BEACONHOUSE MARGALLA

INTERNATIONAL
DIPLOMATS CONFERENCE

UNITED NATIONS SECURITY

COUNCIL

Committee chairs:
Hamza Bin Mazhar and Hafiz Usman
Committee Introduction:
From the United Nations’ official website,

Mandate:-
The UN Charter established six main organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council. It
gives primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the Security Council,
which may meet whenever peace is threatened.

According to the Charter, the United Nations has four purposes:

1. to maintain international peace and security;

2. to develop friendly relations among nations;
3. to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights;
4. and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

All members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.
While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to member states, only the Security
Council has the power to make decisions that member states are then obligated to implement under the
Charter.

Maintaining Peace and Security:-

When a complaint concerning a threat to peace is brought before it, the Council’s first action is usually to
recommend that the parties try to reach agreement by peaceful means. The Council may:

▪ set forth principles for such an agreement;

▪ undertake investigation and mediation, in some cases;
▪ dispatch a mission;
▪ appoint special envoys; or
▪ request the Secretary-General to use his good offices to achieve a pacific settlement of the
dispute.

When a dispute leads to hostilities, the Council’s primary concern is to bring them to an end as soon as
possible. In that case, the Council may:

▪ issue ceasefire directives that can help prevent an escalation of the conflict;
▪ dispatch military observers or a peacekeeping force to help reduce tensions, separate opposing
forces and establish a calm in which peaceful settlements may be sought.

Beyond this, the Council may opt for enforcement measures, including:

▪ economic sanctions, arms embargoes, financial penalties and restrictions, and travel bans;
▪ severance of diplomatic relations;
▪ blockade;
 ▪ or even collective military action.

A chief concern is to focus action on those responsible for the policies or practices condemned by the
international community, while minimizing the impact of the measures taken on other parts of the
population and economy.

(First Session of the United Nations Security Council in London, United Kingdom on 17 January 1946. Credit: UN
Photo/Marcel Bolomey)

Organization:-
The Security Council held its first session on 17 January 1946 at Church House, Westminster, London.
Since its first meeting, the Security Council has taken permanent residence at the United Nations
Headquarters in New York City. It also travelled to many cities, holding sessions in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, in 1972, in Panama City, Panama, and in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1990.

A representative of each of its members must be present at all times at UN Headquarters so that the
Security Council can meet at any time as the need arises.
Topic Area: Seeking a Permanent Resolution to the Kashmir Issue

I- Introduction:
Jammu and Kashmir are the regions (former princely state) that were the parts of British India when the
UK had exercised sovereignty over India up until 1947. When the UK decided to end its mandates over
its former colonies after the British India is also referred as British Raj. World War II; British India was
naturally affected by this new policy. Concerning India, it was proposed to divide country into two;
mostly based on religious beliefs. Dominion of Pakistan was to be the land of Muslims and the Dominion
of India was to be the land of Hindus. The separation was not easy, caused to mass population exchanges
in between the two countries and also causing to a lot of displaced people. Dominion of Pakistan had the
territories which are today Bangladesh and Pakistan. India seized the rest and most importantly; princely
state of Jammu and Kashmir first remained independent, then was annexed to India; and furthermore was
disputed in between Pakistan and India. The British Crown remained as the head of the State for both
countries, assigning Governor-Generals to each for them to represent Crown.

Even though the partition of India caused various problems, the most important problem that
emerged from it is Jammu and Kashmir problem. This problem still exists today, almost 70 years later
and subject to various Security Council resolutions.

II- Roots of the problem and historical background:

After the World War II, Britain decided to withdraw from British India. Before the partition, there was no
combat, but still political tension in between Hindus and Muslims. In the Indian parliament, Muhammad
Ali Jinnah (Muslim) was often opposed to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru
(Hindus). After the partition; Jinnah became the Governor-General of Pakistan 15 while Nehru became
the 1st Prime Minister of India; and Gandhi was assassinated in 1948, not to see India becoming entirely
independent.

