Autonomy Under Indian Constitution: An Old Pragmatic Approach To Kashmir or a Recipe for Disaster?

[Hellfire]

I was referring to Junaid Qureshi, son of Hashem Qureshi, and afaik, he is not a member of this forum..

And where did you come across the gentleman?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Sorry @Azlan Haider edited the post ... however will get back.

Nothing wrong with editing your post(s) mate but what has Balochistan got to do with the topic here ? Of course we can discuss that as much as you want, but I think we should do that on relevant thread(s).

You can compare Balochistan Insurgency in Pakistan to the Maoist Insurgency in Northeast India.

Unlike Kashmir, Balochistan and Northeast Indian states are NOT Disputed Territories under International Law.

Accession of Kashmir is different from accession of any other Indian Princely State as the accession has been placed before the UN Security Council for arranging a ratification or otherwise by the people of the State under the auspices of the United Nations. Therefore, the arrangement caused through the accession of 26 October 1947 has been taken over by the interests of 195 countries of the UN (including Pakistan as a member nation of UN and as a party). Pakistan as a party to the dispute administers two administrations of the State on its side of cease fire line.

 

[Hellfire]

Nothing wrong with editing your post(s) mate but what has Balochistan got to do with the topic here ? Of course we can discuss that as much as you want, but I think we should do that on relevant thread(s).

You can compare Balochistan Insurgency in Pakistan to the Maoist Insurgency in Northeast India.

Unlike Kashmir, Balochistan and Northeast Indian states are NOT Disputed Territories under International Law.

Am aiming to give examples of stupidities of all concerned. The issue has moved from situation of 1947 to 2016. There have been tremendous changes in all spheres.

Quick word only - the relevance to Baluchistan is that it is a perfectly similar case to J&K. However, there are three differences:

1. The guarantee given to Khan of Kalat on his territories remaining as an independent sovereign nation with independence in all matters except defence, foreign affairs and communication as assured by MA Jinnah in February and as ratified by their Houses upon lapse of paramountcy and independence of territories of British India Empire in August 2015. The volte-face by Jinnah in October and retraction of his commitment to the Khan is exactly what one would describe, a unilateral withdrawal from own stated position and commitments.

The difference being, we first made plebiscite as a condition to accept the Instrument of Accession when Maharaja was willing to sign without any pre-conditions, then gave an undertaking to UN and then simply kept it in abeyance till as such time the conditions as mentioned by the relevant resolutions beginning with Resolution 38 and subsequent were met by all concerned.

2. The main difference is, that the House in Kalat refused to accept being a part of Pakistan and the territories annexed with induction of Pakistani troops as per your own documents. In the context of J&K, after the Constituent Assembly of J&K was formed and the state legislature under the Constitution of J&K was elected, it again ratified the accession to India.
There was no instance wherein there was any other view to the signing of Instrument Of Accession other than acceptance of J&K as part of India by the Sheikh Abdullah led National Conference even prior to the ratification by the State Legislature as set up under relevant statuettes.

3. There was no invasion of the principality by India (for obvious reason, so lets accept it only for intellectual exercises) hence the Pakistani act of sending in the army was a clear and blatant act of violation of its own commitments and naked aggression. On the other hand, you did invade the principality of J&K with which you had signed a standstill agreement and who you had blockaded unilaterally in order to force a decision.

We can keep arguing over who and why of issues, but I am simply stating the facts as they stand. When you quoted the Dixon statement, it was after substantial time from his actual work in the region if am not mistaken. Such statements have the benefit of the wisdom of retrospect analysis with the consequences of the actions taken at the time being clear. However, what I had an aim to achieve with the post of Baluchistan was to indicate that both India and Pakistan made commitments only to retract them for forging a nation, an act that has precedents the world over and throughout history. It is very easy to retrospectively analyse the situation and indulge in a blame game.

I give you an alternate situation:

1. If Pakistan had not blockaded the Kashmir valley after signing the Standstill agreement with the Maharaja, by the way things progressed through till 1946, the popularity and significance of Sheikh Abdullah would have diminished in face of continued rule of the maharaja and increasing unrest against his rule in valley had he not adopted a pro-Pakistan attitude.

I have posted the statements and petitions of Kisan Group et al earlier in order to highlight the fact that there was indeed a popular mood to join Pakistan, but the actions of Muslim League in demand for a separate homeland made the Kashmiris wary of joining the bandwagon.

Pertinent to note, at this time, India itself was very comfortable with the idea of Kashmir remaining independent.

2. After your invasion and subsequent Indian intervention, had you simple withdrawn your 'non-state' actors and allowed India to land in a position wherein its commitment for a plebiscite was under scrutiny, India would indeed have been in a difficult spot. But the said action was not undertaken because of the public backlash Pakistan was certain to face in the valley proper where the tribesmen indulged in widespread arson, rape and murder of Kashmiris themselves. Indian misfortune was of not holding a plebiscite there. A mistake India will regret forever. Had it been held, the matter of valley would have been a settled one in terms of plebiscite.

3. Had you not sent in your hordes, India would never have been an option and Pakistan would have been the only option for a Maharaja faced with an insurrection for which he was ill prepared. How long do you think he would have lasted? Mistake by Pakistan was of forcing his hand through their actions.

4. And the biggest tragedy for the Kashmiris is - Sheikh Abdullah et al, who never maintained a single view of things and kept moving from independence-India-Pakistan-independence, thereby making a mess of things.

I will put up relevant references when can.

PS: It was an Indian act of stupidity to seek a reference over Kashmir. Initially, the Instrument of Accession was accepted as a legal issue by UN and all concerned, but it was the British and later US policy to move into a position where in 70s the US representatives termed the Instrument of Accession 'perhaps invalid'.

I can merely speculate that it had much to do with India's NAM charade and apparent anti-US stance in number of issues. Also, Pakistan being a CENTO/Baghdad Pact number may have been a reason too.

When you say Baluchistan is not an international dispute, it is because there has been no intervention by any outside power like was in case of Kashmir. To claim it today as the maoist issue in Jharkhand and Chattisgarh-Orissa, is valid as indeed we have never questioned its accession to Pakistan. If the situation is reversed today, the potential for trouble exists.(I digress).

Accession of Kashmir is different from accession of any other Indian Princely State as the accession has been placed before the UN Security Council for arranging a ratification or otherwise by the people of the State under the auspices of the United Nations. Therefore, the arrangement caused through the accession of 26 October 1947 has been taken over by the interests of 195 countries of the UN (including Pakistan as a member nation of UN and as a party). Pakistan as a party to the dispute administers two administrations of the State on its side of cease fire line.

By the Dominion accepting the said Instrument of Accession under Indian Independence Act of 1947 Para 4(a), which is the locus standii for formation of Pakistan and India as dominions. Legally, the instrument is valid and until and unless you challenge the provision contained therein and risk challenging the locus standii of Pakistan itself, one has to to accept it as such. The legality of the same was accepted by the UN also at the time of passing resolution 38 on January 17 1948. It was after the undertaking given by India (the greatest stupidity of all) of holding a plebiscite to decide the accession as per choice of people, something which made India itself challenge the legality of accession, that the 'dispute' was introduced, at a later as delved on earlier with reference to role of UK and US over the subsequent decades. I have to look for the script of the Indian undertaking. Want to reallllyyy post that stupidity for Indian members!

Pakistan was never a party to the dispute. The terms of reference for the Plebiscite administrator included the provision of appointment by UN in consultation with Government of India, there is no mention of Pakistan in it. The only relevance of Pakistan to the dispute today, is through its act of occupying areas of the erstwhile Princely State of J&K, ceding of territories of the said area to China in a transient boundary agreement which has the potential for a conflict at a future date due to the historic 'claims' of Tibet and through Tibet the Chinese to the so called norther areas and insertion of a clause wherein the Chinese can re-negotiate it at a latter date and lastly through the act of fomenting militancy and secessionist acts in the valley by sending trained mercenaries to fight an increasingly sectarian insurgency in the valley.

That is why I say that at the time of formulation of resolution 47 also, the terms of reference were always UN in consultation with Government of India, hence the legality of Indian claim under the aforesaid Independence Act was valid in view of UN also.

