 Good afternoon, everyone. Let's now begin. Hello and welcome to today's Dot Talks webinar series with yet another exciting topic with one of our dynamic professors, Dr. Anirudha V. Babar, who will be speaking to us about the battle for Kashmir through the Prism of International Law. Well, I'm Dr. Rima Longme, head of Department of Political Science at Sir College. And I'm indeed very proud to introduce our speaker, who is my colleague and a good friend in the Department of Political Science. As we all know, today's speaker, Dr. Anirudha V. Babar, is the man of lots of talents. So here is a few words about him that Dr. Anirudha V. Babar, currently working as assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Sir College, Timapur Nagaland, he is a non-practicing lawyer, former assistant professor of law, founding members of People's Law Center, Mumbai, independent researcher, as well as freelance writer with interdisciplinary temperament, also a poet by heart, philosopher by nature, and an adventure by soul. His research interest areas include international law, constitutional law, public policy, tribal studies, Southeast Asian studies, Dr. B. R. Ambaker's thoughts and philosophy, applied politics, idea of justice, peace, and conflict studies, notice studies, support studies, gender studies, and sexuality, people's movement and human rights. So these are few areas I could mention about him. He is much more than what I could mention about him, and he is a man of full of energy and compassion and also passionate in research and innovation. So today's topic is, in a way, very interesting because we are going to look at the Indo-Pac, border or territorial issues in a much resurgent manner. So today's topic is kaleidoscopic view of battle for Kashmir through the Prism of International Law. So as we all know, since 1947 until then, we have been fighting, so to say, in our borders in order to save God and also preserve the sovereignty of the nation. So I would like to thank Dr. Ambaker for his talks about today's topic, Battle for Kashmir through the International Law. Sir, please take your time. Sir, thank you so much. In fact, I'm really delighted to get this opportunity to speak on this bit heavy, complicated, and sort of uncomfortable topic. People actually doesn't want to talk about it because what I have observed quite often is that people only know one thing, that is, India has been into the battle with Pakistan since 1947. We won Kargil war, we won 1971, we won 1965, and we won CH and Glacier skirmishes. But if you go deeper and understand the entire spectrum of Indo-Pakistan relationship, you will be really surprised because in order to understand the whole dynamic, I believe we have to go deeper. My own research, my own understanding about the problem can be sourced out from two perspectives. Of course, the academic perspectives would be there. But I myself spent a good amount of time in Kashmir. I was a student at Jawahar Institute of Mountaineer. I'm a trained mountaineer. I have done my basic mountaineering course. I spent one month in my center. During my tenure at my center at Jawahar Mountain Institute, I not only got opportunity to understand more about Kashmir from the military officers and the Jawans because they were our instructors at that point of time. But also I've gotten opportunity to talk with the local people. I have been traveling to Kashmir every now and then for more than four, five times I have visited Kashmir. So Kashmir has always been close to my heart, not because it is beautiful, not because it is something which is considered as a crown of India, but also from a conflict perspective as well. Before I move, let me just thank you to all of you for joining me. I know it is not a very interesting topic, so I can expect the less attendance. But anyway, let me just start. So ladies and gentlemen and my dear friends, I really thank Webinar Organizing Committee for providing me this platform to share my thoughts on topic of national importance. Also, I sincerely thank my dear friend, senior colleague and much respected professor, Dr. Rima Longmay for his time and kind introduction. Ladies and gentlemen, before I begin, I would like to recite a poem written on Kashmir by Mumtazji, which is very close to my heart. And I believe you will also enjoy the poem. I hope I'm audible and visible enough. Poem goes like this. Oh, my lovely Kashmir, each Indian's Kashmir. Mountains of amethyst appear through filmy wells, the soft air weaves, the valley of tall, dark pine trees, of solemn loom dusted in powdery white, the lovely valley of flowers, the valley of apple orchards, the valley of green meadows, the mountain streams flow with the sweet sound summits the grasslands, the valley of tulip fields, my mind floats in a small boat, in the dull lakes, the lowy watery ways. To see nature glows and tropes with delight, colorful birds chirping in green forest. The land of Santur welcomes you. The land of Santur welcomes you to take in breathtaking beauty a glimpse of heaven revealed. How sorrowful, how sorrowful has this valley become? Somebody choking its life out, smoke, smoke in this winds of conspiracies. Even the clouds here have been stained with blood. People fling homes burning, draw borders between their hearts. The grass is no longer green as the bullets rain on and wounded. The smoke has driven away, the migratory birds that used to come. Oh, lovely Kashmir, crown of India. We won't spare you. India's incomplete without you. India's is nothing without you. India is empty without you. Oh, lovely Kashmir. Oh, my Kashmir, the crown of India, the crown of India. Ladies and gentlemen, whenever the question of Kashmir comes, or rather a word, Kashmir comes, what is that first thing which comes in our mind? First thing, when I visited Kashmir for the first time, that was very long back with my parents. I was enchanted by the mountains. I was enchanted by the beauty. But if you ask a person of today that how does he perceive Kashmir, he will tell you, oh, that's a scary place. Bullets rule the hearts of the people. Bullet rules the souls of the