120 Whither Kashmir? (Part II) - Islamabad Policy Research Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

50 IPRI Factfile the Chashma-Jhelum and Taunsa-Panjnad link canals last week, the prime minister had to call an urgent meeting of the four chief ministers. But where the official state or quality of being pusillanimous is detected in raising the issue of India blocking Pakistani rivers at the concerned international forums. Recent reports suggest that Pakistan is ‘still undecided’ when to formally seek intervention of the International Court of Arbitration against the controversial construction of Kishenganga project by India, in violation of Indus Water Treaty. Of course, the Indus Water Treaty - under which Pakistan lost waters of its three eastern rivers - Ravi, Sutlej and Beas - hoping its monopoly of Indus, Jhelum and Chenab waters would remain uncontested by India - was badly negotiated and more than required was surrendered. But that Pakistan should not even get its allocated share under the treaty is all the more unacceptable. We hope and expect that at the forthcoming talks in New Delhi, later this week, Pakistani officials would raise the issue of dams India is building or planning to build in the Occupied Kashmir in violation of Indus Water Treaty. Under international laws, India cannot carry out any major upstream alterations in a river system, and even minor changes have to be discussed and made only with the formal consent of downstream riparians. If allowed to go unchecked, what India is doing has the dangerous potential to stop Himalayan snowmelt reaching Pakistan in the next few years. It is a kind of silent strategic warfare India is waging against Pakistan, by creating conditions of perennial drought for a fundamentally agrarian economy that Pakistan is. It would be resisted resolutely and fought back valiantly; if world’s future wars would be fought over water and not oil, the first of these may well be in South Asia where India seeks to starve Pakistan to death. Editorial, Daily Mail (Islamabad /Beijing), February 26, 2010. http://dailymailnews.com/0210/26/Editorial_Column/DMEditorial.php#1 US CONGRESSMAN FAVOURS PLEBISCITE IN KASHMIR A senior Republican Congressman has favored holding of plebiscite in Kashmir arguing that it would resolve the ‘terrorist problem’ of the region. Expressing deep concern over the situation in Kashmir, Congressman Dan Burton, who is the Ranking Member of House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, said, “Kashmir has been the cause of two wars between the two countries”.
Whither Kashmir? Burton was speaking at a Congressional hearing convened by Ackerman on “Building a Strategic Partnership: US-India Relations in the Wake of Mumbai.” An outspoken critic of India’s human rights record for past several years now, Burton, said, “Solving the Kashmir problem will not likely make the terrorist groups operating on and from Kashmir lay down their arms but it will, I believe, eliminate their ability to use the human rights situation in Kashmir”. He further said, “I personally believe that the people of Kashmir should be given the plebiscite that they were promised by the United Nations decades ago. Regardless of the shape of the ultimate resolution, this situation someday be addressed and the sooner the better”. Sana online, March 2, 2010. http://www.sananews.com.pk/english/2009/03/02/us-cong-man-favoursplebiscite-in-kashmir/ DEADLOCK IN PAKISTAN-INDIA TALKS Once again Pakistan-India talks have become the victim of a deadlock as is quite apparent from the result of our foreign secretary’s visit to India last week. A deadlock in Pakistan-India talks is nothing extraordinary. In fact, if one looks at the history of Pakistan-India relations, it has been a common feature of this complex and difficult relationship. The only thing which is different this time is that the bilateral talks in substantive terms