The partition was first planned by the last Viceroy of British Crown in India; Lord Louis
Mountbatten who later became the Governor-General of India. Within these names mentioned, Gandhi
was the only one who opposed to partition and dreamed of maintaining a united and strong India. He was
also one of the first names who raised voice on demands concerning British withdrawal from India. The
partition was based on Lord Mountbatten’s plan which is also known as June Plan. According to the plan,
the biggest regions Bengal and Punjab were to be divided into two, for each to be given one half of these
regions. One of the most important provisions of the plan was that the princely states would be free to
choose whether to join with India or Pakistan; or else remain independent.

The Independence Act received Royal approval on June 18, 1947. Two new states were founded
on August 15, 1947. Thus, one of the most dangerous conflicts in the world had emerged. Jammu and
Kashmir, as a princely state decided to remain independent at the beginning, then decided to join with
India. Pakistan opposed to it since Jammu and Kashmir had 80% of Muslim population. One of the
biggest errors in the partition plan was that it was not carefully examined concerning the population. It is
for this reason that 50% Muslim population of British India was left within the Dominion of India. The
population facts emerged the claims of these two states as in the example of Jammu and Kashmir.

Since the population was 80% Muslim; there were groups and tribes who supported the accession
to Pakistan. While Jammu and Kashmir tried to remain independent, Muslim tribes 16 insurgencies have
taken place at north, Pooch region; supposedly backed by a support from neighboring Pakistani region
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. India claims that Pakistan officially backed the insurgency.

The Hindu ruler of Jammu and Kashmir; Hari Singh asked for help to India. India argued that
India did not have right to unilaterally intervene to an area which did not fall under its competence and
rule. Maharaja Singh decided to join his state with the Dominion of India considering the tribesmen
advance in the North. Therefore, the Instrument of Accession was signed on October 26, 1947 and ratified
by the Governor-General of India on October 27, 1947. Thus, Jammu and Kashmir Princely State ceased
to exist and became the part of India. At the other hand, Governor-General of India declared a plebiscite
should be organized in Jammu and Kashmir after the intervention of Indian troops in order to see the wish
of the people in the region. Two days before the Instrument was signed, tribesman declared the territory
under their control as “Azad Kashmir”; independent from India.

After the ratification of the Instrument of Accession, Indian troops entered to the region. Pakistan,
which did not take any responsibility before that it was officially supporting insurgency of tribesmen,
claimed the accession was illegal and decided to take action while also entering to the region. This was
the commencement of the Indo –Pakistan war of 1947. Although tribesman fought the war against Indians
in general, they were backed up in every aspect by Pakistani army. Tribesmen slightly advanced in the
conflict until February 1948, while cities constantly changed hands with attacks / counter-attacks. After
this date, the number of the Indian troops intensified in the region and they started to gain more
advantage. Through the end of the war, India controlled nearly two – thirds of the region while Pakistan
assumed the control of one – thirds.

Meanwhile the fighting continued, India brought the question before the UN Security Council on
January 1st, 1948 by stating Pakistan was committing acts of aggression in the region without a concrete
reason and demanded the Council to order Pakistan’s withdrawal from the region. Pakistan answered the
allegations by saying India unlawfully occupied Jammu and Kashmir whose population was majorly
Muslim and applied violence on Muslim population. Pakistani representative declared that the violence
aimed the systematic destruction of Muslims in the region in form of genocide. The UNSC adopted
Resolution 38 on January 17, 1948. Security Council ordered the parties to refrain from any action that
might aggravate the situation and to inform Security Council on the matter frequently. The Council also
took a decision that the President of the Security Council should invite Pakistan and India to start direct
talks under the President’s guidance.

After the direct talks under the UNSC President’s guidance and upon his report, the UNSC
adopted Resolution 39 on January 20, 1948. As a result of this resolution, the United Nations Commission
for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) is founded. In its Resolution 47 on April 21, 1948; the UNSC reaffirmed
the role of UNCIP as it was going to establish good offices in Indian subcontinent to the full disposal of
Pakistan and India. It is included in the resolution that both parties agreed that the final solution to the
issue should be the plebiscite, thus the decision of the people. The UNSC ordered Pakistan to leave
Jammu and Kashmir, and try to convince tribesman to stop acts of aggression. For India’s part, the UNSC
orders India to reduce its troops in the region to minimum that would be only sufficient to maintain the
law and order. The resolution also mentions a “Plebiscite Administration” to be established, whose
president to be assigned by the Council and orders India to accept it when the establishment is done. It
further asks India’s assistance by disposing his remained and reduced troops to Administration’s
functioning when and where needed.