people. That's a scary place. How far is it true? To a certain extent, it's true also. But what is the reason behind it? How it all started? Why Kashmir has become a cursed land of India? What is the problem? I think today's discussion I'm going to dedicate not only to the Kashmir and the history of Kashmir, but also I'm going to talk about the policies of India. I will be commenting on strategic policies, the military policies, the diplomatic policies as well. Because I believe this is something that we all have to understand, right? Because there cannot be one perspective to the Kashmir. The perspectives of the Kashmir has to have to be developed in multiple ways. So please bear with me. And one request to all of you, if you have any question, I will be glad to take those questions. You can write those questions in that small chat box so that I could address them nicely. So let us first understand that from the strategic and diplomatic perspective, it is always said that the cartographic genius is hollow and meaningless without the might or act by the power of truth. The sovereignty and jurisdiction of a state is laid out by maps and maps alone. Those who are students of political science and law, they very well understand the strategic and diplomatic meaning of the maps. The maps have been there for over 70 years. And that, ultimately, is the official claim of India in relation to Kashmir. The story of Kashmir started in late 1940s with the partition of India. As we all know, on the basis of two-nation theory, Mr. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, it was decided that all Indian provinces should be divided into three categories. The first was states with a Hindu majority. Second was states with a Muslim majority. And dear friends, and thirdly, there were states which were under the governance of kings and princes, that is the princely states. It was decided that all Hindu majority states will be given to India, and all Muslim majority states will go to Pakistan. Princely states were given a choice either to join India or Pakistan or to remain independent. That is very important to remember in the interest of further discussion. So the princely states were given a choice either to join India or Pakistan, or if they want, they can remain independent. They can remain sovereign, as per their choice. Things were simple with most of the princely states with the Hindu majority and the Hindu ruler join India. While states with Muslim majority and Muslim rulers joined Pakistan. However, there were states which have Hindu majority, but a Muslim ruler, for example, Hyderabad, and states that have Muslim majority and Hindu ruler, that is Kashmir. An issue was then about to get complicated, and it did. Hyderabad became part of India when its rulers preferred to align himself with Pakistan over India. However, issue of princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was still unsolved. Pakistan was under fear that the Hindu Raja of Kashmir was aligning with India. However, his highness Raja Hari Singh, who was then ruling the state of Jammu and Kashmir was in favor of retaining the independence of its state. I mean, see the ambition of Raja Hari Singh. He was not in favor of Kashmir. He was not in favor of India. He was not in favor of Nehru. He was not in favor of Barista Muhammad Ali Jinnah. He was listening to his own heart, but who knows? Maybe Raja Hari Singh, at that time, he was contemplating on a Switzerland model. I hope you know what Switzerland model is all about. If you understand the spectrum of international politics, you will find that there's one country which is absolutely neutral. And that country has declared its foreign policy is an absolute unconditional neutral foreign policy, which is that country, that is Switzerland. So as a return of Swiss stand, the official Swiss stand, Switzerland has received a protection from all the countries. So maybe you never know that Raja Hari Singh was also contemplating to have a similar kind of, how to say, a scheme for Jammu and Kashmir. However, he had to come out of his dream. He was dreaming because soon he received the news that the conspiracy to dethrone him has already been hatched and Muslims have revolted against him with the support of Paktun tribal supported by Pak Army. I'm going to talk about a little bit in detail in your coming discussion. Now, let us understand, this is the background, okay. In this background, you have to understand our further discussion in relation to the Kashmir and the problems of the Kashmir, you know. Now, see, India has claimed all of Spain occupied Kashmir since the instrument of accession through which that's why the state of Kashmir access to India. That document was signed in 1947 by the last dogera king of Kashmir that is His Highness Maharaja Hari Singh. By executing this document under the provisions of the Indian Independence Act, 1947. Now, I want you to remember another keyword that is Indian Independence Act. So the validity of the accession document legally speaking was derived from the Indian Independence Act, 1947. So Maharaja Hari Singh agreed to accede to the Dominion of India. The Indo-Pakistan War of 1947 between Pakistani militia and system forces from western districts of the Jammu and Kashmir state backed by Pakistani Paktun tribesmen. The Paktun tribesmen are those people who are, you know, if you take a map of Pakistan, they are the inhabitants of the western province of, you know, Kashmir, sorry, western province of Pakistan, okay? And the Indian army established the rough boundaries today with the Pakistan holding roughly one third of Kashmir. And India one half with dividing line of control established by the United Nations. So the Battle of Kashmir, the first battle of Kashmir as Professor Rimi also quoted in his introduction that that first battle of Kashmir actually between the rebels, the rebels in the Indian army, Paktun rebels wanted to eat out Kashmir, but they were badly defeated. And then United Nations was involved in the entire dispute. Then the ceasefire was declared. And in that ceasefire, one resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council. And I'm heavily relying on that resolution because dear friends, many people are not aware about the existence of this resolution. So I request all of you, if possible, and if you have deeper interest in the, please find United Nations Security Council resolution of 1948, that resolution has, you know, so many hidden things, which, you know, common man doesn't know. So the United Nations Security Council resolution of 1948 clearly states that Pakistan is an entire state. Number two, issue is between Jammu and Kashmir and India. Number three, Pakistan has to vacate all occupied territory in state that it occupied by force and hand over the vacated territory to India. Number four, India has to remove all its forces living aside enough to maintain law and order. Number five, India to conduct plebiscite in state. However, as per the official records, Pakistan asked for time to vacate its occupation, but it never complied. I mean, you know, if you just go through the government documents available at that point of time and maximum documents you can access to, you know, the Lok Sabha archives, plus you can access those documents to the defense ministries, you know, even the external affairs ministries and the home ministries, you know, then you will come to know that no matter what the United Nations Security Council resolution of 1948 says, Pakistan did not comply with the resolution in total. As one third state of Jammu and Kashmir was under the occupation of Pakistan this was taken as non-compliance of necessary legal conditions leading to plebiscite. Hence India could never conduct plebiscite in state of Jammu and Kashmir. In law, see, I'll tell you okay, in law we understand that one thing is required to complete another thing, right? One provision, if it is not in relation to the another provision, then both provisions and both the requirements has to be understood independently because they are not connected together. And when they connected together, then only you can derive some legal interpretation out of it. And this is the crux of the problem, right? India was willing to perform its obligation under United Nations Security Council resolution of 1948. But unfortunately at that point of time Pakistan was still holding, of course. It is still also, I mean at this point of time, one third part of the Kashmir. And as per the resolution, unless and until Pakistan removed its armed forces from the land it has been occupied by virtue of 1947-1948 Kashmir war, there was no reason for India or India was not in the position to conduct a plebiscite, a public plebiscite. It was not that India never wanted to conduct plebiscite. But plebiscite is not something which comes from the sky. You need a legal foundation for that, isn't it? And legal foundation is United Nations resolution of 1948. And that resolution says that if this condition is fulfilled, then only this condition is going to be fulfilled. So this is how it is. So onus was, even at that time in 1948, was on Pakistan to perform its obligation and show its bona fide intentions. Now then what happened? India could not conduct plebiscite in the state? Okay, now let us understand. What is the meaning of this state? Which reference to 1948 United Nations Security Council? That is also very important to understand. The state is not what we understand today. That is Pakistan occupied Kashmir, Rajat Kashmir, India and Aksai Chin, no. If take out the old map of Jammu and Kashmir, the traditional map of Jammu and Kashmir, the traditional map of Jammu and Kashmir, the jurisdiction of Raja Hari Singh and his dogra ancestors were actually controlling the larger part of Aksai Chin, even the Ladakh. Then Jammu and Kashmir, even Gilgit-Balkistan and entire Pakistan occupied Kashmir. So that entire part was belonging to the family of Raja Hari Singh, which they got from the British. That is another story. It's very interesting. They were not the traditional rulers of the Kashmir, by the way, they got this Kashmir region, Jammu and Kashmir from the Britishers. Okay, they purchased it from the Britishers. Anyway, so that was the case. Now, this idea of the state or the concept of state has been understood in reference to the concept of state as understood before 1947, right? That is very important to understand, right? Now, this includes POK, Gilgit-Balkistan, Jammu, Ladakh, Kashmir Valley, so on and so forth, as I have already told you. Now see, when this chaos was happening, something which is known as the Dixon Plan came out. The Dixon Plan was proposed in 1950. And according to that plan, the territory occupied by India to remain with India and territory occupied Pakistan remain in Pakistan, the place to be conducted only in Kashmir Valley also could not be materialized due to adamant position hold by Pakistan by not complying with the legal requirement of UNS resolution. Now, here are two cases. One case is United Nations Security Council in 1948 and the second case is a Dixon Plan, which was proposed in 1950. Now, under Dixon Plan, it was said that, okay, fine, let us come to some sort of negotiating point. Let Pakistan occupied region be with Pakistan, let Indian occupied region be with India and let there be a plebiscite in the Indian occupied region. So that was the kind of plan which is proposed in 1950. But obviously, this proposal of Mr. Dixon, which is known as Dixon Plan, is in direct contravention to the law laid down by virtue of UNS resolution 1948. And since we are talking about international law, a treaty is a law, right? And you cannot just nullify one treaty by invoking another plan or another treaty or getting parties to sign to another treaty, right? So this Dixon Plan also completely disposed of because India stood on its position that Pakistan required to be fulfilled. It's legal obligation under UNSC resolution of 1948. Now, what happened next? In 1947, so many things have happened. Two nation theory was developed by Pakistan Jinnah, then Muslim League was also involved and the riots occurred. Then Mahatma Gandhi's role, Mahatma Gandhi's position, Mahatma Gandhi