Side note:

The aim of Pakistan remains to control Kashmir for two reasons:

a. It shall culminate its efforts to consolidate the muslim dominated regions of the British Indian empire into a single nation thus legitimizing the demand for a separate homeland. An ideological view point perfectly acceptable in realpolitik.

b. It has to have control of the sources of fesh water supplies, especially now as the seasonal variations and increase in the population density upstream has grave consequences for Pakistani economy.

@Rain Man please do the needful. Made mistakes today in a hurry to rebut the gentleman. @Joe Shearer pointed out the stupidity and inaccuracy I had allowed to the detriment of the post. Its your rebuttal please.

 

[Joe Shearer]

And where did you come across the gentleman?

Facebook.

Moderate Voice of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.

He belongs to another in common with I, but both of us have concluded very sadly that that is purely a propaganda outlet.

Am aiming to give examples of stupidities of all concerned. The issue has moved from situation of 1947 to 2016. There have been tremendous changes in all spheres.

Quick word only - the relevance to Baluchistan is that it is a perfectly similar case to J&K. However, there are three differences:

1. The guarantee given to Khan of Kalat on his territories remaining as an independent sovereign nation with independence in all matters except defence, foreign affairs and communication as assured by MA Jinnah in February and as ratified by their Houses upon lapse of paramountcy and independence of territories of British India Empire in August 2015. The volte-face by Jinnah in October and retraction of his commitment to the Khan is exactly what Indians did in Kashmir.

Sorry, but I don't agree - this is perhaps the first time.

We committed precisely the same to Hari Singh, and that is precisely what is incorporated in #370. So how did we retract? Our commitment is now embedded in our own constitution.

The difference being, we first made plebiscite as a condition to accept the Instrument of Accession when Maharaja was willing to sign without any pre-conditions, then gave an undertaking to UN and then simply retracted from something to which we committed.

I still don't agree. We were willing, at all times, to let the plebiscite happen, subject to all conditions of the UN Resolution being realised.

2. The main difference is, that the House in Kalat refused to accept being a part of Pakistan and the territories annexed with induction of Pakistani troops as per your own documents. In the context of J&K, after the Constituent Assembly of J&K was formed and the state legislature under the Constitution of J&K was elected, it ratified the accession to India.

No.

Even before the State Assembly defined by the Constitution sat for the first time, the Constituent Assembly defined the state as an integral part of India.

3. There was no invasion of the principality by India (for obvious reason, so lets accept it only for intellectual exercises) hence the Pakistani act of sending in the army was a clear and blatant act of violation of its own commitments and naked aggression. On the other hand, you did invade the principality of J&K with which you had signed a standstill agreement and who you had blockaded unilaterally in order to force a decision.

We can keep arguing over who and why of issues, but I am simply stating the facts as they stand. When you quoted the Dixon statement, it was after substantial time from his actual work in the region if am not mistaken. Such statements have the benefit of the wisdom of retrospect analysis with the consequences of the actions taken at the time being clear. However, what I had an aim to achieve with the post of Baluchistan was to indicate that both India and Pakistan made commitments only to retract them for forging a nation, an act that has precedents the world over and throughout history. It is very easy to retrospectively analyse the situation and indulge in a blame game.

I give you an alternate situation:

1. If Pakistan had not blockaded the Kashmir valley after signing the Standstill agreement with the Maharaja, by the way things progressed through till 1946, the popularity and significance of Sheikh Abdullah would have diminished in face of continued rule of the maharaja and increasing unrest against his rule in valley had he not adopted a pro-Pakistan attitude.

I have posted the statements and petitions of Kisan Group et al earlier in order to highlight the fact that there was indeed a popular mood to join Pakistan, but the actions of Muslim League in demand for a separate homeland made the Kashmiris wary of joining the bandwagon.

2. After your invasion and subsequent Indian intervention, had you simple withdrawn your 'non-state' actors and allowed India to land in a position wherein its commitment for a plebiscite was under scrutiny, India would indeed have been in a difficult spot. But the said action was not undertaken because of the public backlash Pakistan was certain to face in the valley proper where the tribesmen indulged in widespread arson, rape and murder of Kashmiris themselves. Indian misfortune was of not holding a plebiscite there. A mistake India will regret forever.

3. Had you not sent in your hordes, India would never have been an option and Pakistan would have been the only option for a Maharaja faced with an insurrection for which he was ill prepared. How long do you think he would have lasted? Mistake by Pakistan was of forcing his hand through their actions.

4. And the biggest tragedy for the Kashmiris is - Sheikh Abdullah et al, who never maintained a single view of things and kept moving from independence-India-Pakistan-independence, thereby making a mess of things.

I will put up relevant references when can.

PS: It was an Indian act of stupidity to seek a reference over Kashmir. Initially, the Instrument of Accession was accepted as a legal issue, but it was the British and later US policy to move into a position where in 70s the US representatives termed the Instrument of Accession 'perhaps invalid'.

I can merely speculate that it had much to do with India's NAM charade and apparent anti-US stance in number of issues. Also, Pakistan being a CENTO/Baghdad Pact number may have been a reason too.

When you say Baluchistan is not an international dispute, it is because there has been no intervention by any outside power like was in case of Kashmir. To claim it today as the maoist issue in Jharkhand and Chattisgarh-Orissa, is valid as indeed we have never questioned its accession to Pakistan. If the situation is reversed today, the potential for trouble exists.(I digress).






By the Dominion accepting the said Instrument of Accession under Indian Independence Act of 1947 Para 4(a), which is the locus standii for formation of Pakistan and India as dominions. Legally, the instrument is valid and until and unless you challenge the provision contained therein and risk challenging the locus standii of Pakistan itself, one has to to accept it as such. The legality of the same was accepted by the UN also at the time of passing resolution 38 on January 17 1948. It was after the undertaking given by India (the greatest stupidity of all) of holding a plebiscite to decide the accession as per choice of people, something which made India itself challenge the legality of accession, that the dispute was introduced. I have to look for the script of the Indian undertaking. Want to reallllyyy post that stupidity for Indian members!

Pakistan was never a party to the dispute. The terms of reference for the Plebiscite administrator included the provision of appointment by UN in consultation with Government of India, there is no mention of Pakistan in it.

That is why I say that at the time of formulation of resolution 47 also, the terms of reference were always UN in consultation with Government of India, hence the legality of Indian claim under the aforesaid Independence Act was valid in view of UN also.

Side note:

The aim of Pakistan remains to control Kashmir for two reasons:

a. It shall culminate its efforts to consolidate the muslim dominated regions of the British Indian empire into a single nation thus legitimizing the demand for a separate homeland. An ideological view point perfectly acceptable in realpolitik.

b. It has to have control of the sources of fesh water supplies, especially now as the seasonal variations and increase in the population density upstream has gave consequences for Pakistani agrarian sector.

 

[Hellfire]

Sorry, but I don't agree - this is perhaps the first time.

We committed precisely the same to Hari Singh, and that is precisely what is incorporated in #370. So how did we retract? Our commitment is now embedded in our own constitution.

Sir, I did post that it is in hurry. Your contention above is accepted without any dissent.

My error in not reading it after formulating it. Perhaps I should not post in a hurry again. Apologies for the stupidity.

I still don't agree. We were willing, at all times, to let the plebiscite happen, subject to all conditions of the UN Resolution being realised.

Even before the State Assembly defined by the Constitution sat for the first time, the Constituent Assembly defined the state as an integral part of India.

Again accepted.

That is why tagged you, to ensure I don't allow too much flexibility in accepting counter-points which are contrary to facts.

Was in a hurry and had actually posted as a means to allow for some flexibility for the sake of argument, but it was an erroneous act. I, at all times, do underscore and maintain the legality and validity of the accession itself and point to the fact that it can only be questioned by Pakistan if it is willing to question the same law which gives it the legality as a nation and thus its own formation.

Thanks for pointing out the errors. Hence, you shall be tagged as always

Will be amending the post.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Am aiming to give examples of stupidities of all concerned. The issue has moved from situation of 1947 to 2016. There have been tremendous changes in all spheres.

Quick word only - the relevance to Baluchistan is that it is a perfectly similar case to J&K. However, there are three differences:

Agreed. There have been tremendous changes in all spheres since 1947. BUT Kashmir remains a disputed territory under International Law whose final accession is yet to be decided. The problem is that the UN refuses to terminate UNMOGIP, it refuses to discard the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir, And it refuses to intervene. So, until and unless Pakistan, India and the Kashmiris reach an agreement on the settlement of the Kashmir dispute (then they would have to go back to the UN Security Council to get another resolution to endorse that procedure) Kashmir will remain a disputed territory under International Law.

