On Pakistan and India

M. Abdulah Ghalib's letter to your esteemed daily on June 6, 1996, entitled Pakistan and India, presents some food for thought and introspection into what Mr. Ghalib claims to be correct.

A great effort was made by the learned author in his futile attempt to prove what he says is correct. He has taken the trouble to quote an article in the Security Council Resolution of 1949 on Kashmir. The learned author conveniently quoted only a part of it. "The question of the accession ... Of a free and impartial plebiscite." The author failed to understand the whole context under which such a resolution was adopted by the Security Council.

The second article of the resolution -- which the author conveniently forgot -- expressly states that the resolution can be implemented only after Pakistan surrenders to India the territory occupied by it in the aftermath of the partition, which is now referred to as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) by India, and Azad Kashmir by Pakistan. Is Pakistan prepared and willing to do it?

The author's attempt to gain credibility by merely quoting a provision of the resolution sounds hollow and legally unacceptable. I sincerely advise my learned friend to do a little more reading on the subject, rather than just be satisfied with "superficial" information. Also, one should try to analyze the problem in its totality and view things in an unbiased manner. One should also not be carried away by what he feels is correct. The facts should not be allowed to be distorted by bias.

The author goes on to accuse India of trying to divert the attention of its people from its domestic and internal problems by its allegations against Pakistan. India is a tested democracy and its voters are intelligent enough to understand things. They have brought down governments and leaders. The leaders accepted the verdicts of the voters. They stepped down gracefully and fought back successfully when the opportunity arose.

I think the author's conclusion that "the resolutions are the biggest deterrent to Indian plans to incorporate the state in its territory" -- in light of Article II of the resolution -- should read as the "resolutions are a certificate of authority to Indian plans to take back POK." In this context, the author could have done well to note the developments in Kashmir in 1950s and 1960s, where the elected State Legislative Assembly of Kashmir extended "unequivocal and unconditional" support to the merger of Kashmir with India.

In regards to non-Hindu minorities, the author should not forget the fact that India had Moslem presidents and also cabinet ministers. Also, the Indian Moslems have their own civil law.

I sincerely feel the need of the hour for Pakistan's leaders is to overcome such hysteria towards its neighboring countries and to show a greater sense of responsibility in establishing peace. This would lead to prosperity not only for the people of Pakistan, but for the entire region.

RAMAKRISHNA CHITRAPU

Bekasi, West Java