Former Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik, who has a history of trying to solve conflicts around the world, has now turned his attention to Jammu and Kashmir.
The region has been a thorny issue between India and Pakistan since the independence of the two countries in 1947.
Bondevik has been involved in peace-making efforts in Somalia and South Sudan in the past. He has also focussed on the Myanmar situation. He twice served as Norway’s Prime Minister and afterwards established the Oslo Centre for Peace and Human Rights in 2006.
But is he now entering territory that angels fear to tread?
Bondevik was in Srinagar, the capital of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, on November 23. There he met three leading separatist leaders, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Yasin Malik and Syed Ali Shah Gilani. He also interacted with members of the Kashmir Chamber for Business and Industry as well as the state’s Bar Association.
From India, Bondevik traveled to Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. He had a meeting with Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi. The Pakistanis took him to the Line of Control in Kashmir, which is the de facto Indo-Pak border in the valley along a ceasefire line.
After his return to Norway, Bondevik gave a few written interviews to Indian journalists. In one, he stated that while he had no contact with the Ministry of External Affairs, he had had talks “with Delhi.” He disclosed that an Indian godman, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, whom he described as “his partner,” had made Bondevik’s visit to Kashmir possible.
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is known to have good contacts with sections of the Indian political and security establishment.
Bondevik stressed that the only way to resolve the Kashmir issue was through peaceful means and dialogue – no military solution was possible, he said. He said he stressed this point to Kashmiri separatist leaders too.
He also felt that the resumption of dialogue was not possible prior to Indian parliamentary elections next year. While acknowledging that India favored the route of bilateral negotiations with Pakistan, he noted “we must be aware of several UN resolutions on the conflict and the recent report on the human rights situation. We need a tri-party dialogue between the leaders in India, Pakistan and Kashmir.”
Following the India-Pakistan Simla Agreement of July 1972, India has refused to accept any third-party mediation in its relations with Pakistan. The agreement said the two countries would “settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations.”
In times of India-Pakistan crisis since the agreement, world powers, especially the United States, have intervened to calm the situation, but India has never accepted mediation. This is particularly so in matters relating to the Kashmir issue.
On the other hand, Pakistan has always wanted, despite the Simla Agreement, to attract third-party mediation in bilateral India-Pakistan issues. It has never succeeded in moving India from its position that any and all bilateral differences have to be addressed bilaterally.
In this context, Bondevik’s approach would be simply unacceptable to India. For one, India believes that in the early years, the UN resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir could not be implemented on account of Pakistan’s unwillingness to adhere to their stipulations. It further holds that these resolutions have been overtaken by history; the Kashmir issue has not been discussed at the UN Security Council since 1965.
As the state of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of the Indian Union, India holds that differences between the central Indian government and political forces or groups in the state have to be resolved within its domestic sphere and in accordance with the Indian Constitution. The external dimension of the Kashmir issue brings in Pakistan for, according to India, it is in illegal control of Indian territory. India is committed to resolving this territorial dispute through peaceful means in accordance with the Simla Agreement.
India has rejected the report of the United Nations Human Rights Office on the human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir. The report was submitted by the outgoing High Commissioner for Human rights Zeid Husseini in June this year. India declared that the report was motivated and did not present an accurate picture of the human rights situation in the state. The report also covered the conditions in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.
Pakistan has been happy with the Bondevik visit. In a statement after the Bondevik-Qureishi meeting, the Pakistan Foreign Ministry claimed that Bondevik had briefed Qureishi on his visit to India. It further claimed that he had also told Qureishi that Kashmir should be high on the agenda of the international community and its resolution should be a priority for all.
The fact is that Zeid Husseini’s recommendation that the UN Human Rights Council should focus on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir has been ignored by the international community. All countries would wish to see a resolution of the Kashmir issue and get worried at the prospect of India-Pakistan tensions getting out of control because both states possess nuclear weapons. But no one is willing to mediate between the two as that is unacceptable to India.
The government of India has made no comment on Bondevik’s visit, even though the opposition has raised questions about how a former Norwegian Prime Minister was allowed to visit the Kashmir valley to meet with separatists.
Indian commentators also point to Norwegian proclivities towards trying to act as peacemakers in conflict situations. In this context, they give the example of Norway’s mediation efforts in Sri Lanka.
While all this is true, it is simply impossible to expect that India’s entrenched position to resolve all its differences with Pakistan through bilateral means will ever permit an outside country or individual to mediate. Bondevik would be well advised to keep away from the Kashmir issue.
This is what is the fcatual history of Kashmir dispute. And it’s not the way writer has tried to self- fabricate.
This is what is the fcatual history of Kashmir dispute. And it’s not the way writer has tried to self- fabricate.
It was actually India who took Kashmir issue to UNO. These Indians forcibly annexed Junagadh and Hyderabad on the plea that majority of population was Hindu and their ruler had no rights to join Pak. At the same time, India occupied Kashmir on the plea which is 180 degree opposite of Junagadh. Here almost entire population wanted to join Pak but ruler wad indecisive though bending towards India being from a Hindu caste. Actually, foundations of Kashmir dispute were laid when Muslim majority district Gordaspur was given to India at the time of Partition. Route from India to Kashmir was only through District Gordaspur. It happened coz of illicit relations between Nehru and lady Mount Baton.
India went to UNO for cease fire and accepted the resolution for plebiscite.
Shimla agreement actually ruined the politics in Sub Continent. All issues here were restricted to be bilateral in this agreement. Kashmir, Sir Creek, Water issue being case in pt. But at the same time, India Internationalises Mumbai attacks issue which was orchestrated by likes of those who were responsible for massacre of Pakistanis in Samjhota Express.