UNCIP also adopted a resolution where it stated that the governments of Pakistan and India both
agree to order a cease fire and work on a truce agreement which would impose the withdrawal of Pakistan
forces from the region, obliges Pakistan to do its best to convince the tribesmen to withdrawal and
declares Indian troops would withdraw after the UNCIP notifies India that Pakistani forces and tribesmen
did withdraw from the region. The plebiscite and the governments support to it are stressed again as well.

On December 31, 1948, a UN backed cease-fire was imposed on the parties which left Azad
Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan to Pakistan’s control and Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladakh to that of
India’s. A cease-fire line is established with Karachi Agreement of 1949 in which the competence of
UNCIP was confirmed on installing observers where UNCIP deemed necessary on and around of the
cease-fire line. The parties agreed to conclude a Truce Agreement in conformity with the UNCIP
Resolution but failed to reach an agreement afterwards because of the differences in the interpretation of
the resolution.

In 1950, Sir Owen Dixon, the UN representative in the region suggested that an overall plebiscite
would not bring a permanent solution to the problem, in contrary, that would create even more problems.
According to him, if the plebiscite resulted in favor of India, huge numbers would flee to Pakistan and
that would create a new and more serious refugee problem. If it would be in favor of Pakistan, Hindus and
probably Sikhs would flee to India, which would again create the same problem even though that would
not be in the same level of Muslims.

In order to avoid this problem, he suggested either organizing plebiscites by every main section or
area within the region or agreeing upon a partition of the areas since certain areas’ vote on the plebiscite
is obvious. In the second option, there would be plebiscites only in the areas which are not obvious on
their vote in a possible plebiscite. He also did foresee the plebiscite at the Kashmir Valley. He aimed to
provide continuity 18 and contiguousness on the areas that would be acceded to either of the states. The
parties did not even come to the table to discuss it.

In 1951, first elections were held in Indian controlled Kashmir. The UNSC has explicitly stated in
its Resolution 91, that the elections were not the substitute of the planned plebiscite since a plebiscite
offered people the chance to choose in between India and Pakistan whilst an election did not provide such
opportunity. Same resolution has established United Nations Military Observer Group in India and
Pakistan (UNMOGIP) with the mission of determining and stating the possible military violations that
might be committed by parties to the dispute. On October 30, 1956, the Constituent Assembly of Indian
administrated Kashmir decided to adopt a constitution in which it is stated that Kashmir is an integral part
of India and could not be separated. The UNSC again passed a resolution ‘Resolution 122’ – where it
declared such actions would not define the certain solution to the problem. The decision implied that any
decision concerning the future of the region that was taken by the Constituent Assembly would be vague
and only the people had the right to choose their future.
 In 1965, the war broke out again with Pakistan’s air raid to Jammu. India reacted as considering
Jammu as an Indian territory. Both sides claimed victory over the war. Some sources constituted Pakistani
government falsified information on the war reports and suffered a heavy loss. They state that it was a
decisive victory by India. Moreover, they lost a big part of their ammunition and tanks. The war ended
with the UNSC Resolution 211 which was adopted on September 20, 1965 and which demanded an
unconditional cease-fire. Parties did obey by the resolution and ordered cease-fire on September 23, 1965.
Upon the cease-fire, USSR picked up the mediator role and meet with the parties at Tashkent. After a
week of negotiations, the parties came up with a cease-fire agreement, Tashkent Declaration, on January
10, 1966.

According to the declaration, the parties would retreat to their position before the war, neither of
the parties would interfere to the internal affairs of the other, economic and diplomatic relations would be
restored and resumed and both parties would work on ending the conflict and maintaining the cease-fire
with good will and peaceful means. The situation remained stabilized until 1971.

