# The Kashmir Resolutions - Explanations



## roadrunner

Right, here we are. I said I'd get back to you on this. Here are the UN resolutions. Here is what happened. Here is why India has ignored binding resolutions. Starting with something of historical significance, going through the process 1 by 1. Long read, but will clarify things, so no Indian can cause mischief and twist words. 

The history
Kashmir was sold to the a man by the name of Gulab Singh in 1846, when the British defeated the Sikhs for Rs. 7.5 million under the Treaty of Amritsar to pay for their war debts (even though the majority population of Kashmir was Muslim). For another hundred years Kashmir remained in the hands of the Mahrajah's successors. In 1945 however, the British could not hold onto India and they decided to leave whilst reaching agreement under the "two nation theory" to generate a state of Pakistan for those who wanted it. This led to several states including those of modern day Pakistan, and modern day Bangladesh wanting to join the Pakistani Union. However, there remained a state which hesitated about which country to join. No doubt this was because the leader, a Sikh, did not represent the religious culture if you like of his subjects, the majority of who were Muslim. There followed a chain of events which can be summarized in the following letter to Viceeroy Mountbatter from Maharajah Hari Singh (ruler of Kashmir in 1947) :- 

The letters
Letter from Maharaja Hari Singh to Lord Mountbatten on Pak invasion of J&K in 1947

My dear Lord Mountbatten, 

I have to inform Your Excellency that a grave emergency has arisen in my State and request the immediate assistance of your Government. As Your Excellency is aware,the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not acceded to either the Dominion of India or Pakistan. Geographically my State is contiguous with both of them. Besides, my State has a common boundary with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and with China. In their external relations the Dominion of India and Pakistan cannot ignore this fact. I wanted to take time to decide to which Dominion I should accede or whether it is not in the best interests of both the Dominions and of my State to stand independent, of course with friendly and cordial relations with both. I accordingly approached the Dominions of India and Pakistan to enter into standstill agreement with my State. The Pakistan Government accepted this arrangement. The Dominion of India desired further discussion with representatives of my Government. I could not arrange this in view of the developments indicated below. ln fact the Pakistan Goernment under the standstill agreement is operating the post and telegraph system inside the State. Though we have got a standstill agreement with the Pakistan Government, the Govemment permitted a steady and increasing strangulation of supplies like food, salt and petrol to my State. 

Afridis, soldiers in plain clothes, and desperadoes with modern weapons have been allowed to infiltrate into the State, at first in the Poonch area, then from Sialkot and finally in a mass in the area adjoining-Hazara district on the Ramkote side. The result has been that the limited number of troops at the disposal of the State had to be dispersed and thus had to face the enemy at several points simultaneously, so that it has become difficult to stop the wanton destruction of life and property and the looting of the Mahura power house, which supplies electric current to the whole of Srinagar and which has been burnt. The number of women who have been kidnapped and raped makes my heart bleed. The wild forces thus let loose on the State are marching on with the aim of capturing Srinagar, the summer capital of my government, as a first step to overrunning the whole State. The mass infiltration of tribesman drawn from distant areas of the North-West Frontier Province, coming regularly in motortrucks, using the Manwehra-Mazaffarabad road and fully armed with up-to-date weapons, cannot possibly be done without the knowledge of the Provincial Govemment of the North-West Frontier Province and the Government of Pakistan. Inspite of repeated appeals made by my Government no attempt has been made to check these raiders or to stop them from coming into my State. In fact, both radio and the Press of Pakistan have reported these occurences. The Pakistan radio even put out the story that a provisional government has been set up in Kashmir. The people of my State, both Muslims and non-Muslims, generally have taken no part at all. 

With the conditbns obtaining at present in my State and the great emergency of the situation as it exists, I have no option but to ask for help from the Indian Dominion. Naturally they cannot send the help asked for by me without my State acceding to the Dominion of India. I have accordingly decided to do so, and I attach the instrument of accession for acceptance by your Government. The other alternative is to leave my state and people to free booters. On this basis no civilised government can exist or be maintained. 

This alternative I will never allow to happen so long as I am the ruler of the State and I have life to defend my country. I may also inform your Excellency's Government that it is my intention at once to set up an interim government and to ask Sheikh Abdullah to carry the responsibilities in this emergency with my Prime Minister. 

If my State is to be saved, immediate assistance must be available at Srinagar. Mr. V.P. Menon is fully aware of the gravity of the situation and will explain it to you, if further explanation is needed. 

