Start talks in Kashmir now or there will be no one to talk to
Dar, to the table for talks. He was killed soon after. As was Hurriyat representative, Abdul Gani Lone, whose son Sajad is a minister in the present coalition government. A mechanism that provides security and relevance to men willing to give up the gun has not yet taken root in Kashmir even 28 years after the insurgency began.
The problem remains political but radicalisation and a growing Islamism is real.
I met a teenage boy strapped to a hospital bed who marched for slain militant Burhan Wani because he “protects Islam.” The Internet has made many angry young Kashmiris part of a global ‘ummah,’ exposing them to more fundamental strains of Islam. Both Wani and his successor Zakir Bhat released videos calling for a Caliphate. One officer argues, “Earlier Islam was a subset of azaadi; now azaadi is a subset of Islam.”
If New Delhi does not start a dialogue process soon, there will be no one to talk to. Separatists have only pocket boroughs of influence and they are fast losing control of the street.
THE FATAL FLAW IN CONFLATING VOTERTURNOUT WITH ‘NORMALCY’ HAS RETURNED TO HAUNT US WITH THE
DISMAL SHOWING IN THE SRINAGAR BYPOLLS
Pakistan, which has declared that it is not going to honour the provisional measures. Unlike the orders passed by national courts, the orders passed by international judicial organs cannot be executed by judicial process of attachment or detention.
The International Court of Justice statute — Article 41(2) — mandates that the order shall “forthwith” be given to the Security Council (SC). But the point is: What can the Security Council do in the circumstances ? Is it strictly obliged to implement the order of the International Court of Justice by sanctioning force or imposing economic sanctions against the recalcitrant Pakistan ?
But Article 94(2) of the United Nations charter confers discretion on the Council, saying: “If it deems necessary make recommendations or decide upon the measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.”
The Council had faced difficulties in implementing such orders twice in the past: First, in the Anglo Iranian Oil case in 1951; and second, in the case filed by Nicaragua against the United States in 1986.
The decision of the Security Council will be nothing but a political decision.
If the non-compliance with the ICJ decision is a “procedural matter” under Art.27(2) of the UN Charter, the permanent members of the Council cannot exercise their veto power.
The UN General Assembly’s resolution of 1949 seem to support this interpretation.
India may succeed in persuading the Council to save Jadhav from a certain gallows, if China among the five permanent members has no right to veto in favour of Pakistan, its ally.