Posted By Gaash Admin On Friday, February 6th, 2015 With 0 Comments

Feb 06, 2015 – By Dr Syed Nazir Gilani

UN Security Council
Plebiscite Question
India claims physical disability
India picked up ‘throat trouble’.

When the President of the UN Security Council Mr. F Van Langenhove of Belgium proposed 4 items for discussion in January 1948, Organization of a Plebiscite was the third item. It was worded as follows:

“The organization of a plebiscite, the principle of which is agreed to by both parties, with a view of deciding the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir”.

Indian delegation was thrown off guard on the proposed scheme of debate and urgency accorded to ‘Plebiscite’, and treating other issues arising out of Indian or Pakistani claims with a less importance.

Indian representative to the UN SC Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyanger, on 28 January 1948 sought to wriggle out of the debate and claimed physical disability. He stated that:

“..we might take up the question of the plebiscite. Unfortunately I am suffering today under a physical disability, in the shape of throat trouble which affects my voice, and while I am desirous of speaking at considerable length on any issue which the President may place before the Security Council, particularly that of the plebiscite, I have to give some consideration to the condition of my voice and should not like to overstrain myself to the point of being unable to speak at all during the rest of the debate”.

This is the start of evasion by the Government of India to face the question of Plebiscite at the UN Security Council. It has continued with its ‘troubled throat’ from 28 January 1948.

The Question remains – has India started with a guilty conscience at the UN.

Unless the people of Kashmir study their case well, it will be very difficult to understand the way, they need to approach India, Pakistan and the world community (UN).

Best service to the cause of Kashmir is to keep to the jurisprudence of Kashmir case.


Feb 06, 2015 – By Dr Syed Nazir Gilani

Kashmir solidarity day
Can Pakistan help?
Violation of article 257 by Pakistanis
Betrayal by Kashmiris

Kashmiris would have been either an Independent State today or would have pulled out from their provisional accession to India and acceded to Pakistan, if Pakistan had kept its course at the UN and helped the people of Kashmir in accordance with the UN jurisprudence on Kashmir.

The question is how much have the people of Kashmir endeavoured on their part to seek a resolution? The answer would not be encouraging. Why did they agree to an out of box solution?

Out of box solution is a violation of article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan by the leaders of Pakistan (and people) and a betrayal by the Kashmiris who became agents of this formula.

Pakistan had set a deadline for a Plebiscite in Kashmir in January 1948 and it was March 1948. 3 months have turned into a delay of 67 years. The delay always has its disappointments.

India has no answer if the people of Kashmir keep to the UN mechanism on Kashmir and even decent Indians would think twice before charging against the People of Kashmir. A return to UN mechanism would re-engage the whole world in support of Kashmir.

The best support on a Kashmir Solidarity day from Pakistan is to re-engage itself as a member nation of UN and as a party to the Kashmir dispute and support the self-determination based on the principle of equality of People.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>