wanted unified India, but so many things have happened. Even Dr. Ambedkar's role against Kashmir, sorry, against Pakistan, so many things have happened at that point of time. But what was happening at the ground level in Kashmir? Many people did not know about it. Remember I spoke about Pakhtun Militia? Now listen, the strategic rise of Pakhtun Militia in 1947 and its support under the influence and command of the Pakistan Army to the orchestrated rebellion against Maharaja Harissing that broke out in Pune, Jagir in 1947, June, 1947, laid down the foundation of so-called militancy in Jammu and Kashmir, which bore its fruits in the late 80s. Now you may ask me a question that what is the reason of that Muslim rebellion against Harissing? See I'll tell you, Pakistan was under impression that according to a two nation theory and according to the religious base of the two nation theory, Hindus supposed to remain in India or Hindu dominated parts should remain in India and Muslim dominated parts supposed to go to Pakistan. So what is the position of Kashmir at that point of time? Kashmir had a very strong king and that king wanted to re-dependent. He had his very own strong ambitions, the political ambitions, but that was not to happen. Pakistan threatened, Pakistan started threatened, you know, Raja Harissing. And Raja Harissing came under pressure and he had signed the accession document right and stance nightmare came to be true. Finally Raja Harissing aligned with India and therefore at that time, you know the Muslims of Kashmir Valley, they were being agitated and they were encouraged to revolt by the Pakhtun militia and Pakhtun militia was an inhabitants of the western frontier of Pakistan. These were with that. Now see that seeds of militancy which was laid down in 1947 started bearing its fruit in late 80s in the valley. We will come out, we will come to that. Now see, from the battle of 1947, we moved to battle of 1965, which is known as Asal Uttar. From 1965, we moved to battle of 1971. Of course, you know, we supported Bangladesh's, we supported Muktiwani movement, no doubt about that. But curious thing also happened at that point of time. That was Shimla agreement. And in Shimla agreement, one provision also was discussed and it was discussed because see, we were having the higher weight in Shimla agreement. So we, to Pakistan is that see under Shimla agreement, we also want to make you understand that the problems of Kashmir, right, is not an international problem. Rather it is a problem originally, it was originally between Jammu Kashmir and the state of India, state of Jammu Kashmir and state of India. But now it should be a bilateral talk between Pakistani government and Indian government and no third party should come and interfere in the first. So that was, I believe, a diplomatic victory for India because Shimla agreement, I consider it's very significant in this case. So from 1971, I would not immediately move to Kargil but from 1971, anything started to happen, right? India was growing economically, militarily as a superpower, right, gradually. And at the same time, so many things were happening and changing in Jammu and Kashmir. See, before 1980s, it is said that Kashmir was relatively peaceful. You might come across many, you know, Bollywood movies, Hindi movies, they were shot at Kashmir. So Kashmir was relatively very peaceful at that point of time. But what happened after 80s? And that is something which we really need to understand as a student of political science, international relation and the citizen of India, we should understand that something really abnormal started happening in the Kashmir Valley. If you want to win the population, how do you win? What does the strategic affairs expert says? If you want to win the population, number one, you try to win the population by way of your political might, by way of your military might, or you may use something else, more deadly, more powerful than any military. And that is the religion. And this is what Pakistan have started to do with the help of CIA. Kashmir, Kashmiri Muslim is very different than the Muslim in, you know, the mainland India. And I'll tell you why. Because they were never radicalized. History tells us that Kashmir was dominated by Buddhist traditions. You know, the entire region was dominated by Buddhism, right up to Kandahar and the Central Asia. Then it was also dominated at some point of time in the history by Shevai traditions of Hinduism. And then later on in, I think in 11 or 12th century, then Kashmir fell to the hands of Muslims. And then, you know, the Islamic influence have started to occur. But that is in the medieval age, right? But primarily speaking, it was Hinduism and Buddhism which was very dominant in Kashmir Valley. So Kashmir Muslim is a bit different. They are soft spoken, they are sorted and they were never radicalized. But rather they were made to be radical. They were taught radicalism by systematic religious agenda. Have you heard about Wahhabism? They said that Wahhabism is a radical Islam. It's a radical school of Islam. And I'm very open about it, you know? Because I spoke with two of my friends. Now one of them is an iOS IPS officer. He's from Kashmir, Canada. And he told me that, sir, I'll tell you that this is the radicalism, this is Wahhabism which has ruined everything at the Kashmir. So when religion was used as a political tool to achieve the political aims and objectives, then what do you expect, my dear friends? A disaster. And this is what exactly happened in the 80s of Kashmir. You found people became more radical, they became brainwashed against, you know, against the India, but that approach did not last longer. Because at this point of time, if you just look around, you will come to know that maximum Kashmiri youth, they want peace, they want good education, they want service, they want dignity. Are you able to understand what is the meaning of dignity? And it is very nice to hear, you know, those type of things from Kashmiri youth. So Kashmir has gone through transitions and modern Kashmir, the Kashmir of 2020 is totally different