Indians believe that the status quo favors them and they are ready to formalize it as they lose nothing if that happens. But Pakistan (and the Kashmiris too) are not willing to accept this. India has failed to win ‘loyalty’ from the people of the Kashmir Valley in the last 70 years and it's very unlikely that they will be able to do that in another 70 or 100 years. You can hold Kashmir forcefully as long as you want (or can) but what you need to understand is that this holding on will not change the legal status of Kashmir, no matter how long you keep doing that. YOU will have to find a solution ultimately. And only you can do that. The sooner the better. Better for you, for us and most importantly for the Kashmiris who have suffered the most.

Quick word only - the relevance to Baluchistan is that it is a perfectly similar case to J&K. However, there are three differences

A perfectly similar case to J&K ? You couldn't be more wrong ... Anyway, we can discuss that in detail on some relevant thread if you want. For now, just try to understand this: Baluchistan is not (never has been) a disputed territory under International Law.

In the context of J&K, after the Constituent Assembly of J&K was formed and the state legislature under the Constitution of J&K was elected, it ratified the accession to India.

And what is the legal status of this alleged ratification ??

The United Nations Security Council stated in its Resolution 91 dated March 30, 1951 that it would not consider elections held only in Indian administered Kashmir to be a substitute for a free and impartial plebiscite including the people of the entire state Jammu and Kashmir.

However, what I had an aim to achieve with the post of Baluchistan was to indicate that both India and Pakistan made commitments only to retract them for forging a nation, an act that has precedents the world over and throughout history. It is very easy to retrospectively analyse the situation and indulge in a blame game.

Well, Two wrongs don't make a right.

You are alleging that Pakistan retracted from the commitment made to a princely state in Baluchistan, so India is justified in retracting from its commitment made to the Kashmiri people.

EVEN IF we accept your claim (regarding Pakistan) at face value, your argument cannot be accepted as it is flawed. India itself took the Kashmir Dispute to the UN and thus involved the interests of (now)195 countries, i.e the entire world. India Backtracking and Retracting means 'India is violating International Law and Morality', and that is exactly what you guys have been doing for the last 70 years. As for accession of Kalat, No Breach of International Law had ever been involved, and that's an issue that has long been settled. You are trying to draw an illogical comparison here.

I give you an alternate situation:

No point in discussing that. We know what the Indian Position is. And You know what Pakistan's position is.

PS: It was an Indian act of stupidity to seek a reference over Kashmir. Initially, the Instrument of Accession was accepted as a legal issue, but it was the British and later US policy to move into a position where in 70s the US representatives termed the Instrument of Accession 'perhaps invalid'.

I can merely speculate that it had much to do with India's NAM charade and apparent anti-US stance in number of issues. Also, Pakistan being a CENTO/Baghdad Pact number may have been a reason too.

When you say Baluchistan is not an international dispute, it is because there has been no intervention by any outside power like was in case of Kashmir. To claim it today as the maoist issue in Jharkhand and Chattisgarh-Orissa, is valid as indeed we have never questioned its accession to Pakistan. If the situation is reversed today, the potential for trouble exists.(I digress).

Agreed

Pakistan was never a party to the dispute. The terms of reference for the Plebiscite administrator included the provision of appointment by UN in consultation with Government of India, there is no mention of Pakistan in it.

I wonder what you actually mean when you say Pakistan was never a party to the dispute.

The UN Security Council discussions led to the resolutions of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, which clearly laid down that "the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite."

The aim of Pakistan remains to control Kashmir for two reasons:

a. It shall culminate its efforts to consolidate the muslim dominated regions of the British Indian empire into a single nation thus legitimizing the demand for a separate homeland. An ideological view point perfectly acceptable in realpolitik.

b. It has to have control of the sources of fesh water supplies, especially now as the seasonal variations and increase in the population density upstream has gave consequences for Pakistani agrarian sector.

Agreed. But add this as well:

c) The people of Pakistan want Kashmiris to gain freedom from oppression

 

[dray]

In The Senior's Cafe, Don't expect that your lies and false propaganda by the Indian state will go unchallenged ...



Cheers
------------------

I couldn't read all the things that you have written at this time, however, for all your valiant attempt to pick up bits and pieces that suits your side of the story, and refuted well by @hellfire , here are the facts in short:

1. Kashmir acceded to India voluntary without any use of force from our side.

2. Subsequently the J&K State constituent assembly declared J&K an integral part of India.

3. Pakistan on the other hand forcefully occupied a part of Kashmir militarily and illegally occupying it till date, and it is the only matter of dispute for us.

4. Nehru did want a plebiscite under UN for the entire state of J&K, unfortunately Pakistan didn't fulfill the very first step to let it happen by not removing its troops from the occupied parts of Kashmir.

5. Later Pakistan signed the Simla agreement and agreed to solve all the pending matters bilaterally without the involvement of any third party including the UN.

You are however free to go to any international forum with your 'credible' argument, but aren't you already doing the same for last 70 years? Let me know if the world finally sees any credibility in it.

And what is the legal status of this alleged ratification ??

The United Nations Security Council stated in its Resolution 91 dated March 30, 1951 that it would not consider elections held only in Indian administered Kashmir to be a substitute for a free and impartial plebiscite including the people of the entire state Jammu and Kashmir.

What? Just because a part of the J&K got occupied military by a foreign force, it doesn't make the J&K State Constituent Assembly invalid. If a foreign force occupy parts of Pakistan, will it make the Pakistan's Constituent Assembly invalid?

 

[M. Sarmad]

I couldn't read all the things that you have written at this time, however, for all your valiant attempt to pick up bits and pieces that suits your side of the story, and refuted well by @hellfire , here are the facts in short:

1. Kashmir acceded to India voluntary without any use of force from our side.

2. Subsequently the J&K State constituent assembly declared J&K an integral part of India.

3. Pakistan on the other hand forcefully occupied a part of Kashmir militarily and illegally occupying it till date, and it is the only matter of dispute for us.

4. Nehru did want a plebiscite under UN for the entire state of J&K, unfortunately Pakistan didn't fulfill the very first step to let it happen by not removing its troops from the occupied parts of Kashmir.

5. Later Pakistan signed the Simla agreement and agreed to solve all the pending matters bilaterally without the involvement of any third party including the UN.

You are however free to go to any international forum with your 'credible' argument, but aren't you already doing the same for last 70 years? Let me know if the world finally sees any credibility in it.



What? Just because a part of the J&K got occupied military by a foreign force, it doesn't make the J&K State Constituent Assembly invalid. If a foreign force occupy parts of Pakistan, will it make the Pakistan's Constituent Assembly invalid?

Then First read/understand all the things I have written and come back to reply later ...

And without even reading what I had written in my post, you know it had been refuted well ??

Don't try to bring down the quality of discussion on this forum, not in the Senior's cafe at least

What? Just because a part of the J&K got occupied military by a foreign force, it doesn't make the J&K State Constituent Assembly invalid. If a foreign force occupy parts of Pakistan, will it make the Pakistan's Constituent Assembly invalid?

Tell that to the UN then. That Resolution was passed by the UN


Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions 47
(1948) of 21 April 1948, 51(1948) of 3 June, 1948 and 80 (1950) of 14 March, 1950 and the
United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January,
1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with
the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite
conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.

Affirming that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of
the "All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference" and any action that Assembly might attempt to
take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof would not
constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle.


http://www.mofa.gov.pk/documents/unsc/1951 Resolution 91.pdf

 

[dray]

Then First read/understand all the things I have written and come back to reply later ...

And without even reading what I had written in my post, you know it had been refuted well ??

Don't try to bring down the quality of discussion on this forum, not in the Senior's cafe at least

You missed the last two lines just below the point no. 5 in my above post.

Tell that to the UN then. That Resolution was passed by the UN

And the 'non binding' UN resolution talked about a plebiscite for the entire J&K state.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Then First read/understand all the things I have written and come back to reply later ...

And without even reading what I had written in my post, you know it had been refuted well ??