In haste and with kindest regards, 

Yours sincerely, 

Hari Singh 
October 26, 1947  


Response from Lord Mountbatten 

My dear Maharaja Sahib, 

Your Highness' letter dated 26 October 1947 has been delivered to me by Mr. V.P. Menon. In the circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. In consistence with their policy that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government's wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and its soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people.

Meanwhile, in response to Your Highness' appeal for military aid, action has been taken today to send troops of the Indian Army to Kashmir, to help your own forces to defend your territory and to protect the lives, property, and honour of your people. My Government and I note with satisfaction that Your Highness has decided to invite Sheikh Abdullah to form an interim Government to work with your Prime Minister. 

Mountbatten of Burma 
October 27, 1947 http://www.kashmir.com/modules.php?n...=article&sid=5 

The important points of Mountbatten's letters
The Kashmiri people must decide whether they want to join with India or Pakistan
The Kashmiri people would get the chance to vote as soon as law and order was restored

The history continues....
So, the Indian Army came into Kashmir to restore law and order and prevent the alleged incursions by Pathani tribesmen from the frontier province of what was to become Pakistan. So far it's clear. India restores law and order, holds, free and fair elections, Kashmiris choose their path either India or Pakistan and India leaves if the Kashmiris choose Pakistan. Let's ignore the issue of whether the Maharajah was right to ignore the wishes of his majority Muslim populous and invite the Indian Army in, since now the UN stepped in and international law became applicable.

At this time, Pakistani irregulars controlled about 35&#37; of Kashmir and India the rest. The UN decided to establish the line of control between these areas. Then began years of debate and UN resolutions about this conflict. The main essence of these resolutions are these in my point of view :- 
*
Resolution of the Security Council of March 30, 1951-->> Observing that the Governments of India and Pakistan have accepted the provisions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 and of the Security Council resolution of 14 March 1950 (see below), and have re-affirmed their desire that the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations (Binding agreement between India, Pakistan, and the UNSC *

*Resolution of the Security Council, 14 March1950 -->Considering that the resolution of the outstanding difficulties be based upon the substantial measure of agreement of 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. * 

In addition, India is bound to the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolutions of 1948 and 1949. Both re-iterate that the will of the Kashmiri people will determine which side they join. These therefore are binding in nature. Even the Indian foreign minister, Krishna Menon, acknowledged this by describing these resolutions as being in the nature of an &#8220;international agreement&#8221;. The acceptance of their binding character by the Indian permanent representative to the UN during the 1957 Security Council debate on Kashmir further confirmed this. The fact that the UN acknowledged the binding nature of this agreement makes it an international law/standard. A violation of this international law is illegal. Now here is the crux of the matter :- 

In 1951 with Article 370 (which has been temporary for the last 53 years) India incorporated Kashmir temporarily into their constitution, and then finally amended their fully incorporating Kashmir into the Indian constitution 4 years later (1957) without consuIing the people of Kashmir. *This is clearly a violation of UN resolutions since plebscite must be held before Kashmir accedes to anyone.* This was agreed bilaterally with the UN as observed by the UN. Can there be any disagreement that it was illegal to steal Kashmir like this?

The binding nature of these UN resolutions (acknowledgement from India at a government level) 

Finally some quotes from Indian officials on Kashmir exemplifying their commitment to plebiscite rather than forced accession as history has found them do :- 

We adhere strictly to our pledge of plebiscite in Kashmir &#8211; a pledge made to the people because they believe in democratic government &#8230;&#8230; We don&#8217;t regard Kashmir as a commodity to be trafficked in
-Krishna Menon (Press statement in London, reported in the Statesman, 
New Delhi, 2nd August, 1951)

The Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible
-Letter from Govt. of India to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, 11th September, 1951 

I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken.
-Krishna Menon (Statement at UN Security Council, 24th January, 1957) 

The resolutions of January 17, 1948 and the resolutions of the UNICP, the assurances given, these are all resolutions which carry a greater weight &#8211; that is because we have accepted them, we are parties to them, whether we like them or not.
-Krishna Menon, (Statement at UN Security Council, 20th February, 1957)

These documents (UNCIP reports) and declarations and the resolutions of the Security Council are decisions; they are resolutions, there has been some resolving of a question of one character or another, there has been a meeting of minds on this question where we have committed ourselves to it.
-Krishna Menon, (Statement at the Security Council, 9th October, 1957) 


India believes that sovereignty rests in the people and should return to them.
-Krishna Menon, (The Statesman, Delhi, 19th January, 1962)