have been deadlocked even before they could begin. This speaks volumes about the current status of Pakistan-India relations mired as they are in mutual mistrust, grievances and animosity. It was quite clear after the three-hour talks between the two foreign secretaries in New Delhi on February 25 that the positions of the two countries were far apart. In fact, Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, while talking to the Pakistani media after the talks, remarked that the gap between the two countries was widening. India’s focus during the talks was on the issue of terrorism on which it handed over two dossiers to the Pakistani foreign secretary demanding the arrest and handing over by Pakistan of the founder of Lashkar-i-Taiba, Hafiz Saeed, and seven other operatives besides some Indian mujahideen and Khalistan militants. India expressed its inability to recommence the composite dialogue without the “unravelling of the full conspiracy” behind the Mumbai terrorist attack. Even before the talks began, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao told 51
Page 1 and 2:
Whither Kashmir? WHITHER KASHMIR? (
Page 3 and 4:
Whither Kashmir? 32. Conflicting Pe
Page 5: Whither Kashmir? The IPRI Factfile
Page 8 and 9: 2 IPRI Factfile share of assets to
Page 10 and 11: 4 IPRI Factfile almost uninterrupte
Page 12 and 13: 6 IPRI Factfile The media is perhap
Page 14 and 15: 8 IPRI Factfile This was not the on
Page 16 and 17: 10 IPRI Factfile I urge both India
Page 18 and 19: 12 IPRI Factfile of-the-box solutio
Page 20 and 21: 14 IPRI Factfile Kashmir. As of Jan
Page 22 and 23: 16 IPRI Factfile terror by neglecti
Page 24 and 25: 18 IPRI Factfile In the past, ‘co
Page 26 and 27: 20 IPRI Factfile non for a lasting
Page 28 and 29: 22 IPRI Factfile expressed wishes -
Page 30 and 31: 24 IPRI Factfile issue and Pakistan
Page 32 and 33: 26 IPRI Factfile insecurity and und
Page 34 and 35: 28 IPRI Factfile Gilani while talki
Page 36 and 37: 30 IPRI Factfile within 5-6 years f
Page 38 and 39: 32 IPRI Factfile WHY RUSH TO DIALOG
Page 40 and 41: 34 IPRI Factfile take the wind out
Page 42 and 43: 36 IPRI Factfile women in Shopian h
Page 44 and 45: 38 IPRI Factfile rendered numerous
Page 46 and 47: 40 IPRI Factfile State) to Kashmir
Page 48 and 49: 42 IPRI Factfile Princely states, o
Page 50 and 51: 44 IPRI Factfile hospitality. Fruga
Page 52 and 53: 46 IPRI Factfile otherwise. War, th
Page 54 and 55: 48 IPRI Factfile KASHMIR LEADERS ME
Page 58 and 59: 52 IPRI Factfile his Pakistani coun
Page 60 and 61: 54 IPRI Factfile towards India whil
Page 62 and 63: 56 IPRI Factfile expenditures to th
Page 64 and 65: 58 IPRI Factfile Ok. But again let
Page 66 and 67: 60 IPRI Factfile all the stakeholde
Page 68 and 69: 62 IPRI Factfile never do under any
Page 70 and 71: 64 IPRI Factfile interests — whic
Page 72 and 73: 66 IPRI Factfile On March 20, the I
Page 74 and 75: 68 IPRI Factfile “There were 3240
Page 76 and 77: 70 IPRI Factfile like ‘will to fi
Page 78 and 79: 72 IPRI Factfile force.’ Sajjad S
Page 80 and 81: 74 IPRI Factfile Activists have all
Page 82 and 83: 76 IPRI Factfile called upon the pa
Page 84 and 85: 78 IPRI Factfile Article 21 of the
Page 86 and 87: 80 IPRI Factfile the adjudicative p
Page 88 and 89: 82 IPRI Factfile • June 3, 1947:
Page 90 and 91: 84 IPRI Factfile be decided through
Page 92 and 93: 86 IPRI Factfile Rise of Peaceful P
Page 94 and 95: 88 IPRI Factfile Kashmir by Indians
Page 96 and 97: 90 IPRI Factfile • August 2, 1996
Page 98 and 99: 92 IPRI Factfile being arrested, to
Page 100 and 101: 94 IPRI Factfile • September 23,
Page 102 and 103: 96 IPRI Factfile • September 24,
Page 104 and 105: 98 IPRI Factfile • May 26, 2009:
Page 106 and 107:
100 IPRI Factfile India. The meetin
Page 108 and 109:
102 IPRI Factfile • January 6 201
show all

120 Whither Kashmir? (Part II) - Islamabad Policy Research Institute

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?