Don't try to bring down the quality of discussion on this forum, not in the Senior's cafe at least












Tell that to the UN then. That Resolution was passed by the UN


Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions 47
(1948) of 21 April 1948, 51(1948) of 3 June, 1948 and 80 (1950) of 14 March, 1950 and the
United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January,
1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with
the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite
conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.

Affirming that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of
the "All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference" and any action that Assembly might attempt to
take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof would not
constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle.


http://www.mofa.gov.pk/documents/unsc/1951 Resolution 91.pdf

Kashmir issue is over ; There is nothing to be gained by talking of UN resolutions

They are now pre historic

 

[Joe Shearer]

Then First read/understand all the things I have written and come back to reply later ...

And without even reading what I had written in my post, you know it had been refuted well ??

Don't try to bring down the quality of discussion on this forum, not in the Senior's cafe at least












Tell that to the UN then. That Resolution was passed by the UN


Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions 47
(1948) of 21 April 1948, 51(1948) of 3 June, 1948 and 80 (1950) of 14 March, 1950 and the
United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January,
1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with
the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite
conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.

Affirming that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of
the "All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference" and any action that Assembly might attempt to
take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof would not
constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle.


http://www.mofa.gov.pk/documents/unsc/1951 Resolution 91.pdf

I have news for you - bad news.

The UN does not decide the sovereignty of a state, nor does it have the authority to overthrow the actions of a sovereign state, unless it is a matter under Chapter VII. A matter under Chapter VI can result in a recommendation; no action is mandated unless with the consent of both parties. More important, they cannot, as part of their recommendation, supersede the sovereign powers of a state. That is beyond the capacity of a Chapter VI resolution.

The passage you have quoted is null and void in international law.

Tough luck. First @hellfire, then@Rain Man

 

[Hellfire]

Posting the relevant Resolutions as I could find


UN Resolutions

The Security Council’s Plebiscite Plan

“Text of Resolution on the India-Pakistan Question submitted jointly by the Representatives of Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and adopted by the Security Council at its 26th meeting held on 21st April 1948.”

The Security Council
Having considered the complaint of the Government of India concerning the dispute over the State of Jammu and Kashmir, having heard the representative of Pakistan;

Being strongly of the opinion that the early restoration of peace and order in Jammu and Kashmir is essential and that India and Pakistan should do their utmost to bring about a cessation of all fighting;

Noting with satisfaction that both India and Pakistan desire that the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite; Considering that the continuation of the dispute is likely to endanger international peace and security;

REAFFIRMS THE COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION OF 17TH JANUARY;

Resolves that the members of the Commission established by the resolution of the Council of 20 January 1948, shall be increased to five and shall include, in addition to the membership mentioned in that resolution, representatives of – and -, and that if the membership of the Commission has not been completed within ten days from the date of the adoption of this resolution the President of the Council may designate such other Member or Members of the United Nations as are required to complete the membership of five;

Instructs the Commission to proceed at once to the Indian Subcontinent and there place its good offices and mediation at the disposal of the Governments of India and Pakistan, with a view to facilitating the taking of the necessary measures, both with respect to the restoration of peace and order, and to the holding of a plebiscite by the two Governments, acting in co- operation with one another and with the Commission, and further instructs the Commission to keep the Council informed of the action taken under the resolution, and to end –

Recommends to the Governments of India and Pakistan, the following measures as those which in the opinion of the Council are appropriate to bring about a cessation of the fighting and to create proper conditions for a free and impartial plebisicite to decide whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir is to accede to India or Pakistan.

A – Restoration of Peace and Order:

The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours:

(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani Nationals not normally resident therein, who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State.

(b) To make known to all concerned that the measures indicated in this and the following paragraphs provide full freedom to all subjects of the State, and that therefore they should co-operate in the maintenance of peace and order.

2. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHOULD:

(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council’s resolution of 20 January that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission, a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of civil power in the maintenance of law and order;

(b) Make known that the withdrawal is taking place in stages and announce the completion of each stage;

(c) When the Indian forces shall have been reduced to the minimum strength mentioned in (a) above, arrange for consultation with the Commission for the stationing of the remaining forces to be carried out in accordance with the following principles:

(i) That the presence of troops should not afford any intimidation or appearance of intimidation to the inhabitants of the State.

(ii) That as small a number as possible should be retained in forward areas.

(iii) That any reserve of troops which may he included in the total strength should he located within their present base area.

3. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHOULD AGREE THAT, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PLEBISCITE ADMINISTRATION REFERRED TO BELOW FINDS IT NECESSARY TO EXERCISE THE POWERS OF DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OVER THE STATE FORCES AND POLICY PROVIDED FOR IN PARAGRAGH 8, THEY WILL BE HELD IN AREAS TO BE AGREED UPON WITH THE PLEBISCITE ADMINISTRATOR.

4. AFTER THE PLAN REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 2 (A) ABOVE HAS BEEN PUT INTO OPERATION, PERSONNEL RECRUITED LOCALLY IN EACH DISTRICT SHOULD, SO FAR AS POSSIBLE BE UTILIZED FOR THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER WITH DUE REGARD TO PROTECTION OF MINORITIES, SUBJECT TO SUCH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS MAY HE SPECIFIED BY THE PLEBISCITE ADMINISTRATION REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 7.

5. IF THESE LOCAL FORCES SHOULD BE FOUND TO BE INADEQUATE, THE COMMISSION, SUBJECT TO THE AGREEMENT OF BOTH THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, SHOULD ARRANGE FOR USE OF SUCH FORCES OF EITHER DOMINION AS IT DEEMS EFFECTIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PACIFICATION.

B – Plebiscite

6. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHOULD UNDERTAKE TO ENSURE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE INVITE THE MAJOR POLITICAL GROUPS TO DESIGNATE RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVES TO SHARE EQUITABLY AND FULLY IN THE CONDUCT OF THE ADMINISTRATION AT THE MINISTERIAL LEVEL, WHILE THE PLEBISCITE IS BEING PREPARED AND CARRIED OUT.

(can anyone give a list of the major political group apart from All Jammu & Kashmir National Conference?)

7. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHOULD UNDERTAKE THAT THERE WILL BE ESTABLISHED IN JAMMU AND KASHMIR, A PLEBISCITE ADMINISTRATION TO HOLD A PLEBISCITE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE ON THE QUESTION OF THE ACCESSION OF THE STATE TO INDIA OR PAKISTAN.

8. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHOULD UNDERTAKE THAT THERE WILL BE DELEGATED BY THE STATE TO THE PLEBISCITE ADMINISTRATION SUCH POWERS AS THE LATTER CONSIDERS NECESSARY FOR HOLDING A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL PLEBISCITE, INCLUDING, FOR THAT PURPOSE ONLY, THE DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF THE STATE FORCES AND POLICE.

9. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHOULD, AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLEBISCITE ADMINISTRATION, MAKE AVAILABLE FROM THE INDIAN FORCES SUCH ASSISTANCE AS THE PLEBISCITE ADMINISTRATION MAY REQUIRE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS FUNCTIONS.

10.

(a) The Government of India should agree that a nominee of the Secretary-General of the United Nations will he appointed to be the Plebiscite Administrator.

(b) The Plebiscite Administrator, acting as an officer of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, should have authority to nominate his assistants and other subordinates and to draft regulations governing the plebiscite. Such nominees should he formally appointed and such draft regulations should be formally promulgated by the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

(c) The Government of India should undertake that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir will appoint fully qualified persons nominated by the Plebiscite Administrator to act as special magistrates within the State Judicial System to hear cases which in the opinion of the Plebiscite Administrator have a serious bearing on the preparation for and the conduct of a free and impartial plebiscite.

Here the relevant point is that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir as acknowledged by the UN in the said resolution as above ...... the legal government was recognised as being, thus, in India as the Instrument of Accession was the basis.

(d) The terms of service of the Administrator should form the subject of a separate negotiation between the Secretary- General of the United Nations and the Government of India. The Administrator should fix the terms of service for his assistants and subordinates.

(e) The Administrator should have the right to communicate direct with the Government of the State and with the Commission of the Security Council and, through the Commission, with the Security Council, with the Governments of India and Pakistan and with their representatives with the Commission. It would be his duty to bring to the notice of any or all of the foregoing (as he in his discretion may decide) any circumstances arising which may tend, in his opinion, to interfere with the freedom of the plebiscite.

11. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHOULD UNDERTAKE TO PREVENT AND TO GIVE FULL SUPPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR AND HIS STAFF IN PREVENTING ANY THREAT, COERCION OR INTIMIDATION, BRIBERY OR OTHER UNDUE INFLUENCE ON THE VOTERS IN THE PLEBISCITE, AND THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHOULD PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE AND SHOULD CAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE TO ANNOUNCE THIS UNDERTAKING AS AN INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION BINDING ON ALL PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AND OFFICIALS IN JAMMU AND KASHMIR.

Again pertinent: It was an obligation which India chose, not an enforceable resolution or clause. So a fallacy being propagated. However, the plebiscite was to be held as soon as Pakistan withdrew all its regulars and irregulars as also proxies

12. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHOULD THEMSELVES; AND THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE, DECLARE AND MAKE KNOWN THAT ALL SUBJECTS OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, REGARDLESS OF CREED, CASTE OR PARTY, WILL HE SAFE AND FREE IN EXPRESSING THEIR VIEWS AND IN VOTING ON THE QUESTION OF THE ACCESSION OF THE STATE AND THAT THERE WILL HE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY AND FREEDOM OF TRAVEL IN THE STATE, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF LAWFUL ENTRY AND EXIT.

13. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHOULD USE AND SHOULD ENSURE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE ALSO USE THEIR BEST ENDEAVOURS TO EFFECT THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE STATE OF ALL INDIAN NATIONALS OTHER THAN THOSE WHO ARE NORMALLY RESIDENT THEREIN OR WHO, ON OR SINCE 15 AUGUST 1947, HAVE ENTERED IT FOR A LAWFUL PURPOSE.

14. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHOULD ENSURE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE RELEASE ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS AND TAKE ALL POSSIBLE STEPS SO THAT:

(a) All citizens of the State who have left it on account of disturbances are invited, and are free, to return to their homes and to exercise their rights as such citizens;

(b) There is no victimization;

(c) Minorities in all parts of the State are accorded adequate protection.

15. THE COMMISSION OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL SHOULD, AT THE END OF THE PLEBISCITE, CERTIFY TO THE COUNCIL WHETHER THE PLEBISCITE HAS OR HAS NOT BEEN REALLY FREE AND IMPARTIAL.

C – General Provisions

16. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND PAKISTAN SHOULD EACH BE INVITED TO NOMINATE A REPRESENTATIVE TO BE ATTACHED TO THE COMMISSION FOR SUCH ASSISTANCE AS IT MAY REQUIRE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS TASK.

17. THE COMMISSION SHOULD ESTABLISH IN JAMMU AND KASHMIR, SUCH OBSERVERS AS IT MAY REQUIRE FOR ANY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE OF THE MEASURES INDICATED IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS.

18. THE SECURITY COUNCIL COMMISSION SHOULD CARRY OUT THE TASK ASSIGNED TO IT HEREIN.




UN Security Council Resolution of August 13,1948


“The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan;

Having given careful consideration to the points of view expressed by the Representatives of India and Pakistan regarding the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and,

Being of the opinion that the prompt cessation of hostilities and the correction of conditions, the continuance of which is likely to endanger international peace and security are essential to implementation of its endeavours to assist the Governments of India and Pakistan in effecting a final settlement of the situation,

Resolves to submit simultaneously to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following proposal:

Part I – Cease Fire Order
Part II – Truce Agreement
Part III

Part I – Cease Fire Order

A. The Governments of India and Pakistan agree that their respective High Commands will issue separately and simultaneously, a cease-fire order to apply to all forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as of the earliest practicable date or dates to be mutually agreed upon within four days after these proposals have been accepted by both Governments.

B. The High Commands of the Indian and Pakistan Forces agree to refrain from taking any measures that might augment the military potential of the forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. (For the purpose of these proposals, ‘forces under their’ control shall be considered to include all forces, organised and unorganised, fighting or participating in hostilities on their respective sides).

C. The Commander-in-Chief of the Forces of India and Pakistan shall promptly confer regarding any necessary local changes in present dispositions which may facilitate the cease-fire.

D. In its discretion and as the Commission may find practicable, the Commission will appoint military observers who under the authority of the Commission and with the cooperation of both Commands will supervise the observance of the cease-fire order.

E. The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan agree to appeal to their respective peoples to assist in creating and maintaining an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of farther negotiation.

Part II – Truce Agreement

Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in Part I, both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall he worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.

A1. As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

A2. The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

A3. Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will he administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.

B1. When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the Tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and further, that the Pakistan Forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

B2. Pending the acceptance of the conditions for a final settlement of the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of the cease-fire those forces of its Army which in agreement with the Commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order. The Commission will have observers stationed where it deems necessary.

C1. Upon signature, the full text of the Truce Agreement or a communique containing the principles therof as agreed upon between the two Governments and the Commission, will he made public.

Part III

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will he assured.





UN Security Council Resolution (S11196) of January 5,1949.

The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan;

Having received from the Governments of India and Pakistan, in communications dated 23 December and 25 December 1948, respectively, their acceptance of the following principles which are supplementary to the Commission’s Resolution of 13 August 1948.

1. The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.

2. A plebiscite will he held when it shall be found by the Commission that the cease-fire and truce arrangements set forth in Part I and II of the Commission’s Resolution of 13 August 1948, have been carried out and arrangements for the plebiscite have been completed.

3(a). The Secretary-General of the United Nations will in agreement with the Commission, nominate a Plebiscite Administrator who shall be a personality of high international standing and commanding general confidence. He will he formally appointed to office by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.

3(b). The Plebiscite Administrator shall derive from the State of Jammu and Kashmir the powers he considers necessary for organising the freedom and impartiality of the plebiscite.

3(c). The Plebiscite Administrator shall have authority to appoint such staff of assistants and observers as he may require

4(a). After implementation of Parts I and II of the Commission’s Resolution of 13 August 1948, and when the Commission is satisfied that peaceful conditions have been restored in the State, the Commission and the Plebiscite Administrator will determine in consultation with the Government of India the final disposal of Indian and State Armed Forces, such disposal to be with due regard to the security of the State and the freedom of the plebiscite

4(b). As regards the territory referred to in A 2 of Part II of the resolution of 13 August, final disposal of the armed forces in that territory will be determined by the Commission and the Plebiscite Administrator in consultation with the local authorities.

5. All civil and military authorities within the State and the principal political elements of the State will be required to cooperate with the Plebiscite Administrator in the preparation for and the holding of the plebiscite.

6(a). All citizens of the State who have left it on account of the disturbances will be invited and and be free to return and to exercise all their rights as such citizens. For the purpose of facilitating repatriation there shall be appointed two Commissions, one composed of nominees of India and the other of nominees of Pakistan. The Commission shall operate under the direction of the Plebiscite Administrator. The Governments of India and Pakistan and all authorities within the State of Jammu and Kashmir will collaborate with the Plebiscite Administrator in putting this provision into effect.

6(b). All persons (other than citizens of the State) who on or since 16 August 1947 have entered it for other than lawful purposes shall be required to leave the State.

7. All authorities within the State of Jammu and Kashmir will undertake to ensure, in collaboration with the Plebiscite Administrator, that,

(a) There is no threat, or intimidation, bribery or other undue influence on the voters in the plebiscite.

(b) No restrictions are placed on legitimate political activity throughout the State. All subjects of the State regardless of creed, caste or party shall be safe and free in expressing their views in voting on the question of the accession of the State to India and Pakistan. There shall be freedom of travel and exit.

(c) All political prisoners are released.

(d) Minorities in all parts of the State are accorded adequate protection, and

(e) There is no victimization.

8. The Plebiscite Administrator may refer to the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, problems on which he may require assistance and the Commission may in its discretion call upon the Plebiscite Adminstrator to carry out on its behalf any of the responsibilities with which it has been entrusted.

9. At the conclusion of the plebiscite, the Plebiscite Administrator shall report the result thereof to the Commission and to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. The Commission shall then certify to the Security Council whether the plebiscite has or has not been free and impartial.

10. Upon signature of the truce agreement, the details of the foregoing proposals will be elaborated in the consultations envisaged in Part III of the Commission’s Resolution of 13 August 1948. The Plebiscite Administrator will be fully associated in these consultations.