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## roadrunner

There was a very good opportunity with UN resolution 98 to de-militarize the region calling for the reduction of Pakistani troop levels to 3k-6k, and Indian troop levels to 12k-18k. Pakistan agreed to this, but India insisted it needed 21k troops to maintain the security. It sounds incredibily disingenuous to claim a mere 3000 troops would make such a difference to the security of the region. Again the important point of the matter is that this was a trilateral agreement to demilitarize the region according to UNSC resolution 47 of 21 April 1948 calling for the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani national not normally resident therein and the reduction of Indian forces in the state to minimum strength required in order to lay the grounds for the plebiscite". 3000 troops is an exceptionally fastidious margin by which to renege on an agreement. 

*UN resolution 98 of 23RD December 1952
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 India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952

UN resolution 80, 14th March 1950 
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 August 13, 1948 and January 5, 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 *

Sir Owen Dixon, Head of the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), in his report to the Security Council on 15 September 1950. He stated that, in the end I became convinced that Indias agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of plebiscite of such character, as would in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled."

The way forward is another demilitarization procedure, but one that is implemented and squabbled over petty numbers. The Kashmiri people should decide their fate.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## roadrunner

And one of the common responses of Salim on UN resolutions "Pakistan had to withdraw all its troops from Kashmir as per resolution 47". Nonsense. Here's resolution 47 in the flesh. 

Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948.
(Document No.1100, Para. 75, dated the 9th November, 1948).

(1) 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 itstroops from that State. CHECK - Pakistan agreed 

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from theState of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident thereinwho have entered the State for the purpose of fighting. CHECK - Pakistan tried

(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission. - CHECK - Pakistan awaited the following 

When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani 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 Pakistani forces *are being* withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.- CHECK - "are being withdrawn", when Pakistani troops ARE BEING withdrawn, then India must agree to reduce its troops.  

But did it? Answer is next. 

Onto 1952, and Pakistani troops were being withdrawn, now UNCIP asks India to reduce its troops as per resolution 47 above. 

UN resolution 98 of 23RD December 1952
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 India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952 

But oh no, did it agree to reduce its troops? Here are those words again  
UNCIP representative: "in the end I became convinced that Indias agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of plebiscite of such character, as would in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled."
UNCIP chief representative

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

So 'are being" means "has been done"?

60 years and still on the go!

Marvellous!

Do it and then talk.