In 1971, civil war broke out in Pakistan, in between East Pakistan and West Pakistan. Separatist
movement in the East Pakistan met with the sharp reaction by West Pakistan. According to a US cable
from the US Consulate of Dacca, it was a massacre. As a result, India did open its borders to refugees.
Pakistan attacked to India from both West Pakistan and East Pakistan mostly with air strikes. India could
defend on both sides, plus attack to Pakistan in return. The war endured from 3 to 16 December, 1971,
one of the shortest wars in the history with a certain Indian victory on both fronts. Pakistani forces in the
East Pakistan signed the Instrument of Surrender on December 16th on which Bangladesh also seceded
from Pakistan. With the Instrument, all Pakistani Army Forces present in Bangladesh were surrendered to
India. Overall with the civilians, Pakistani Army troops and high officials and the paramilitary
personalities; around 90,000 Pakistanis were held war prisoner.

These prisoners were released only after the signature of Simla Agreement on July 3, 1972 which
re-established the cease-fire line of 1949 as the “Line of Control”. According to Simla Agreement, both
sides were to respect this line, UN Charter principles would govern the relations between them, parties
would use pacific means of settlement in their disputes through bilateral talks or any other peaceful means
that are mutually agreed upon. The interpretation of this agreement caused problems later on as India
declared all previous UN resolutions before the agreement ceased imposition while Pakistan defended the
agreement could not end the existence and imposing effect on the parties.
 (The line of control over Kashmir around India and Pakistan as it stands today)

After this agreement, in 1974, Kashmir Accord was signed in between India and Jammu &
Kashmir which did regulate the issues relating to the governance of Jammu and Kashmir as well as it
stressed again, this territory was the integral part of India. This accord also created a discontentment for
Pakistani side. Moreover, the tension in between Pakistan and India increased due to the Pakistani arm
support to the mujahidin who fought in Afghanistan against USSR, and returned to Kashmir with these
arms.

The discontentment emerged from Kashmir Accord, the mujahidin movements and the aggression
of the local law enforcement system caused insurgencies and major insurgency movements turned to be
gravely effective in the region since beginning of the late 1980s. The resistance was consistent especially
by the Muslim majority at the Kashmir Valley. Pakistan was again accused of providing military training,
arms and other logistical supports to the militants in the region.

The relations remained on a thin ice between Pakistan and India; and insurgencies continued in
Kashmir. Late 90s remark an era where governments tend to hold talks more often than before even
though combats continued from time to time. As the first result of this newly adopted approach, the
diplomatic ties were restored, transportation ways and means were started and respectively, Lahore
Declaration was signed in February 1999. According to the declaration, the parties reaffirmed their
commitment to solve the Kashmir problem within the frame of Simla Agreement and UN Charter. At the
other hand, the parties were developing nuclear arms and they agreed to notify each other on the tests, and
take the necessary precautions in order to avoid a nuclear conflict. Pakistan’s civil government signed the
declaration but Pakistani army allegedly disagreed with the declaration.

(Many bridges divided right in the middle between India and Pakistan can be seen in various parts of Kashmir,
showing the difficulty of maintaining border control and tight security framework of the crisis)

Kargil War, which began on May 1999 and ended on July 1999, has been considered as a proof of
these allegations since Pakistani army backed up the Islamist militants and insurgency groups for them to
cross to Indian side of Kashmir from that of Pakistani. Pakistan looked for political support from USA
which worked together with Pakistan in USSR’s Afghan invasion but USA refused to intervene until
Pakistan withdraws. As a result, the borders did not change but 1200 men of whom 500 are Indian and
700 are Pakistani or insurgent were dead. Note that these figures, as in most such conflicts, are strongly
disputed. There is not a lot of scope for verification because of a limited access to information by the free
press or international organizations during such times.

Even though Pakistani army did withdraw, insurgent groups continued to clash with the Indian
troops which caused to the death of many civilians in the region alongside with insurgents and Indian
troops. Cease fire attempts have taken place since now both nations did possess nuclear power and the
international community intensified the mediation attempts due to it. Peace attempts were often sabotaged
by terrorist attacks by certain groups such as Lashkar -e-Taiba to Indian parliament on 2001, or to Sringar
airport and police station. These attacks caused a military stand-off between parties since India blamed
Pakistan for supporting the acts of terrorism and poured troops to its side of the Line of Control.