to Kashmir. But if you just understand the dynamics of terrorism in the Kashmir Valley, what do you see? Kashmir Valley is not a breeding, Kashmir Valley, kindly I will take questions later on. I will take questions later on. I still have time, I believe. I will take questions later on systematically. So Kashmir is a breeding, is it a breeding ground of terrorism? I don't believe that. Kashmir is not a breeding ground of terrorism. But rather they are being influenced by the outsiders. So maximum terrorism, maximum, you know, the terrorism which has been killed by the armed forces, neutralized by the armed forces, they were foreign terrorists. And of course they had their support, supporting element in the valley. But by the way, do you know one thing? This entire political disputes, entire this hulabalu about this terrorism and all, it's concentrated in a very small region of Jammu and Kashmir. Jammu is relatively very safe and peaceful. Ladakh is happy, relatively peaceful. The problem lies in a small pocket of hardly three or four districts back to in the Kashmir, okay? Poonch is one of them. Because you know, I refer to Poonch Jaqir when the revolt started happening in 1947 against Raja Harissing, that was the case. Now see, now you must have had idea about, you know, what exactly the Kashmir is all about, right? And what is the role of Pakistan over there? And you must have got little bit idea about what is the legal position of India. See Pakistan, let me tell you about the Pakistan's legal position. Number one, Pakistan considers this accession document as a fraud. They're very open about it. They don't consider this document as a legal document at all. Second, the second position is they still believe in two-nation theory, which is based on religion. And they think that, you know, since Kashmir is dominated by Muslim, the Kashmir is dominated by Islam and the maximum population. So Kashmir should go to Pakistan, right? See, they could understand and all the scholars of diplomatics also should understand that Kashmir is not Jewad. Kashmir is not Hyderabad. Are you getting my point? I'm specifically using these two cases. In reference to Nawab of Hyderabad and Nawab of Jewad. They went to Pakistan, they fled to Pakistan because the people wanted India. But in Kashmir, the emperor was not interested either in the national policy or in Jinnah policy. He wanted to keep it hold as long as it is possible. But that was not possible, you know? So the document was signed. Now what is the present condition? Now see, if you consider the geographic location of Kashmir, you will find that it is strategically very important. Kashmir has its boundary attached to China, China-Tibetan region. Then Kashmir has its boundary attached to Pakistan. Of course, this side, it is India. And Kashmir's, you know, northwest frontier is a gateway to the central Asia. That also we cannot forget. And from the eastern side, the Kashmir is a traditional way via a Karakoram tract. And the side chain, then via Khotan, it's a traditional road, which has been used by the people to enter in the continent, right? So now you can imagine, even strategically also, the location of Kashmir is very, very important. Okay? Now see, Kashmir has been eyed by Pakistan. Kashmir has been eyed by China also. Many people now they come to know, but many people doesn't know that even the China also, you know, stolen our, yeah, sure, no problem, okay? So China also stole, you know, our Kashmir in 1960s, region in 1960s, especially in the Ladawi. So when it comes to the Achi-Chin area, and when it comes to Achi-Chin and the Karakoram tract, yes, and the Karakoram tract, that region is under the part of the Achi-Chin area. And by the way, for your kind information, there is one famous statement given by our Pandit Nehru, right? And that famous statement, I cannot recall the exact source, but that is somewhere, okay, you can find it out. He said that what kind of crop grows there in that region? He was referring to Karakoram tract and he was referring to Achi-Chin. What crop does it grow there? What life does it grow there? Where is the life over there? And that kind of loose statement was, you know, given by the Prime Minister of India. And now just imagine, why 1999 Kargil war was very important because again, we were backstabbed by the Pakistan. And it was understanding that, you know, the military post required to be vacated in the nearby the Achi-Chin glaciers. And those vacated posts will be in the summer will be reoccupied by Pakistan army and the Indian army. But in the winter, what happened? Indians have vacated the post and Pakistan captured those vacated post of India. And this is how the Kargil started. And I'll tell you one thing very clearly about this Kashmir issue and Indo-Pakistan dispute. Besides terrorism, besides hatred, besides confusion, let me tell you, the common Pakistani has doesn't have to do anything with the dispute the way the common Indians doesn't have to do with this dispute, right? Now here, the problem with the Pakistan is Pakistan never had a democracy. Pakistan always had military autocracy as their government and fighting war against India is not in the interest of the Pakistan is not in the interest of the Pakistanis, but rather it is in the interest of the Pakistan army. You always need strategic justification, isn't it? And this is what it is. Now here, the question is not just a terrorism. Here's the question is, how are we going to tackle the Pak army? In my introduction paper, if you could have gone through it, I have categorically mentioned that the diplomatic channels have completely been failed down. Do you know why diplomatic channels between India and Pakistan have failed down? Because Pakistani government was always and forever since 1947 was under the influence of Pakistan army. General Yahya Khan, General Tikka Khan, General Parvez Musharraf, I can give tell you so many names which were far more superior than prime ministers and the presidents. When Kargil war happened, it is on record it is mentioned that Nawaz Sharif was kept in the dark. Nawaz Sharif had no idea