Commends the Governments of India and Pakistan for their prompt action in ordering a cease-fire to take effect from one minute before midnight of 1 January 1949, pursuant to the agreement arrived at as provided for by the Commission’s Resolution of 13 August 1948, and

Resolves to return in the immediate future to the sub- continent to discharge the responsibilities imposed upon it by, the resolution of 13 August 1948 and by the foregoing principles.

UN Security Council Resolution of March 14,1950

Having received and noted the reports of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, established by the Resolutions of 20 January and 21 April 1948;

Having also received and noted the report of General A.G.L. McNaughton on the outcome of his discussions with the representatives of India and Pakistan which were initiated in pursuance of the decision taken by the Security Council on 17 December 1949;

Commending the Governments of India and Pakistan for their statesman-like action in reaching the agreements embodied in the United Nations Commission’s Resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, for a cease-fire, for the demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and for the determination of its final disposition in accordance with the will of the people through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite and commending the parties in particular for their action in partially implementing these resolutions by:

(1) The cessation of hostilities effected 1 January 1949 ;

(2) The establishment of a cease-fire line on 27 July 1949 and

(3) The agreement that Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz shall be Plebiscite Administrator;

Considering that the resolution of the outstanding difficulties should be based upon the substantial measure of agreement on fundamental principles already reached, and that steps should be taken forthwith for the demilitarization of the State and for the expeditious determination of its future in accordance with the freely expressed will of the inhabitants;

The Security Council:

1. Calls upon the Governments of India and Pakistan to make immediate arrangements, without prejudice to their rights or claims and with due regard to the requirements of law and order, to prepare and execute within a period of five months from the date of this resolution, a programme of demilitarization on the basis of the principles of paragraph 2 of General McNaughton’s proposal or of such modification of those principles as may be mutually agreed:

2. Decides to appoint a United Nations Representative for the following purposes who shall have authority to perform his functions in such place or places as he may deem appropriate;

(a) To assist in the preparation and to supervise the implementation of the programme of demilitarization;

(b) To place himself at the disposal of the Governments of India and Pakistan and to place before these Governments or the Security Council any suggestions which, in his opinion, are likely to contribute to the expeditious and enduring solution of the dispute which has arisen between the two Governments in regard to the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

(c) To exercise all of the powers and responsibilities devolving upon the United Nations Commission by reason of existing Resolutions of the Security Council and by reason of the agreement of the parties embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations Commission of 13 August 1948, and 5 January 1949;

(d) To arrange at the appropriate stage of demilitarization for the assumption by the Plebiscite Administrator of the functions assigned to the latter under agreements made between the parties;

(e) To report to the Security Council as he may consider necessary, submitting his conclusions and any recommendations which he may desire to make:

3. Requests the two Governments to take all necessary precautions to ensure that their agreements regarding the cease-fire shall continue to be faithfully observed, and calls upon them to take all possible measures to ensure the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations;

4. Extends its best thanks to the members of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan and to General A. G. L. McNaughton for their arduous and faithful labours;

5. Agrees that the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan shall be terminated, and decides that this shall take place one month after both parties have informed the United Nations Representative of their acceptance of the transfer to him of the powers and reponsibilities of the United Nations Commission referred to in paragraph 2 (c) above.



UN Security Council Resolution of November 10,1951.


The security Council:


Having received and noted the report of Dr. Frank Graham the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan on his mission initiated by the Security Council resolution of 30 March 1951, and having heard Dr. Graham’s address to the Council on 18 October;

Noting with approval the basis for a programme of demilitarization which could be carried out in conformity with the previous undertakings of the parties, put forward by the United Nations Representative in his communication of 7 September 1951, to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan;

1. Notes with gratification the declared agreement of the two parties to those parts of Dr. Graham’r, proposals which re- affirm their determination to work for peaceful settlement, their will to observe the cease-fire agreement and their acceptance of the principle that the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be determined by a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations;

2. Instructs the United Nations Representative to continue his efforts to obtain agreement of the parties on a plan for effecting the demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir ;

3. Calls upon the parties to co-operate with the United Nations Representative to the fullest degree in his efforts to resolve the outstanding points of difference between them;

4. Instructs the United Nations Representative to report to the Security Council on his efforts together with his views concerning the problems confided to him, not later than six weeks after this resolution comes into effect.



UN Security Council Resolution of December 23,1952.


The Security Council:
Recalling its resolution of 30 March 1951,30 April 1951, and 10 November 1951;

Further recalling the provisions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan Resolutions of 13 August 1948, and 5 January 1949, which were accepted by the Governments of India and Pakistan and which provided that the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under auspices of the United Nations;

Having received the Third Report dated 22 April 1952 and the Fourth Report dated 16 September 1952 of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan;

Endorses the general principles on which the United Nations Representative has sought to bring about agreement between the Governments of India and Pakistan;

Notes with gratification that the United Nations Representative has reported that Governments of India and Pakistan have accepted all but two of the paragraphs of his twelve point proposals;

Notes that agreement on a plan of demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not been reached, because the Governments of India and Pakistan have not agreed on the whole of paragraph 7 of the twelve point proposals;

Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the Cease-Fire Line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3,000 and 6,000 Armed Forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line and between 12,000 and 18,000 Armed Forces remaining on the Indian side of the Cease – Fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952 (Annex III of S/2783) such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles of criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative’s proposal of 4 September 1952 (Annex VIII of S/2783);

Records its gratitude to the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan for the great efforts which he has made to achieve a settlement and REQUESTS him to continue to make his services available to the Governments of India and Pakistan to this end.

Requests the Government of India and Pakistan to report to the Security Council not later than thirty days from the date of adoption of this resolution and further REQUESTS the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan to keep the Security Council informed of any progress.



UN Security Council Resolution (S13779) of January 24,1957

.
The Security Council:


Having heard statements from representatives of the Governments of India and Pakistan concerning the dispute over the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

Reminding the Governments and Authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions of 21 April 1948, 3 June 1948,14 March 1950 and 30 March 1951, and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan Resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will he made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations;

Reaffirms the affirmation in its resolution of 30 March 1951 and declares that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of the ‘All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference’ and any action that Assembly may have taken or might attempt to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof, or action by the parties concerned in support of any such action by the Assembly, would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principles;

Decides to continue its consideration of the dispute.


An ex post facto de-recognition of National Conference.


UN Security Council Resolution (S3793) of February 21,1957.


The Security Council:

Recalling its Resolution of 24 January 1957, its previous Resolutions and the Resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on the India-Pakistan Question ;

1. Requests the President of the Security Council, the representative of Sweden, to examine with the Governments of India and Pakistan and proposals which, in his opinion, are likely to contribute towards the settlement of the dispute, having regard to the previous Resolutions of the Security Council and of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan to visit the sub-continent for this purpose and to report to the Security Council not later than 15 April 1957;

2. Invites the Governments of India and Pakistan to co- operate with him in the performance of these functions; and

3. Requests the Secretary-General and the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan to render such assistance as he may request.


UN Security Council Resolution of December 2,1957.

The Security Council:

Having received and noted with appreciation the report of Mr. Gunnar V. Jarring, the representative of Sweden, on the mission undertaken by him pursuant to the Security Council Resolution of 21 February 1957;

Expressing its thanks to Mr. Jarring for the care and ability with which he has carried out his mission;

Observing, with appreciation the expressions made by both parties of sincere willingness to co-operate with the United Nations in finding a peaceful solution;

Observing further that the Governments of India and Pakistan recognize and accept the provisions of its Resolutions dated 17 January 1948 and of the Resolutions of the United Nations Commissions for India and Pakistan dated 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, which envisage in accordance with their terms the determination of the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the will of the people through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, and that Mr. Jarring felt it appropriate to explore what was impeding their full implementation;

Concerned over the lack of progress towards a settlement o the dispute which his report manifests;

Considering the importance which it has attached t demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as one of the steps towards a settlement;

Recalling its previous Resolutions and the Resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on the, India-Pakistan Question;

1. Requests the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan to refrain from making any statements and fron doing or causing to be done or permitting any acts which might aggravate the situation and to appeal to their respective peoples to assist in creating and maintaining an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiation;

2. Requests the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan to make any recommendations to the parties for further appropriate action with a view to making progress towards the implementation of the Resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 and towards a peaceful settlement;

3. Authorizes the United Nations Representative to visit the Sub-Continent for these purposes; and

4. Instructs the United Nations Representative to report to the Security Council on his efforts as soon as possible.



Resolutions were to be followed sequentially, something which was again absent in Pakistan's case, hence the selective posting of the resolutions.