By 2003, the parties started to show a greater effort on normalization of the relations. They
restored full diplomatic relations, established Confidence Building Measures which did include the
transportation routes from one side of Kashmir to the other, and medical support by India to Pakistani
administrated Kashmiri children. Moreover, Pakistan promised not to support terrorist groups and do
everything in its power to stop insurgents from using Pakistani territory as a launch pad for their attacks
to India. India started to use a more moderate language while condemning insurgency attacks, by
differentiating Pakistan from insurgency acts. India started investigations on the alleged human rights
abuses committed by Indian troops in Kashmir. India even met with separatist leaders and started talks in
order to hear their complaints and offers. Pakistan showed a good will by supporting these direct talks
without insisting on UN or Pakistani involvement.

(Indian border security force patrolling the Indian side of the L.O.C)

Insurgencies continued in the region up until today, but comparing to past, these caused less
tension in between India and Pakistan. The major unrest happened in 2010 with the “Quit Kashmir”
campaign which demanded the complete demilitarization of the region and which was not an armed
campaign, but a civil disobedience. Indian troops intervened and more than 100 protesters were killed by
them.

III- Points to be taken into consideration when dealing with the problem:
Although today the issue has turned out to be sorted, or not sorted, in bilateral talks more often and the
United Nations has not intervened since the 1970s with any resolution that does not mean that the
Security Council has set the issue aside permanently. With both nations possessing nuclear weapons, and
sizable conventional armies, the hostility remains an ever-present threat to the security of the region, and
beyond. Pakistan, who does not interfere in the issues happening in Indian administrated Kashmir, still
calls for a UN sponsored plebiscite in the region for the people to decide on their future while India
remains insistent on bilateral talks. Kashmir remains under the status quo today. It is still divided along
the line of control, and a final solution is yet to be formed. It cannot remain forever in this state, and the
UN must be prepared to address the issue given the possibility of a humanitarian crisis, as well all the
implications of a diplomatic failure. The legal basis of the claims will be extremely important while
referring to the issue, especially the relationship between Simla Agreement and the UNSC resolutions
before and after its time.

Following Burhan Wani’s death (the freedom fighter/terrorist), the separatist movement in
Indian-administered Kashmir has been very active, staging multiple protests and demonstrations. The
Indian government has responded with a determined effort to maintain law and order, using tear gas and
pellet guns, a move that has received criticism from different sections of the international community for
its humanitarian implications as well as its negative political consequences for the State of India itself.
The situation took a chaotic turn after photographs of Burhan Wani began spreading around social media
including facebook and whatsapp, inciting many people to fight for the young man who became a symbol
for resistance and opposition in Indian administered Kashmir. In response, the Indian government stated
that the Pakistani government was sponsoring terrorism and violence to disrupt the peace in its territory,
and banned whatsapp and other social media for a brief period, at the same time deploying more troops to
maintain calm and quash protests.

Today, almost 70 years since the British left creating India and Pakistan, the issue of Kashmir
remains unresolved. Many of the protest movements are being led by second or third generation
Kashmiris who had likely not been born during the time of partition. Most of them are in their youth and
the United Nations is concerned that the situation might reach a boiling point with dangerous
consequences for peace and order in the region.

Finally, this conflict cannot be treated in isolation from the border contentions between the
People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India around the Aksai Chin region of Kashmir, which
adds another dimension to this troublesome conflict. This region has seen serious friction with a renewed
zeal between China and India in the recent weeks, and should be studied carefully when discussing the
topic in the committee. At the same time, the United Nations Security Council representatives must bear
in mind that any solution agreed with regards to Kashmir will have important consequences for other
territorial disputes throughout the world, including those that might be more important to the countries in
question than Kashmir. Therefore, they must approach their stance on Kashmir in a pragmatic manner
that does not compromise their country’s foreign policy on other matters of a similar nature. In order to
keep the simulation coherent with the realities of the world, we advise delegates to be well-versed in the
larger context of territorial disputes, freedom movements, proxy wars, and the individual foreign policies
of their countries.

This study guide should form the launch-pad for your research into these matters; it is not by no
means an exhaustive study of the issue. Please research the legal treaties/resolutions, wider context of the
situation, and general foreign policy stances well in order to have a productive conference. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to your chairs.

Godspeed and happy researching!

(Second edition of the document is produced here from the original version published for Islamabad
Model United Nations conference in 2016. Study guide by Hamza B Mazhar, please copy with
permission.)