> PAKISTAN AND UNITED NATIONS ON KASHMIR
> 
> Guest Column-by Abdul Hamid Khan, Chairman Balawaristan National Front
> 
> UN RESOLUTIONS
> 
> The Jammu and Kashmir, including Gilgit Baltistan (Balawaristan), dispute emerged when Pakistan signed an agreement of stand still with Maharaja Hari Singh for keeping him in oblivion. Later, Pakistan sent its force to Jammu and Kashmir in the disguise of tribals. Tribal like troops and human like beasts while using the holy name of Islam resorted pillaging and carnage in Jammu and Kashmir and raped women. Several women were sold by F.C. in the brothels of Peshawar and other cities of NWFP. After this, the Maharaja was compelled for accession with India. India besides landing its military operation to oust Pakistani soldiers from Jammu and Kashmir, knocked the door of the UN. The UN Commission for lndia and Pakistan (UNCIP) passed a resolution on August 13th,1948. This resolution, by following the request of Pakistan, declared Balawaristan (OGB) as a part of Jammu and Kashmir state. The important clauses of this resolution gives right to the people of Balawaristan (OGB) that they should either vote for Pakistan or for India or for their independent state through a fair, free and impartial plebiscite, like other parts of Jammu & Kashmir. This clause was accepted by both India and Pakistan. After it, the commission adopted another resolution on January 5th,1949 in which the text of the August 13th,1948 resolution, which envisaged the right of people of Jammu and Kashmir including Balawaristan(G.B.) to choose their own independent state, was withdrawn on the request of Pakistan. India did not object to it, because it did not pose any threat to Indian interests. Now the people of Jammu and Kashmir and Balawaristan (G.B.) should understand Pakistan&#8217;s long standing heinous plan of capturing their land and properties after getting them killed. Pakistan had accepted the resolution for complete withdrawal of its all forces and armed civilians within 7 weeks, according the UN resolution, but later through a formal request, Pakistan gave assurance to complete the process of withdrawal within 12 weeks instead of 7 weeks. This request was accepted by the U.N. commission. Pakistan also accepted India&#8217;s proposal that after the withdrawal of Pakistan&#8217;s troops, India will pullout the bulk of its forces in a phased manner and a smaller part of Indian Army will remain in Jammu and Kashmir. According to this resolution India can keep 3 lakh troops of the army, after withdrawing 5 lakh troops out of 8 lakh (As Pakistan claims) deployed in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan had also accepted this demand of India, which said, that India can deploy its garrisons at 15 vital places of Balawaristan (Occupied Gilgit Baltistan). The UN resolution further says (and Pakistan had accepted) that a local Government would be formed in Jammu and Kashmir state (four thousand sq. miles area) and Balawaristan (28,000 sq. mile area).
> 
> According UNCIP resolutions the local authority will be fully represented to restore law and order and to run the administration under the supervision of UNCIP and Pakistan has no role in it.
> 
> The important part and the text of the UN resolution is as follows:-
> &#8220;The territory evacuated by Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authority under the surveillance of the commission&#8221;. In the next stage the UN Security Council guarantees the political and human rights in the areas of local authority. Now the people of occupied Balawaristan and Pakistan should decide themselves, that to how much extent Pakistan had complied with the U.N. resolution, while accusing India of non implementation of the U.N. resolution. Will Pakistan now be ready to withdraw all its forces along with arms and ammunition as well as those nationals who intruded the state of Jammu and Kashmir including Balawaristan (OGB) after 1947, in case India announces to implement the U.N. resolution and deploys only 3 lakhs out of 8 lakhs of the troops in Jammu and Kashmir and Balawaristan (O.G.B.). It seems impossible that this hypocratic country would fulfill its obligation. It wanted to usurp the entire region of Jammu and Kashmir. It is not sincere in the implementation of the U.N. resolution upon itself. If India today announces the implementation of the U.N. resolution, the heinous face of this hypo critic and liar country would be exposed.
> 
> PAKISTAN & UN
> The U.N. resolution orders Pakistan to completely withdraw its forces from Occupied Gilgit Baltistan (OGB the 28000 square mile area). But this expansionist, usurper and wicked country increases the strength of its army regularly instead of withdrawal. These forces have brought along with them ISI, MI, FIU, 555, FIT and dozens of other agencies and agents. These agencies have occupied the houses and properties of the people and are plundering their resources, ethnic and cultural values. The free movement of the people has been restricted. Life has been made difficult for them within their homeland. Pakistani army is settling terrorists, arms smugglers and drug traffickers to crush the local population. The UNSC guarantees the fundamental, human and democratic rights in all disputed regions. But Pakistan does not recognize human rights here and this has been admitted by the Supreme court of Pakistan, after a lapse of 52 years. But it could neither punish the guilt, nor compensate the affected. N.As. council which though an elected body has not even got the powers of a local body of any city. Therefore the Doctor&#8217;s organisation has described councilors of N.As. Council as municipal watchmen.
> PAKISTAN AND UNITED NATIONS ON KASHMIR


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

-RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN ON 13 AUGUST 1948. (DOCUMENT NO. S/1100, PARA 75, DATED THE 9TH NOVEMBER, 1948)

The resolution clearly states:

1.The presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation and the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State&#8230;.

Question1.Did the Government of Pakistan removed its forces from the State of Kashmir as per UN Resolution of 1948?

2.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 &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..

Question 2.So, The UN agreed that pashtun tribal who were not a part of Kashmir were fighting along with army regulars you agree?

3.Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission&#8230;&#8230;.. the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the Commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order.

Question 3.When the UN commission decided that Indian forces are to be kept to maintain minimum law and order did Pakistan vacate *** as per instructions of the United Nations?

4..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&#8230;&#8230;

Question4 Has Pakistan notified the UN or Party to dispute &#8220;India&#8221; about tribesmen and Pakistani nationals withdrawing from Kashmir?.

There is a misunderstanding that the resolution contained only a plebiscite. If you check the resolution it contains three steps in sequence

a)Cease Fire(was implemented and the result is present day LOC)

b)Truce agreement(produced next post)

c)Plebiscite

Often the plebiscite is quoted by Pakistani authorities without the mention of truce agreement. The logical step should be implement Cease fire&#8212;Truce agreement&#8212;and then Plebiscite for Kashmir to determine their fate.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

*RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN ON 13 AUGUST 1948. (DOCUMENT NO. S/1100, PARA 75, DATED THE 9TH NOVEMBER, 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 coercion of conditions the continuance of which is likely to endanger international peace and security are essential to implementation of its endeavors 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

1. 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.

