Sending Peacemakers Home?

UN Security Council upgraded its Commission to military observers to supervise the creation of ceasefire line after the Karachi agreement. It was the sole third empire for any kind of violation on either side till 1971. After the fall of Dhaka, the line became LoC and New Delhi said the bilateralism has taken over, leaving no room for UNMOGIP that functions for six months each in Srinagar and Rawalpindi. The two countries recently fought over the issue in UN – India seeking its closure and Pakistan its continuation, triggering the UN ruling that only the SC has the right to decide. Shah Abbas asked the leading political figures in J&K one question: Should the UNMOGIP be closed down, and why? Read the interesting responses from ground zero.

Omar Abdullah

(NC Working President and J&K Chief Minister)

The UNMOGIP has failed to maintain the sanctity of the LoC. It should end its role as its position has been overtaken by the Shimla Agreement of 1972.

Syed Ali Geelani

(Hurriyat-G Chairman)

The relevance of the UNMOGIP cannot be challenged by anyone as long as Kashmir remains unresolved. It does not behoove New Delhi to show disregard to international agreements that it has endorsed. Though UN has not played an impressive role, yet no power on earth can deny the importance of deployment of its observers here. Its presence in Kashmir stands out as clear proof that it (Kashmir) is a disputed territory and is in no way part of India and that the resolution with regard to its future political destiny is yet to be made.

Ms Mehbooba Mufti

(PDP President)

I think I should not react to this question.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq

(Hurriyat-M Chairman)

Hurriyat believes that until Kashmir issue is resolved politically, the presence of UNMOGIP is imperative. Any past agreement between India and Pakistan cannot supersede the UN resolutions on Kashmir.

Prof Saif-u-Din Soz

(PCC Chief)

The UNMOGIP should wind-up as soon as possible because it has served no purpose till date and there is no hope in future too. Its presence is a great burden on UN, so it must be wind-up immediately. To my knowledge, it has never ever served any purpose.

M Yasin Malik

(JKLF Chairman)

United Nations has made a commitment before that it will resolve the Kashmir issue. Since it has to fulfill its commitment, UNMOGIP’s presence in Kashmir is of great significance. How can a responsible world body lose its relevance unless the issue for which it is meant is unresolved? So it is a must to be here.

Molvi Iftikhar H Ansari

(PDP leader)

UNMOGIP must stay in Kashmir unless India and Pakistan sit and come with a final solution of the Kashmir problem. It is irrelevant to say that UNMOGIP has lost its relevance.

 

Mohammad Shafi Uri

(NC Rajya Sabha member)

UNMOGIP has been deployed by UN by keeping its certain role in consideration. Nobody including the Chief Minister can make it irrelevant. Its presence in Kashmir has its own significance and that has not been marginalized even by the bilateral agreements like Shimla.

Er Sheikh Rasheed

(Independent lawmaker)

Kashmir is a globally accepted dispute and UN is a revered witness to it. It has passed a number of resolutions regarding Kashmir. The presence of UNMOGIP in J&K is of immense importance because it proves the disputed nature of J&K. Kashmiris have a legal basis to talk about the dispute when there is UNMOGIP here. As far as the bilateralism is concerned, it is of no importance and significance unless Kashmirs are a part of it. People who are of the opinion that UNMOGIP should be closed down are in fact trying to bury the Kashmir dispute.

 

Nayeem Akhtar

(PDP spokesman)

I have no answer to your question. We have a political party that has a road map for the resolution of Kashmir issue. I can’t respond to your question.

Tanveer Sadiq

(NC spokesman)

Kashmir issue has to be resolved bilaterally and UNMOGIP has no role. If Kashmir issue is to be resolved, then it will be between India and Pakistan. We have consistently maintained that it is a bilateral issue and it should be solved bilaterally, keeping in mind the sentiments and aspiration of the people of both sides of J&K.

Nayeem Khan

(National Front Chairman)

The relation between Kashmir dispute and the UN is as of a doctor and a patient. The doctor sometimes shows reluctance to treat the patient but he can’t escape from his responsibilities for long. The presence of UNMOGIP is of great significance as far as the disputed nature of the Kashmir is concerned. So even thinking of closing it down is unacceptable. Kashmir is not any bilateral issue between India and Pakistan.

Shabir Shah

(DFP president)

As long as Kashmir dispute remains unsettled, UN has a role, even if a tripartite dialogue takes place, because it has to monitor that process as well. UNMOGIP’s presence in J&K itself is very significant, even though it is not doing anything. It is enough proof and basis that Kashmir is a disputed region.

G N Ratanpuri

(NC Rajya Sabha member)

The presence of UNMOGIP in Kashmir is important. Kashmir is a very large issue; it has to be decided by India, Pakistan and Kashmir. UNMOGIP’s presence is relevant because India, Pakistan and the world community is saying that Kashmir is a dispute that requires resolution. When ceasefire line was converted into LoC, certain quarters nullified its role in Kashmir. But the decision can be taken by the Security Council only. UN is a world body and it has a role to play in this conflict zone. UNMOGIP must stay there.

Dr TundupTsewang

(Chief Councilor LAHDC, Leh, and LBA President)

Kashmir is a bilateral issue. The role and status of the UNMOGIP is not understandable. India and Pakistan should permanently demarcate the LoC.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here