External Intervention on Kashmir Issue
- 23 Jan 2020
- 5 min read
Why in News
Recently, at the World Economic Forum (WEF) summit in Davos Pakistan has reiterated the United Nations (UN) and United States(US) intervention in Kashmir issue.
- Pakistan has demanded that UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) be allowed along the Line of Control(LoC).
- Pakistan also wanted US intervention in the Kashmir issue to help de-escalate tensions with India and prevent the possibility of nuclear conflict.
- India has always rejected the third party role in its bilateral relationship with Pakistan.
UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)
- It was established in January 1949.
- After the first war in Kashmir (1947-1948), India approached the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to bring the conflict in Kashmir to the notice of Security Council members.
- In January 1948, the UNSC adopted Resolution 39, establishing the three-member United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate and mediate the dispute.
- In April 1948, by its Resolution 47, the UNCIP was reconstituted as UNMOGIP.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 47
- It is concerned with the resolution of the Kashmir conflict.
- According to it, Pakistan was to withdraw its nationals who had entered the State for the purpose of fighting and to prevent future intrusions.
- The five member UNMOGIP reconstituted through this resolution urged India and Pakistan to hold a plebiscite after the restoration of law and order.
- UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) was meant to supervise the Cease Fire Line (CFL) established in Jammu and Kashmir in July 1949 under the Karachi Agreement.
- UNMOGIP is funded through the UN's regular budget.
- After the 1st Indo-Pak armed conflict in 1948,under the supervision of the UNCIP, military representatives of both Pakistan and India met in Karachi and signed the Karachi Agreement on 27 July 1949.
- It established a cease-fire line (CFL) in Kashmir.
India’s stand on Resolution 47
- India rejected the UNSC Resolution 47 and maintained that the resolution ignored the military invasion by Pakistan and placed both nations on an equal diplomatic ground was a dismissal of Pakistan’s aggression.
- The Instrument of Accession (IoA) signed by the Maharaja of Kashmir was ignored in the resolution.
Pakistan’s stand on Resolution 47
- It objected to even the minimum presence of Indian forces in Kashmir, as mandated by the resolution.
- It wanted equal representation in the state government for the dominant party in Pakistani-held Kashmir i.e the Muslim Conference.
Disagreement Over Role of UNMOGIP
- India’s stand on UNMOGIP:
- The mandate of UNMOGIP had lapsed since it related specifically to the ceasefire line under the Karachi Agreement.
- India has maintained that UNMOGIP has outlived its utility and is irrelevant after the Simla Agreement and the consequent establishment of the Line of Control (LoC).
- Pakistan’s stand: Pakistan did not accept India’s position.
- UN’s Stand: Given the disagreement between the two parties over UNMOGIP's mandate and functions, the UNMOGIP could be terminated only by a decision of the Security Council.
- Despite their differences with the provisions of Resolution 47, both India and Pakistan welcomed the UNMOGIP and agreed to work with it.
- It followed from the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971 that led to the independence of Bangladesh.
- India and Pakistan signed it in July 1972.
- It established a Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir which, with minor deviations, followed the same course as the ceasefire line established by the Karachi Agreement.
- India and Pakistan mutually agreed on certain principles that both sides would adhere to while managing relations with each other.
- These emphasized respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, respect for each others unity, political independence, sovereign equality, and abjuring hostile propaganda.
- The two countries resolved to solve their differences by peaceful means, through bilateral means or other means mutually agreed upon by them.