@Rain Man Please do the honors.

@Stephen Cohen The UN resolutions are also the basis of Indian position today. Why are you so insistent on ceding the moral and legal ground and loosing diplomatic and political currency?

There is no locus standii for Pakistan to claim the Instrument of Accession as illegal.

 

[Hellfire]

Agreed. There have been tremendous changes in all spheres since 1947. BUT Kashmir remains a disputed territory under International Law whose final accession is yet to be decided. The problem is that the UN refuses to terminate UNMOGIP, it refuses to discard the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir, And it refuses to intervene. So, until and unless Pakistan, India and the Kashmiris reach an agreement on the settlement of the Kashmir dispute (then they would have to go back to the UN Security Council to get another resolution to endorse that procedure) Kashmir will remain a disputed territory under International Law.

Because under Article 52, it accepts the Simla Accord as regional mechanism to move forward. Pertinent again, the Pakistani duplicity as always to renege from a treaty .. clause 2 expressively prohibits third party intervention in matter and hence the lack of any intervention by any nation/UN till date.

Underlined portion:

http://tribune.com.pk/story/77671/kashmir-issue-left-unmentioned-in-united-nations/

Been some time now.

Indians believe that the status quo favors them and they are ready to formalize it as they lose nothing if that happens. But Pakistan (and the Kashmiris too) are not willing to accept this. India has failed to win ‘loyalty’ from the people of the Kashmir Valley in the last 70 years and it's very unlikely that they will be able to do that in another 70 or 100 years. You can hold Kashmir forcefully as long as you want (or can) but what you need to understand is that this holding on will not change the legal status of Kashmir, no matter how long you keep doing that. YOU will have to find a solution ultimately. And only you can do that. The sooner the better. Better for you, for us and most importantly for the Kashmiris who have suffered the most.

True. Recognised as Indian Territory under Indian Independence Act of 1947. Plebiscite was to be held when you withdrew, which you didn't.

So as per the terms of letter of accession and the commitments of India, we have given them the complete autonomy they demanded (which you have not only failed but retracted from in case of Baluchistan) under Article 370 of the constitution.

As you can see from the UN resolutions, the resolutions themselves asked GoI to influence the Government of J&K to meet conditions as elucidated in relevant clauses ... the government of J&K being the government in Srinagar.

The subsequent clauses post Dixon episode are merely an influence of US and UK as I have mentioned earlier. If UN itself claims to have second thoughts over the legality of the government, then its own resolutions stand null and void. A funny situation.

A perfectly similar case to J&K ? You couldn't be more wrong ... Anyway, we can discuss that in detail on some relevant thread if you want. For now, just try to understand this: Baluchistan is not (never has been) a disputed territory under International Law.

Some of the Baluchis may disagree. However, I granted not disputed territory earlier, why have you made this point again? I merely pointed out the complete and utter retraction from your commitments as a sovereign nation to Kalat, as also the naked aggression on a state that had autonomy under your control and under your own commitments ....
no referendum was held there when the Legislative House themselves passed resolution against merger with Pakistan.

So merely pointing out the duplicity and downright unscrupulous actions as being the cornerstone of the policy of Pakistan at the time.

And what is the legal status of this alleged ratification ??

The United Nations Security Council stated in its Resolution 91 dated March 30, 1951 that it would not consider elections held only in Indian administered Kashmir to be a substitute for a free and impartial plebiscite including the people of the entire state Jammu and Kashmir.

We never claimed it to be a plebiscite.

On the contrary, I request you to show me the relevant clause or section wherein the instrument of accession has been nullified or declared illegal by the UN?

You can, instead, find references to Government of J&K and GoI being implored to ensure that the Government of J&K does what is required in UN resolutions.

You see, the legal arguments do not exist where in the Instrument of Accession has been declared null and void. It cant be. Because the moment it is, the legality of Pakistan as a state will be challenged by India. The repercussions are too great. You are aware of it.

Well, Two wrongs don't make a right.

You are alleging that Pakistan retracted from the commitment made to a princely state in Baluchistan, so India is justified in retracting from its commitment made to the Kashmiri people.

Incorrect. In fact am pointing that you have always reneged from your obligations every time. Had you vacated the areas as required by the clauses as mentioned above, plebiscite would have been held. It was supposed to be held for whole of Kashmir, as you rightly pointed out.

EVEN IF we accept your claim (regarding Pakistan) at face value, your argument cannot be accepted as it is flawed. India itself took the Kashmir Dispute to the UN and thus involved the interests of (now)195 countries, i.e the entire world. India Backtracking and Retracting means 'India is violating International Law and Morality', and that is exactly what you guys have been doing for the last 70 years. As for accession of Kalat, No Breach of International Law had ever been involved, and that's an issue that has long been settled. You are trying to draw an illogical comparison here.

Again incorrect. You invaded a sovereign nation which had entered into an agreement of accession only on clauses which you repudiated, hence rendering the treaty as legally unviable thereby, in effect, invading a sovereign nation.
The comparison is illogical seemingly as you are in a difficult point if you scrutinise your legal position in this case. Your actions have always been in contravention of morality and good faith and there is a pattern of breaking standstill agreements thereby of subterfuge and deceit.

Indian backtracking and retracting was to do with your failure to accept the UN resolutions as enunciated from 38 onwards, and now which you quote after undermining them that too selectively and partially.

I wonder what you actually mean when you say Pakistan was never a party to the dispute.

The UN Security Council discussions led to the resolutions of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, which clearly laid down that "the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite."

It means that your only relevance to the issue is if anyone wants to join you. Beyond that none.

Apart from the fact that you were required to withdraw all combatants in the initial resolutions which you ignored, you had no role to play. Even the plebiscite administrator was to be decided by the UN Secretary General in consultation with GoI, a fact which is pertinent and valid till date.

You do not figure anywhere in the conduct and the conditions of plebiscite except for your role in withdrawal of troops.

Agreed. But add this as well:

c) The people of Pakistan want Kashmiris to gain freedom from oppression

If that was the case, the GoP and PA would do a serious rethink of their strategy. The only one who pays in valley when the troubles start are the poor and weaker sections. The rich are safe and they sit in their drawing rooms instigating the masses towards insurrection.

The intent might be there, I grant that, but neither the actions nor the statements convince me of that. So I shall only look at the two points aforementioned.

Thanks and goodnight

The UN refuses to accept the Indian position. Almost 44 years since the signing of the Simla Agreement between India and Pakistan but the UN refuses to terminate UNMOGIP ..


The Simla Agreement does not preclude raising of Kashmir issue at the United Nations:


1) Para 1 (i) specifically provides that the UN Charter “shall govern” relations between the parties.

2) Para 1 (ii) providing for settlement of differences by peaceful means, does not exclude resort to the means of pacific settlement of disputes and differences provided in the UN Charter.

3) The UN Security Council remains seized of the Kashmir issue which remains on the Council’s agenda.

4) Articles 34 and 35 of the UN Charter specifically empower the Security Council to investigate any dispute independently or at the request of a member State. These provisions cannot be made subservient to any bilateral agreement.

5) According to Article 103 of UN Charter, member States obligations under the Charter take precedence over obligations under a bilateral agreement.

6) Presence of United Nations Military Observes Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) at the Line of Control in Kashmir is a clear evidence of UN’s involvement in the Kashmir issue.

@Rain Man You should have sorted this one out long back.

Statements above are constructed in order to obfuscate the actual provisions which are as u/m:





SIMLA AGREEMENT

Agreement on Bilateral Relations Between The Government of India and The Government of Pakistan

• The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the sub-continent, so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing talk of advancing the welfare of their peoples.
  