2. The High Commands of Indian and Pakistan forces agreed 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, organized and unorganized, fighting or participating in hostilities on their respective sides).

3. The Commanders-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.

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

5. The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan agree to appeal to their respective peoples to assist in creating and maintaining an atmosphere favorable to the promotion of further negotiations. 



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 be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.

1. (l) 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.

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavor 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.

(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.

2. (1) 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 the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission

(2) 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 cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces 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.

(3) The Government of India will undertake to ensure that the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will take all measures within their power to make it publicly known that peace, law and order will be safeguarded and that all human and political rights will be guaranteed.

3. (1) Upon signature, the full text of the Truce Agreement or communiqu&#233; containing the principles thereof as agreed upon between the two Governments and the Commission, will be 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 be assured.


*The UNCIP unanimously adopted this Resolution on 13-8-1948.

Members of the Commission: Argentina. Belgium, Columbia, Czechoslovakia and U.S.A.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Let's, therefore, not speak as if we are on 'grass'.
*

Understand the reality. Understand the complications 60years of inaction has done and how the world views the issue now.

And then, talk.

Here is what Kofi Anan, the Secretary General of the UN had to say:*



> August 28, 2006
> UN Resolution On Kashmir Irrelevant - Kofi Anan
> Filed under: Kashmir, Quotes for Thought, Terrorism In Kashmir, UN &#8212; vicharnaag @ 7:25 am
> 
> &#8230;.UN resolutions on Kashmir did not come under Chapter 7 of the UN charter and were, therefore, not self-enforcing. Unlike the resolutions on East Timor and Iraq, which come under that particular chapter, the Kashmir resolutions require the cooperation of both parties for implementation&#8230;&#8230;[ March 2001 During his brief interaction with the media at Pakistan&#8217;s Chakala military ]
> UN Resolution On Kashmir Irrelevant - Kofi Anan &#171; The Kashmir



*The truth of the matter is that the US backed Pakistan then and got her into CENTO and SEATO and made the issue controversial and now that there is no requirement for Pakistan it currently, the US has abandoned Pakistan and embraced India!*

Other UN Security Council members are dependent on the US munificences and though they dislike the US, they are not ready to intervene in affairs that have no bearing to their well being in the geostrategic equation.

So, as the English nursery rhyme goes - Pop goes the Weasel!


----------



## roadrunner

Salim, 

I really don't think you have the foggiest about what you're going on about. But anyhow, I'll reply just to be clear. 

First your invention of the Indian papers on what Kofi Annan (who incidentally is not the UN secretary General and would not have had the power to rule on UN resolutions when he was SG). The reality is the Kofi Annan said no such thing, as was stated by Huanji she, the UN spokeswoman.. 

"*That was not what he said at all*, said Huanji She said as you can see On 10 March 2001, he was asked by a journalist in Islamabad if the UN would be interested to implement its resolutions as it implemented in East Timor ? The Secretary General replied "I think the UN resolutions on Kashmir are on record and the UN has observers in the region. We have UNMOGIP. In fact, the Chief Military Observer is here. 

Secretary General said "You are comparing apples and oranges" When it comes to implementation of resolutions, I think we have to be clear here. The UN has two types of resolutions -- enforcement resolutions under Chapter VII and other resolutions. The resolution you are referring to here comes under Chapter VI, which require cooperation of both parties to get implemented. the two parties discussing these issues and finding a peaceful way is the route I recommend. 
Spokeswoman rejects Kofi Annan said UN resolution on Kashmir not binding - ContactPakistan.com 

In fact, the UN resolutions ARE binding, as I've proved above with resolution from March 30th, 1951, and numerous quotes from Indian government.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## roadrunner

Salim said:


> So 'are being" means "has been done"?
> 
> 60 years and still on the go!
> 
> Marvellous!
> 
> Do it and then talk.



I realize English is not your first language, so i don't see this as a sign of stupidity. But the phrase "are being withdrawn", mean as troops "are being" withdrawn, India must do something else. That something else was agree to reduce its troop number down to 18,000, as per UNCIP resolution above, which it never did. It wanted 24,000 (a mere 6,000 troops more !), while Pakistan had agreed to get its troop number down to 6,000. 

Use some common sense Salim. Do you honestly believe the UN would tell ALL Pak troops to vacate so that the only troops left in Kashmir would be Indian? It would, and did call for a simultaneous withdrawal of troops from both Pakistan and India, with Pakistan taking the first step (which Pakistan did - which is why UNCIP proceeded to ask India to reduce its troop number, which it refused to do despite having an international obligation to do so).


