Background

BACKGROUND:

When the British decides to pull out of India and all its colonies, Lord Mountbatten calls for a meeting of the rulers of all the princely states and informs them about the partition. Along with it, they are also given the option of joining (acceding to) one of the countries – India or Pakistan. However, Hari Singh – Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, refused to give a conclusive answer at this meeting and delays the process further. Partition happens on 15th August 2018, and J&K remains as it is. However, Pakistan keeps on pursuing the issue with Hari Singh and owing to this; he signs a standstill agreement with Pakistan. Nothing was legally bound, though. After news of genocide taking place in the valley, tribesmen living in North Western Frontier of Pakistan called ‘Afridis’ started entering Kashmir and caused an insurgency of massive scale. Even Srinagar was about to fall. Hari Singh reaches out to India for help and in return, agrees to sign the accession to India. After this formal accession, Indian troops are rushed into the Kashmir Valley to fight off the insurgency. A limited war ensued between the Indian troops and the Pakistani raiders within the confines of the princely state. On 1st January 1948, India took up the matter with the UN Security Council under Article 35 of the UN Charter. India claimed that Pakistan had sent its tribesmen to disrupt peace in ‘Indian territory’. While Pakistan opposed by saying that it wasn’t aware of the tribesmen’s movements and also, that India had taken J&K’s accession by fraud and violence and by forcing Hari Singh into signing the deed. India requested the Security Council to prevent Pakistan from continuing its actions and stated that, despite holding the state's legal accession, it was prepared to conduct a plebiscite to confirm the people's wishes and abide by its results. The Conception Of The Resolution:

On 1 January 1948, India took the matter to the United Nations Security Council under Article 35 of the UN Charter, which allows the member nations to bring to the attention of the UN matters endangering international peace. It claimed that Pakistani nationals and tribesmen had attacked Jammu and Kashmir, which was Indian territory. It requested the Security Council to prevent Pakistan from continuing its actions. India also stated that, despite holding the state's legal accession, it was prepared to conduct a plebiscite to confirm the people's wishes and abide by its results. In response, Pakistan denied involvement in the conflict and made counter-accusations claiming that India had acquired the state's accession by fraud and violence. Both of the sides

had fought and had reached a stalemate where India after been legally given Kashmir not able to push back the infiltrator to the borders and the Azad army and the Pakistani Army not able to take full control of the valley and other important districts, though lives were being lost every day in the battle as both the armies came up with tactics and strategies that were flopping. On 20 January 1948, the Security Council passed Resolution 39 establishing a three-member Commission to investigate the complaints. However, such a Commission did not come into fruition until May 1948. Meanwhile, the Security Council continued its deliberations and the war too continued. UN Commission:

Initially in early 1948 a resolution was passed establishing a three-member commission to investigate and solve the issues arising in the region of Kashmir, though the actual process started late. After hearing arguments from both India and Pakistan, the Council increased the size of the Commission to five members, instructed the Commission to go to the subcontinent and help the governments of India and Pakistan restore peace and order to the region and prepare for a plebiscite to decide the fate of Kashmir. The five part United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) comprised of the delegates from Czechoslovakia (Josef Korbel), Argentina (Ricardo Siri), Belgium (Egbert Graeffe), Colombia (Alfredo Lozano) and the United States (Jerome Klahr Huddle). Its secretariat was going to be Erik Colban, the Norwegian minister to the UK, with the British Quaker Richard Symonds going about as Colban's secretary.

Ceasefire:

After touching base in Karachi, the Commission was educated that three units of general Pakistani troops had been battling in Kashmir since May, portrayed as a "stunner" by Josef Korbel. In New Delhi, India affirmed that it appended the most noteworthy significance to a presentation of Pakistan's guilt. The battling in Kashmir went on unabated and the Commission perceived that the Sheik Abdullah government in Jammu and Kashmir and the Azad Kashmir government in Muzaffarabad were occupied with a beyond reconciliation struggle.

On 13 August 1948, after discourses with both the administrations, the Commission consistently embraced a three-section determination, changing and opening up the UN Resolution 47. Part I managed truce, requiring an entire end of threats. Part II managed a ceasefire understanding. It requested an entire withdrawal of Pakistan's battling powers, including the armed force, clans and other Pakistani nationals, and expressed that the cleared domain would be managed by neighbourhood specialists under the reconnaissance of the Commission. Following the Pakistani withdrawal, India was relied upon to pull back the "majority of its powers" lessening them to the base level required for keeping up lawfulness. Part III expressed that, after the acknowledgment of the ceasefire assertion, the two nations would go into counsel with the Commission for settling the fate of the state as per the will of the people. The structure of the determination was of importance to India. The threesection structure certainly perceived Pakistan's "hostility" by influencing the ceasefire consent to go before the discussion for the eventual fate of the state. Also, a plebiscite was not specified, which considered other conceivable roads for deciding the will of the general population, for example, choosing a constituent gathering. India expected that a plebiscite would prompt religious interests and release "troublesome forces".

AFTERMATH:

In 1972, following the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, India and Pakistan signed the Simla Agreement, agreeing to resolve all their differences through bilateral negotiations. The United States, United Kingdom and most Western governments have since supported this approach. In 2001, the then Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan during his visit to India and Pakistan, clarified that Kashmir resolutions are only advisory recommendations and they should not be compared to those on East Timor and Iraq. In 2003, the then Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf announced that Pakistan was willing to "leave aside" the demand for UN resolutions and explore alternative bilateral options for resolving the dispute.

Today Kashmir stands divided into four parts, Indian Kashmir that entails area’s lower than Kargil, all the way south, Pakistan Occupied Kashmir the area that majorly consists of the Gilgit-Batlistan sector, Aksai Chin and the Saksham valley administered by China and finally Azad Kashmir which is everything but Azad and is administered by Pakistan with its capital as Muzzafarazbad, the state has not had its plebiscite till date and a lot of intellectuals have cursed the government for it, asking them to let the people decide, but the point to be taken into consideration is that after such bloodshed and mass migration of specially Hindu Pandits from the valley are the true inhabitants present really to participate in a plebiscite? The Gilgit-Batlistan area ratified by China in the UN has made sure that it is a part of Pakistan whilst the area that India holds is still called contested ground and so is the area of Saksham Valley. If we were to cut the long story short, this issue is no way near to being resolved and the stalemate continues to live on.