  In order to achieve this objective, the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan have agreed as follows:-
  • That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries;
  • That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations;
  • That the pre-requisite for reconciliation, good neighbourliness and durable peace between them is a commitment by both the countries to peaceful co-existence, respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit;
  • That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedevilled the relations between the two countries for the last 25 years shall be resolved by peaceful means;
  • That they shall always respect each other’s national unity, territorial integrity, political independence and sovereign equality;
  • That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations they will refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other.
• Both Governments will take all steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda directed against each other. Both countries will encourage the dissemination of such information as would promote the development of friendly relations between them.
• In order progressively to restore and normalize relations between the two countries step by step, it was agreed that;
  • Steps shall be taken to resume communications, postal, telegraphic, sea, land including border posts, and air links including overflights.
  • Appropriate steps shall be taken to promote travel facilities for the nationals of the other country.
  • Trade and co-operation in economic and other agreed fields will be resumed as far as possible.
  • Exchange in the fields of science and culture will be promoted.
  In this connection delegations from the two countires will meet from time to time to work out the necessary details.
• In order to initiate the process of the establishment of durable peace, both the Governments agree that:
  • Indian and Pakistani forces shall be withdrawn to their side of the international border.
  • In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this Line.
  • The withdrawals shall commence upon entry into force of this Agreement and shall be completed within a period of 30 days thereof.
• This Agreement will be subject to ratification by both countries in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, and will come into force with effect from the date on which the Instruments of Ratification are exchanged.
• Both Governments agree that their respective Heads will meet again at a mutually convenient time in the future and that, in the meanwhile, the representatives of the two sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for the establishment of durable peace and normalization of relations, including the questions of repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and the resumption of diplomatic relations.

Sd/-
(Indira Gandhi)
Prime Minister
Republic of India

Sd/-
(Zulfikar Ali Bhutto)
President
Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Simla, the 2nd July, 1972


As for UNMOGIP


I am just quoting a text


When a ceasefire came into effect on 17 December 1971, a number of positions on both sides of the 1949 ceasefire line had changed hands. The Security Council met on 12 December, and on 21 December adopted resolution 307 (1971)

, by which it demanded that a durable ceasefire in all areas of conflict remain in effect until all armed forces had withdrawn to their respective territories and to positions which fully respected the ceasefire line in Jammu and Kashmir supervised by UNMOGIP.

In July 1972, India and Pakistan signed an agreement defining a Line of Control in Kashmir which, with minor deviations, followed the same course as the ceasefire line established by the Karachi Agreement in 1949. India took the position that the mandate of UNMOGIP had lapsed, since it related specifically to the ceasefire line under the Karachi Agreement. Pakistan, however, did not accept this position.

Given the disagreement between the two parties over UNMOGIP's mandate and functions, the Secretary-General's position has been that UNMOGIP could be terminated only by a decision of the Security Council. In the absence of such an agreement, UNMOGIP has been maintained with the same arrangements as established following December 1971 ceasefire. The tasks of UNMOGIP have been to observe, to the extent possible, developments pertaining to the strict observance of the ceasefire of 17 December 1971 and to report thereon to the Secretary-General.

The military authorities of Pakistan have continued to lodge complaints with UNMOGIP about ceasefire violations. The military authorities of India have lodged no complaints since January 1972 and have restricted the activities of the UN observers on the Indian side of the Line of Control. They have, however, continued to provide accommodation, transport and other facilities to UNMOGIP.

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unmogip/background.shtml


As you can see, the UMOGIP is only charged with ensuring the observance of ceasefire of 17 December 1971 as ratified under Simla Agreement. The positions as held confirm to the Karachi Agreement. Thats the limit and scope of the UNMOGIP.


Also under Article 52, bilateral arrangements can be entered into for maintenance of peace

1. Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-viii/index.html

 

[dray]

@Azlan Haider Tomorrow I again may not get any time to reply, and I hope that the above posts of @Joe Shearer and @hellfire have cleared your doubts and misconceptions, I would just like to put across a few points for your clear understanding.

First, the accession papers of J&K and the ratification of the J&K state constituent assembly declaring all of J&K an integral part of India is perfectly valid, you may prefer to think otherwise, but that will change nothing as long as you are not able to successfully sell your idea to India and rest of the world. You tried that for the last 70 years, you failed, do you see any possibility of success in future also?

Second, while you are busy calling the accession papers of J&K and the Article 370 of the J&K state constituent assembly illegal or invalid, can you state what legalities do Pakistan hold to keep occupying the parts of J&K? Isn't "Absolutely Nothing" an appropriate answer here?

Third, Nehru voluntarily approached UN for a 'non-binding' plebiscite for the entire state of J&K, but Pakistan cannot bring in UN intervention to solve the pending issues between India and Pakistan, because:

a) India has to agree to UN intervention, and we are clearly not interested.
b) Pakistan has agreed to solve all the pending issues between India and Pakistan by signing the (perfectly legal) Simla Agreement.

However, here you have a chance, you can put India under a moral obligation (certainly a non-binding one), by doing the following:

1. Remove all the troops from Pakistan occupied Kashmir including Chitral, even the non-binding UN resolution on plebiscite clearly mentioned that only Pakistan has to completely demilitarize its occupied parts of J&K, for us it was only partial demilitarization, India was supposed to keep enough forces in J&K to prevent any sudden military aggression by Pakistan, to maintain law & order in J&K, and to administer the plebiscite.

2. Remove all the people who settled in occupied parts of J&K after Pakistan occupied it to our satisfaction, that's a 'material change' and we certainly won't allow those foreign settlers to vote for the future of J&K.

3. Shaksgam Valley is a part of J&K and under illegal occupation of China, that part must be included in the plebiscite. Well, of course after removing the foreign settlers there too.

Once you complete the above steps, please do let us know. Also do remember that the UN resolution was non-binding in nature, you have to keep faith on our moral obligation only, and that's pretty much your best chance.

@Rain Man You should have sorted this one out long back.

Statements above are constructed in order to obfuscate the actual provisions which are as u/m:

The problem is that I am running short of time, it is very difficult for me at this time to read and refute point by point the enormous volume of lies and twists in his every statement, I just glanced through it. It's Pakistan's old habit to sign agreements and then trying to twist it with 'personal interpretations' to suit their agenda, alas nobody buys it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Azlan Haider Tomorrow I again may not get any time to reply, and I hope that the above posts of @Joe Shearer and @hellfire have cleared your doubts and misconceptions, I would just like to put across a few points for your clear understanding.

First, the accession papers of J&K and the ratification of the J&K state constituent assembly declaring all of J&K an integral part of India is perfectly valid, you may prefer to think otherwise, but that will change nothing as long as you are not able to successfully sell your idea to India and rest of the world. You tried that for the last 70 years, you failed, do you see any possibility of success in future also?

Second, while you are busy calling the accession papers of J&K and the Article 370 of the J&K state constituent assembly illegal or invalid, can you state what legalities do Pakistan hold to keep occupying the parts of J&K? Isn't "Absolutely Nothing" an appropriate answer here?

Third, Nehru voluntarily approached UN for a 'non-binding' plebiscite for the entire state of J&K, but Pakistan cannot bring in UN intervention to solve the pending issues between India and Pakistan, because:

a) India has to agree to UN intervention, and we are clearly not interested.
b) Pakistan has agreed to solve all the pending issues between India and Pakistan by signing the (perfectly legal) Simla Agreement.

However, here you have a chance, you can put India under a moral obligation (certainly a non-binding one), by doing the following:

1. Remove all the troops from Pakistan occupied Kashmir including Chitral, even the non-binding UN resolution on plebiscite clearly mentioned that only Pakistan has to completely demilitarize its occupied parts of J&K, for us it was only partial demilitarization, India was supposed to keep enough forces in J&K to prevent any sudden military aggression by Pakistan, to maintain law & order in J&K, and to administer the plebiscite.

2. Remove all the people who settled in occupied parts of J&K after Pakistan occupied it to our satisfaction, that's a 'material change' and we certainly won't allow those foreign settlers to vote for the future of J&K.

3. Shaksgam Valley is a part of J&K and under illegal occupation of China, that part must be included in the plebiscite. Well, of course after removing the foreign settlers there too.

Once you complete the above steps, please do let us know. Also do remember that the UN resolution was non-binding in nature, you have to keep faith on our moral obligation only, and that's pretty much your best chance.



The problem is that I am running short of time, it is very difficult for me at this time to read and refute point by point the enormous volume of lies and twists in his every statement, I just glanced through it. It's Pakistan's old habit to sign agreements and then trying to twist it with 'personal interpretations' to suit their agenda, alas nobody buys it.

Truly sound.

Thank you for a positive contribution.