that the Pakistan forces have captured the Indian post. And this Parvez Musharraf proudly stated that we captured Indian post. Are you on what basis? By keeping your own prime minister in the dark. So see, this is the dynamics. And to challenge that dynamics, sir, I request five more minutes to tackle this dynamics. Now, India has resorted to various military policies. The first military policy that India has devised to, number one, the strategic attacks and the surgical strike. Now, many people have raised you and cry about, what is the position of India? What is the legal position of India to go into a sovereign country and attack the people and come back? Well, I'll tell you, in the law of sea, there is one doctrine called doctrine of hot pursuit. What does a doctrine of hot pursuit says? Since I studied international law and I know it very well, because why am I so confident? Because doctrine of hot pursuit was limited to the law of sea, but it was America and many other countries, especially Israel, they expanded doctrine of hot pursuit. Take an example of Munich Olympic. I hope you know what happened in the Munich Olympic. The Israeli Olympians were murdered by Hamas, right? Then what happened in case of Osama bin Laden at Abbottabad? Pakistan government had no idea what was happening from somewhere, the American troopers came, they took quick action, they finished, the dreaded terrorist Osama bin Laden, they disappeared and that's all. So it is not India which has tried to expand the legal interpretation of doctrine of hot pursuit, but it has already been done. Second is a doctrine of self-defense. Under the doctrine of self-defense, the war is justified. War is a big word, war is actually a big word, but even if you take commandos actions, the military actions, even if you initiate surgical strikes, they are also valid under the doctrine of self-defense. When we know very well with reference to the evidences that the external affairs ministry of India have produced from time to time to various international communities on different various international platforms that Pakistan is nourishing the terrorist launch pads and still no action has been taken, what do you expect that needs to be initiated if not a surgical strike? It's a big question. Nobody wants war, war is a disaster, war is destruction, but what is the option when somebody comes again and again and again to your house and starts slapping you again and again and go back to his house and you have nothing else to do. So here, as I told you before that I was speaking on a doctrine of hot pursuit and doctrine of self-defense. This is very two important documents, doctrines under international law. Hello sir, you have three more minutes, okay? Three more minutes please. Three more minutes. Yes, yes. And as per the latest position, our meteorological department had started showing weather of Pakistan occupied Kashmir and I will end my talk with my interpretation. Now let us understand. In 1971, when Mukti Vahini started its movement in Bangladesh, I mean Mukti Vahini started its movement way back in early 1960s, okay? But it was culminated into a full-fledged war in 68 and 69 and 70s. Then India also started showing the weather of Dhaka. If you can just go back to the history you will come to know. It was symbolic in nature. Why was it symbolic in nature and what is it? Why is it so important from strategic perspective and the diplomatic perspective? Let me tell you. When one sovereign country tried to show up the part of another sovereign country that simply mean that it is claiming its region and it is giving a signal to that. And let us not forget, in 93 or 94 Indian parliament have unanimously passed a resolution which is available on internet that Pakistan occupied Kashmir is an alienable part of India and why it is an unalienable part of India? The answer lies in United Nations Security Council resolution of 1947. So my dear friends, the question is not for a common man. Common man like you and me who are struggling for daily survival, they are nothing to do with this diplomatic and military issues and all. But let me tell you, when it comes to terrorism, when it comes to illegal military actions, then yes, a common man is bound to be suffocated. A common man, a common Indian bound to be targeted. And therefore it is our duty to at least understand what is happening around us. So the question is Kashmir belongs to whom? Undoubtedly Kashmir belongs to India. Thank you. Thank you so much Dr. Ani for very insightful talks that you have delivered this afternoon. It was really an eye-opener, a thought-provoking and an inspiration to search for the truth. And since it is happening again and again and then even the future will look like that something in the border will happen. So I would rather put it in another way that it is a developing story and therefore I think you have to sell through with lots of facts and a lot of important points for us to border upon. And we really thank you for your time and we could see the energy, we could see the knowledge, we could see the hard work that you have put in. So we thank you so much, sir. We are very lucky and we are blessed this afternoon to hear from you. So many things you have touched during your sharing. So you started with your association of the Kashmir Beautiful Place and then again you go by the form, the crown of India. And then you have to touch upon so many things. Thank you so very much for all these great points that the most important thing is you have initiated a revolution in all of us so that we can start looking into this story in a much more serious manner. So now let us enter into the Q&A session. In the beginning I want to give more time to sir so I did not tell every one of you. Kindly feel free to type your queries in the chat book or you can also unmute your microphone and ask. And I request Dr. Ani, a speaker, to be very succinct and precise and brief. And first of all, let us take up the question given by Dr. Debra Bhattak. Do you think Muslim fundamentalists backed by Pakistan army is responsible for conflict in Kashmir? And