> India-Pakistan tensions: Anatol Lieven
Did this chat occur in 2002?
Lieven:
> However, one should remember two things:
> The Kashmiri population and still more the vast Indian
> Muslim population are certainly not under the control
> of Pakistan, and have played a role in generating
> extremist groups.
Indian muslims have not supported extremist groups.
> Anatol Lieven: American sympathies on the whole are
> now on the side of India. This was true even before
> September 11.
India has never been in the Western camp during last 50 years. Anglo-US policy on Kashmir was pro-Pakistan in 50s and 60s. Bangladesh war and the Simla Agreement (1972) changed the situation, ie, Kashmir was no longer a problem upto 1989. Now US is against AQ after 9/11, so US tries to balance between India and Pakistan.
> Anatol Lieven: The call for a referendum was endorsed
> by the United Nations as a whole. Strictly speaking,
> it's not a question of what Pakistan wants, but of
> what a majority of Kashmiris want.
The UN Kashmir resolution is under Chapter VI and not under Chapter VII of the UN. AFAI, resolutions under Chapter VI are recommendations, while resolutions under Chapter VII can be enforced with sanctions and war. UN resolution on Kashmir is not enforceable, since it is under Chapter VI. AFAIK, UN resolution requires that wishes of Kashmiri people should be taken into consideration. But it's recognised that there are different ways of doing that. Referendum is not the only method of ascertaining the wishes of Kshmiris. According to the Simla Agreement (1972) between India & Pakistan, Kashmir problem is to be resolved bilaterally between India & Pakistan, so UN resolution is irrelevant.
Ulhas