted its constitution on Jan. 26, 1950,
\nwhich proclaimed in no uncertain terms that Kashmir is an
\nintegral and inseparable part of India. It is pertinent to note
\nthat in the Indian Constitution, there is no provision for ceding
\nterritory. This means that no part of India, including Kashmir,
\ncan be taken away, except by conquest. Conquest means war. In the
\nU.N.'s books, no resolution that makes war a possibility should
\nexist.<\/p>\n
More importantly, the consent given by India does not survive
\nbecause a plebiscite, which suggests the boundary of India is not
\nfinal, is inconsistent with the constitution and compromises the
\nsovereignty of India. If the consent doesn't survive, the
\nresolution cannot survive either. Therefore, the resolution
\nshould be annulled by the U.N.<\/p>\n
Whether the U.N. does it or not, the task before the global
\nanti-terrorism coalition is clear. It should initiate steps to
\nannul the 1948 U.N. Resolution and help both India and Pakistan
\nresolve the issue on the lines proposed above.<\/p>\n
The proposed settlement would benefit everybody, particularly
\nKashmir and its people. It would achieve full autonomy and
\npolitical stability, see an end to terrorism on its soil, and a
\npeace dividend to make Kashmir prosperous. Its CEO would get back
\nhis original and coveted title of prime minister.<\/p>\n
The anti-terrorism coalition could claim its first real
\nsuccess. The end of terrorism in Kashmir would make its global
\nanti-terrorism drive more visible. Pakistan could help the
\ncoalition openly, to take care of the terrorists lurking in
\nAfghanistan, and by shedding its image of associating with
\nterrorism, which could contribute to end the copycat terrorism
\ntaking place in the Philippines.<\/p>\n
Above all, the end of terrorism in Kashmir means communal
\namity and bonding between India and Pakistan, a plus factor for
\nthe South Asian subcontinent.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/terrorism-in-india-the-challenge-for-the-global-anti-terrorism-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}