related to that is, what is the UN staying with regard to Kashmir issue? So I would like to request our speaker to respond to this. Okay, sir, thank you so much. I think this topic has been nationally very important. So I thought that I should take up and speak on it. Rather I show all of you for your patient hearing. Anyway, so Dr. Debra has given this two interesting questions and I was just willing to give an answer in precise manner. So the first question is, do you think Muslim fundamentalists back up by Pakistan army is responsible for conflict in Kashmir? Now let us first understand, okay, what is the meaning of Pakistan army? I mean, it's very interesting, okay, to understand the character of Pakistan army. Fortunately, when I was studying my international law, I got an opportunity to discuss about the strategic affairs and some, how to say, the military science with some of the people who were serving with the Indian armed forces at a very high position, okay? I was from Pune. I mean, I studied my international law from Pune University. So it is just in the vicinity or nearby national defense academy. So we get opportunity to interact with those people. Anyway, the most important thing is the character of Pakistan army. Pakistan army, yes. Since it is a Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the nature and character of Pakistan army is essentially religious character, unlike Indian army. Indian army or maybe US army or even maybe the British army, they don't recognize religion. And it is true also. Many of your relatives must be serving in the armed forces. So they should know, they will tell you that our armed force does not recognize any religion. But Pakistan has some different way of structuring their armed forces, okay? So they believe in religion, they believe in religious doctrines, so on and so forth. Now here the question is whether, you know, religious fundamentalist backup by Pakistan army is responsible. Well, I'll tell you, okay. Religious fundamentalists are not born. Are you getting my point, sir? Religious fundamentalists are not born. Religious fundamentalists are created. They are created. And I have rightly given you the example that what happened in Kashmir Valley in the 80s. Are Kashmiri Muslims very different? He's very nice. He doesn't know any radicalism, but they were made to radicalized, right? By planting the Wahhabist ideals, the Wahhabist influences, the Wahhabist traditions and the philosophy. And I urge each one of you to go through and read the Wahhabist literature. You will get goosebumps. Sufism is at the soul of Kashmiri Islam. Do you know that? Just read the literature produced by the Kashmiri Sufi scholars. So that is the problem, right? The radical people were created in the valley. And those radical people became puppets in the hands of the CIA and the Pakistan armed forces. Pakistan, look at the map of Pakistan. Can Pakistan fight with India directly? Pakistan cannot do that. They do not have a ground. I mean, just one push of our single division in Pakistan is gone. It is true, because you need a ground to sustain. So Pakistan devised another strategy. So they created radicalism, radical people. The radical people became puppets in the hands of Pakistan army and CIA. And they started creating havoc. So in that way, I would say, yes, the Muslim fundamentalists, radical people who were created, they were not there, they were created and they were started backing Pak Army or Pak policy in Kashmir. Now, what is the UN standpoint with regard to Kashmir issue? Okay, now I have already spoken on this issue in reference to United Nations Security Council Resolution of 1948. What happened is that in case of that resolution, United Nations have already made people understand that they are having their presence in the issue. Okay, and if you go to Srinagar, you may find that UN office is also there in the Srinagar, right? But what happened in similar agreement is that, it was mutually decided that the issue is not international issue. It is an issue between India and Pakistan. Okay, so if you can understand that the UN has lost its jurisdiction because of that. Let me tell you, United Nations cannot interfere in the problem of two countries unless and until both the countries are willing to get the services of the United Nations, that is very true. United Nations peacekeeping forces, that's another thing. But when it comes to observation group, when it comes to United Nations support, when it comes to United Nations platform, come on, your and mine consent is required, right? So in 1971, it was, I said that it was a diplomatic victory for India. So in Shimla agreement, one of the provisions of the agreement was that let there be bilateral talks. No third party should be involved in that, you know? So this is the, I believe. Yeah, yeah, I think the UN does not have. Yeah, the point is not to expand. Thank you, Anuradha, doctor. Thank you, Dr. Anuradha. So I understood the standpoint of UN. So it's a bilateral issue. It's a bilateral issue. It should be, it is. So I think it is the Pakistan army, I think, in order to make their presence and this Pakistan's generals, the army officials, they have their vision, I think, to dominate politics or something like that. So they know that actually it is not an issue at all. Since Raja Hari Singh, he signed an accord with Indian government and for sure was a part of the union. So actually there exists no reason for Pakistan to claim Indian territory. That's the final thing, I suppose. And what I believe is that, this is my opinion, do you think this Pakistan army and Pakistan politicians, maybe, they are using these policy instruments in order to make their, in order to realize their political ambitions, Mr. Anuradha. All right. The bilateral question. Okay, I got it, I got it. Dr. Ani, I just want to request you that the point that Sir is asking has been already mentioned in your talk. And then thank you very much. Now we would like to move on to another query from, I mean, we will ask for two more questions if anyone would like to ask. And we will continue to take some of the