How India hammered Pakistan for raising Kashmir issue at UNSC: 10 Points
News

How India hammered Pakistan for raising Kashmir issue at UNSC: 10 Points

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
0Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Print this page
Print

The United Nations Security Council on Friday held a rare closed door meeting on Kashmir after India revoked the special status to Jammu and Kashmir, sparking a fresh row with Pakistan. However, Islamabad’s move proved to be of no good to them.

You were right, Mr. Foreign Minister (Pakistan’s Shah Mehmood Qureshi). United Nations Security Council was not waiting for you with garlands, instead, you were shown the mirror. You surely should not live in a fool’s paradise, especially when it comes to Kashmir, like you said. 

The United Nations Security Council on Friday held a rare closed door meeting on Kashmir after India revoked the special status to Jammu and Kashmir, sparking a fresh row with Pakistan. However, Islamabad’s move proved to be of no good to them. 

Explained: How India hammered Pakistan at UNSC

1. Five permanent members of the UN Security Council and the 10 non-permanent members attend the closed door meeting. But who supported Pakistan on its stance? Well, no points for guessing. Only and only its all-weather ally China favoured Pakistan. The remaining four permanent members – Britain, France, Russia and the US – want India and Pakistan to address the Kashmir dispute bilaterally. 

2. The 10 non-permanent members — who are elected for a two-year term by the UN General Assembly — are Belgium, Cote d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Germany, Indonesia, Kuwait, Peru, Poland and South Africa. While two of them — Indonesia and Kuwait — have sympathised with Pakistan in the past, it will be difficult to persuade others to back the Chinese request, a Dawn report said.

3. India’s Permanent Representative to the UN Syed Akbaruddin briefed the media following the conclusion of the informal meeting requested by China and Pakistan. He said India’s position was and remains that matters related to the Article 370 of the Constitution are entirely an internal matter of India and these have no external ramifications.

4. Without naming Pakistan, Akbaruddin said there are some who are trying to project an “alarmist approach” to the situation in Kashmir, which is far from the ground realities. “Stop terror to start talks,” he emphasised.

5. Akbaruddin asserted that there are normal diplomatic ways when countries deal with each other. “That is the way to do it. But using terror to thrive and push your goals is not the way that normal states behave. No democracy will acknowledge or accept talks when terror thrives.”

6. The recent decisions taken by the Government of India and our legislative bodies are intended to ensure that good governance is promoted, socio-economic development is enhanced for our people in Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh,” Akbaruddin said, adding that authorities in Jammu and Kashmir have announced a whole set of measures that the government is undertaking to move towards normalcy.

7. “We are are gratified that the Security Council in its closed consultations appreciated these efforts, acknowledged them,” India’s Permanent Representative to the UN said referring to the the UNSC meeting that lasted over an hour.

8. Of particular concern is that one state is using terminology of jihad and promoting violence in India, including by their leaders. Violence is no solution to the problems that all of us face,” he said, taking a swipe at Pakistan.

9. “We are sad that terrorism is being fuelled, language and incendiary talk of jihad is being mentioned by people who should know better,” he said, adding that India stands ready to continue its efforts towards peaceful resolution of all issues in an “atmosphere free of terror and violence.”

10. On the Chinese and Pakistani envoys’ remarks after the UNSC meeting, Akbaruddin said, “I’m a much more conventional diplomat. I do my job rather than add to the fire and fury of heightening tensions. For the first time after the end of Security Council consultations, we noted that two states who made national statements tried to pass them off as the will of the international community. National statements (trying) to masquerade as the will of the international community.”

We need your support to survive in the media industry. Please consider paying us for the content we produce:

Click here to pay
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
0Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Print this page
Print