Kashmir : Line of Control Lords Debate Clarifies

I am attempting to quote verbatim from the Hansard's report -
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office ( Baroness Anelay of St.Johns ) (Con)  replied in very few words, 'our long-standing position is that it is for India and Pakistan to find solution that takes into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the United Kingdom to prescribe a solution or to mediate in finding one.'
This obviously did not satisfy Lord Hussain (LD) who persevered repeating the ongoing demand - "for the Kashmiri people to have their right to self determination, as we have seen given to the  Scottish people in recent weeks?"
The Minister replied reiterating her earlier statement in different words.
Baroness Warsi (Con) raised a very strange question about the Government's position on the role of British nationals of Pakistani origin fighting for the Pakistan army and the British nationals of Indian origin fighting in the Indian army.
The Minister cleverly smelt the reference to the ISIS crisis and immediately made it very clear that - no one should draw a parallel between the two propositions.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) raised a very important question relating to the partition of the subcontinent on a religious basis - a basis of false, irreconcilable religious differences - was a huge mistake ?
Lord Ahmed (Non Afl) said that the elections are no substitute for a free, fair and impartial plebiscite as promised by the United Nations in 1948 and 1949, and therefore that the forthcoming elections in Indian administered Kashmir would not to be a substitute for the outstanding promise of the United Nations, which should be given to the people of Kashmir?
The Minister gave an apt reply saying that Lord Ahmed will know of the Shimla Agreement which now forms the basis of the negotiations between India and Pakistan.
The Minister also added that there are elections ahead and they have always in the past been judged by the international community to be free and fair.
In summary the torchbearer of the faith agents in politics were once again unsuccessful.
Here it ought to be noted that no Hindu or Muslim Lord, or Baroness of  Indian origin participated in this important debate.
This perhaps appear to be an appropriate decision too.
Too Hard On Pakistan - says Victoria Schofield
A very interesting lecture on the foreign policy - 'Challenges and Oppurtunities' by the well known journalist and author M.J. Akbar , the National Spokesperson of the BJP was held at Arundale House, London.
On my way out, I met Ms Victoria Schofield in the lift. As I know her and was sure that she would not know me, I greeted her and took the conversation a step further by asking her about her views on M.J. Akbar's lecture. She promptly replied in just four words, 'too hard on Pakistan.'
I replied, 'Not illogically, I suppose.' Unfortunately the lift had reached the ground floor and she rushed out for an important meeting without any reply.
M.J.Akbar spoke about the challenges and opportunities faced by a modern society or by a country keen to be in such a stage.
He enlisted four basic i.e.,
1. Democracy ;
2. Secularism or Inclusiveness ;
3. No gender discrimination ;
4. Economic development as well as avoidance of hypocrisy and opportunism.
Unfortunately on all the above mentioned four criteria the present day Pakistan has failed.
M.J. Akbar also elaborated on World War I,World War II, World War III (Capitalism vs Communism ) and World War IV ( between democratic forces and the extremist 'Jihadis or Jihadis more tuned to Wahabis and Salafis).
I felt that M.J. Akbar was very forceful and logical in his talk and very convincing too.
The elite audience seem to accept it well.I was really sorry for Victoria Schofield that it left her unhappy.
It is impossible to please everyone,thats the way of life and not much can be done to change it not easy to impress on any one especially likes  of Victoria Schofield who has some firm views in favor of Pakistan.
- CB