points that Sir Debrita has put forward later. So I would like to request other participants who would like to just put the query in brief. Anyone before we actually close our session. If anyone would like to put forward some of your viewpoints or something that you want to know from speaker, please unmute your mic and please go ahead. You can write it down also, no problem message. Yeah, we will wait for one last question. Please feel free. Sir if there is no question, you can also ask question. Okay. Okay. Last question from my side. I'm so happy once again that I could gather so many points from the talk. I would like to mention one thing that, one of the important thing that looking like missing out is the drawing of or the demarcation of the boundary line by Sir Cyril Ratcliffe. So we have a Ratcliffe, you know, lined demarcated between India and Pakistan. And that affects Bengal also. So I think, sir, can you just throw a light on that? You know, it was done by the British, what you call administrator, Sir Cyril Ratcliffe. So can you just throw, for China, we have Magmohan lined is there. For Pakistan and India, we have this Ratcliffe line. So is there any dispute of that line, you know, starting from the British time, leading to this current, you know, conflict? Sir, can you tell me when Ratcliffe line was drawn? The year? Actually, it was drawn in 1914. Is it 1914? Now listen, I'll tell you, okay. There are different proposals were initiated, okay. No, sorry, not 1914. When we speak about, exactly, that is why, when we speak about Magmohan line, when we speak about Ratcliffe line, when we speak about line of control, and when we speak about line of actual control, hey, a common man gets confused. Yeah. So see, every line has its own purpose, right? And Ratcliffe line, even though it might have been existed, but, you know, when it comes to line of control, okay, which is considered as official line on ground. See, basically, it's still in dispute, but official line on ground by virtue of 1947-48 battle, by virtue of United Nations Security Council resolution of 1948, the edit. So what was before LOC, what was before line of control automatically gets nullified from the platform of legal position, that is point number one. But academically, you know, we can understand that, right? Second important thing is, when it comes to China, see, I'll tell you, okay. China has occupied more than 10,000 square kilometer of, you know, oxide chain. And that is, that is truth, right? And they wanted to gain more weightage by incursing in, you know, the Ladakh region. That is also true. And now our military forces, our forces are very strong at that point of time, you know? Even in Kargil, what happened? Do you know the location of Kargil? Because you're talking about boundaries now, that is why I'm, you know, giving the small, small example, sir, right? Why Pakistan dare to do this, you know, misadventure in Kargil, right? To have a control over Kargil Heights. And why Kargil Heights, do you know, sir? Because from Kargil Heights, you can directly attack to the Lay Ladakh communication. And if the Lay Ladakh communication is break down, then India is completely spastic. It is India is completely gone down, losing its strategic importance, right? So that is why, you know, when it comes to the boundaries, sir, unfortunately, we are so unlucky that we had very bad neighbors, right? Nobody bothers about the boundary, neither Pakistan nor your China. And unfortunately, God knows what is happening with Nepal now. And I'm sure one day I will organize one talk on Nepal also. They started talking about, you know, Liplu and other issues, right? And why that is necessary for India, itself from the wrath of China at the end, you know? So that is the problem. So to answer your direct query, that line nullified by LOC, and LOC is in dispute as disputable as LSE line of actual control. And it is all about the strategic importance from the military perspective. That is the only thing. Okay, sir. Okay, sir, the point is noted. And thank you once again. And I would like to conclude our session by thanking, you know, our professor, our speaker, one of the dynamic professors in Petso College. And also I would like to thank, you know, those who put forward some queries and then enter into discussion. As I once again remind you all that today's talk is very encompassing in nature, very exhaustive in one sense, and so many facts, facts lead and talk. So towards the end, I would like to say that one question still keep, one question keep on coming to our mind nowadays when we talk about India Park and India China, you know, relations with regard to territorial claims and counter claims. And the one thing that keeps on disturbing us is that are we fighting and losing battle? Because that is the question that keep coming to us because when we look at, we have, you know, in the, Kashmir, and then also we have Pakistan, we have different, what they call territories which are already divided, you know, among India, Pakistan and China. So I think when I look at the map, which is though India probably mentioned the map, but in reality, you know, so much of, so a big, big chunk of Indian territory has been already, you know, seated to our so-called as speaker have said, bed neighbors, so to say. So thank you so much everyone for availing, I mean, I mean, being taking part in this talk and we hope to, you know, continue lots more on the, what they call emerging issues which are continuing and which are developing in nature. I would like to sincerely thank, you know, that's a college dot talk, you know, within a series platform and all the, all the people associated with it. And I would like to thank our speaker once again, that's Anirudha, my God bless you more with knowledge and wisdom. And I thank everyone of you for staying till the end of the talk and hope that, you know, we learn something today. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you so much, sir. Thank you all, thank you so much. If you have any other query, you can talk to me personally. Thank you so much. Have a great afternoon.