India is now endeavouring to change the demographic landscape of Indian Occupied Kashmir so that after influx of reasonable no of Hindus, conduct of plebiscite would be possible.
India must keep this fact in mind that such an attempt would be disastrous for the region. Neither Pakistan nor Kashmiris will accept this activity. Region will be inflamed by nuclear war then.
Hopefully, revival of Khalistan movement and 28 other separation struggles in India will have some effects and Indian state is likely to disintegrate sooner or later. A United India (Maha Bharat) is against the nature. In thousands of years of history, India was never a United country except for two short periods of emperor Ashoka and emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir.
India has to disintegrate. It is in sync with laws of nature
It was actually India who took Kashmir issue to UNO. These Indians forcibly annexed Junagadh and Hyderabad on the plea that majority of population was Hindu and their ruler had no rights to join Pak. At the same time, India occupied Kashmir on the plea which is 180 degree opposite of Junagadh. Here almost entire population wanted to join Pak but ruler wad indecisive though bending towards India being from a Hindu caste. Actually, foundations of Kashmir dispute were laid when Muslim majority district Gordaspur was given to India at the time of Partition. Route from India to Kashmir was only through District Gordaspur. It happened coz of illicit relations between Nehru and lady Mount Baton.
India went to UNO for cease fire and accepted the resolution for plebiscite.
Shimla agreement actually ruined the politics in Sub Continent. All issues here were restricted to be bilateral in this agreement. Kashmir, Sir Creek, Water issue being case in pt. But at the same time, India Internationalises Mumbai attacks issue which was orchestrated by likes of those who were responsible for massacre of Pakistanis in Samjhota Express.
India is now endeavouring to change the demographic landscape of Indian Occupied Kashmir so that after influx of reasonable no of Hindus, conduct of plebiscite would be possible.
India must keep this fact in mind that such an attempt would be disastrous for the region. Neither Pakistan nor Kashmiris will accept this activity. Region will be inflamed by nuclear war then.
Hopefully, revival of Khalistan movement and 28 other separation struggles in India will have some effects and Indian state is likely to disintegrate sooner or later. A United India (Maha Bharat) is against the nature. In thousands of years of history, India was never a United country except for two short periods of emperor Ashoka and emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir.
India has to disintegrate. It is in sync with laws of nature
3rd party mediation is the only way to bring a viable solution to Kashmir issue. India is falsely interpreting the clause " Kashmir issue is to be resolved through bilateral negotiations between Pakistan and India " . The irony is this that India doesn’t even want to resolve this issue through bilateral dialogue and always reluctant to talk on this core issue between both countries which shows the true Indian intention of no resolution to this issue. When India is breaking her own promise which she made at the UN about free and impartial plebesite in kashmir under the auspices of UN, third party mmediation becomes automatically imperative when you refuse the bilateral talks or when it is not possible to resolve the same issue through bilateral means. So, it totally carries no sense and logic that India rejects the third party intervention and there can’t be third party intervention. Can India do whatever it like to do on the international stage? Sure , it can’t. For, the world.has changed now, hypocrisy and "might is right " can no longer reign this world and India has to give the right of self determination to the kashmiri people as it has already promised at UN. India will have to demilitarise Kashmir to pave the way towards plebecite as per the UN resolutions. It’s funny that UN resolutions on Kashmir have gone outdated, if that’s So, then UN itself was founded long before these resolutions, So, it must also be declared out-dated. Would that be acceptable to international community? Indian occupied Kashmir is seeing the worst human rights’ violations by the Indian troops since last seven decades, this barbarity will have to stop. And it will stop one day. Because Kashmir has never been a part of India neither will it be.
3rd party mediation is the only way to bring a viable solution to Kashmir issue. India is falsely interpreting the clause " Kashmir issue is to be resolved through bilateral negotiations between Pakistan and India " . The irony is this that India doesn’t even want to resolve this issue through bilateral dialogue and always reluctant to talk on this core issue between both countries which shows the true Indian intention of no resolution to this issue. When India is breaking her own promise which she made at the UN about free and impartial plebesite in kashmir under the auspices of UN, third party mmediation becomes automatically imperative when you refuse the bilateral talks or when it is not possible to resolve the same issue through bilateral means. So, it totally carries no sense and logic that India rejects the third party intervention and there can’t be third party intervention. Can India do whatever it like to do on the international stage? Sure , it can’t. For, the world.has changed now, hypocrisy and "might is right " can no longer reign this world and India has to give the right of self determination to the kashmiri people as it has already promised at UN. India will have to demilitarise Kashmir to pave the way towards plebecite as per the UN resolutions. It’s funny that UN resolutions on Kashmir have gone outdated, if that’s So, then UN itself was founded long before these resolutions, So, it must also be declared out-dated. Would that be acceptable to international community? Indian occupied Kashmir is seeing the worst human rights’ violations by the Indian troops since last seven decades, this barbarity will have to stop. And it will stop one day. Because Kashmir has never been a part of India neither will it be.
The intervention of the UN in 1948 gave both the USA and UK the excuse to interfere with India’s internal matters. India is well-advised to never let anyone outside to media in their affairs!
No internal rebellion within India has ever succeeded in defeating the state. Most surrendered and were absorbed into the Indian polity.
Pakistan should stop fantasising about Kashmir.
The intervention of the UN in 1948 gave both the USA and UK the excuse to interfere with India’s internal matters. India is well-advised to never let anyone outside to media in their affairs!
No internal rebellion within India has ever succeeded in defeating the state. Most surrendered and were absorbed into the Indian polity.
Pakistan should stop fantasising about Kashmir.