UN, India and Kashmir
Akashma Marivel Guzman, you have nicely highlighted the facts about the Indian crimes in Kashmir since 1948, and what you say is absolutely true. The UN can still take steps to stop the Indian savagery in Kashmir, but there are too many restraints upon its proper functioning. The big powers have their geopolitical and economic interests in international politics. They are quite complacent with the policies of India in international trade and economic relations.
The rights of the Kashmiri people to determine their future, like the rights of the colonized and oppressed Palestinians, have no bearing upon the policy decisions of these powers. This has been evident whenever the Kashmir issue came up before the United Nations, as happened in August this year. As a result, the UN is in a state of limbo, not able to implement its resolutions regarding Jammu and Kashmir or Palestine.
One-million soldiers of the Indian army in Kashmir are profoundly drilled into anti-Muslim hatred and animosity by the leaders of Hindutva fascism. They are free to kill, maim, blind the protesters by using pellets, rape the Kashmiri women, imprison and torture the people who stand against the Indian colonial rule over their land and seek freedom.
Akashma Online News
---Akashma Marivel Guzman
Wikipedia is a disinformation website. Just read what you get, when searching "UN+Kashmir."
"The United Nations has played an important role in maintaining peace and order in Jammu and Kashmir soon after the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, when a dispute erupted between the two States on the question of Jammu and Kashmir." Wikipedia
What peace, are they talking about?
The UN has 116 persons "keeping the peace, " vs One million Indian soldiers dispersed all around J&K.
The UN has spent its entire existence drafting resolutions, passing resolutions, convening meetings;both at the General Assembly and at the Security Council, without resolving a single conflict.
But, through the pressure of the 5 states with veto power, they have imposed economic sanctions against States, whose policies go against the interest of such states (5 permanent members of the Security Council with veto power)
Example, we can read this resolution passed on March 19, 1948, at the 269th Security Council Meeting.
On the Articles of Settlements:
A. Restoration of Piece and Order
2. The Government of India shall arrange:
(a) For the progressive withdrawal from Jammu and Kashmir of such of its troops as are not required for the purpose of defense and security.
(b) For stationing the reminder at such point as not to afford any intimidation or the appearance of intimidation, to the inhabitants of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Well, that was more than 71 years ago.
Now, India has a soldier stationed in J&K per home/family amounting to almost one million soldiers.
So, does the UN do anything has kept peace in the J&K state?
The UN and its own Human Rights Report published in Feb. 2018, speaks of terrible abuse of #humanrights including torture, abuse of force, forced disappearanceof persons, almost 10,000.
Can the UN do something about it?
If the UN was true to its missions, it could stop India from getting away with its crimes—Drafting and passing a bonding resolution to force India to meet its obligation, it signed on 1947.
But, as Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan said to RT last week "He can not believe that India allies and economic partners care more for trade and profits than for human lives."
Khan can not believe, and I do believe, I'm sure of it. States are owned by powerful interests including War Industrial Complex, Pharmaceuticals and mine and agro-industry just to mention the more powerful. I have to include Media conglomerate, which partakes of the profits advertising human suffering.
I'm so pessimist, that some type of miracle will fall from the sky and save the Muslims of J&K and that of the 200 million living in main India.