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Road Runner,

No, English is not my first language, even though that is what we spoke at home.

I confess I do not have the ecstatic acclaim to European descent as you possibly have, not that it is something that one should exult about, it being historically a wee bit embarrassing to claim one is not indigenous. 

That apart, of course, you would know better what Kofi Anan said since you were at his knees I presume.

I am afraid you live in a fond delusion and in denial of the contemporary times.

UN resolutions on Kashmir obsolete: Qayyum
UN resolutions on Kashmir obsolete: Qayyum

And what did Mushrraf have to say on it?

Google boy google!

So, there you are, Bob's your uncle!


----------



## roadrunner

Salim said:


> Road Runner,
> 
> No, English is not my first language, even though that is what we spoke at home.
> 
> I confess I do not have the ecstatic acclaim to European descent as you possibly have, not that it is something that one should exult about, it being historically a wee bit embarrassing to claim one is not indigenous.
> 
> That apart, of course, you would know better what Kofi Anan said since you were at his knees I presume.



 whatever you're on about here is a mystery to me. Anyhow, I would say that Indian media quoting one thing, Pak media another is nothing new. Both are pretty crap (as is a lot of official "independent" media round the world). So just stick to the resolutions. At least you have agreed that the resolution does say "are being", meaning that Pakistani troops did not have to vacate out of Kashmir completely, before the agreement was gotten from the Indian side (which it never was, so halting the demilitarization process due to Indian hindrance). 



> I am afraid you live in a fond delusion and in denial of the contemporary times.
> 
> UN resolutions on Kashmir obsolete: Qayyum
> UN resolutions on Kashmir obsolete: Qayyum



Funny the way that he says the UN resolutions are relevant here.. 

"Sardar Qayyum censured to the continual surfacing of barbed wire fence by India along the LoC and said; 'it is a blatant and flagrant violation of all the international laws *including the UN resolutions *on Kashmir." 
Pakistan Times | Kashmir: Qayyum Vows for Intra-Kashmiri Dialogue 



> And what did Mushrraf have to say on it?



Well, Musharraf said nothing of what you or Indian media think he said. Here's his prime minister at the time saying it.. 

Pakistan Premier says UN Resolution Key to Kashmir

Pakistan Times Monitoring Report 

NEW DELHI (India): *The UN-mandated referendum on the future of disputed state of Jammu n' Kashmir must be the basis for resolving the decades-old problem with rival India, Pakistan Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali said on Sunday. *

About President Musharraf's offer of flexibility both by India n' Pakistan on the topic of Kashmir, Jamali said to Indian news television channel NDTV 24x7 in an interview: *'I don't think the President meant that [a deviation from UN resolutions].' *

Musharraf's remarks were received with a mixture of relief and alarm and some commentators described him as--'too generous to India'.

'UN Resolution...Basis of resolving Kashmir Issue'

Jamali reaffirmed that 'UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite remained the basis of resolving the Kashmir issue'. 

'The basis of the whole solution lies in the UN resolution. That has to be kept in mind. You cannot overlook it,' the Premier remarked. 

'Resolutions not to be Forgotten'

Asked what Musharraf meant when he said the demand for resolutions could be set aside, Jamali said 'When President Musharraf said 'set aside', he probably meant...yes they have to be followed.' 

'The UN resolutions will be carried through. They have to come up,' he said and warned that if the UN resolutions were abandoned, it would make things 'difficult to work' between India and Pakistan.

Responding to another question about 'setting aside UN resolutions and plebiscite in Kashmir', the Prime Minister stated, 'we cannot forget them.' The solution of Kashmir issue lies in UN resolutions, he added.

Backdrop

New Delhi forcibly occupies around 45 percent of Muslim-majority Jammu n' Kashmir State, and insists on its baseless view that 'it was an integral part of India.' 

With a brutal way, Indian troops in the held-Kashmir have martyred tens of thousands of the innocent people for raising voice for their birth right of self-determination during the 14-year freedom struggle in India held-Kashmir. The two nuclear-armed neighbors have fought two of their three wars over the revolt-racked state.

Pakistan Times | Kashmir: Qayyum Vows for Intra-Kashmiri Dialogue 

So there you have it. Let's forget what irrelevant people say. Singh, Mush, Qayyum have no hold on international law. The UN resolutions do. This topic is about who has not followed the UN resolutions. It's pretty clear India broke its agreement, and stopped the demilitarization process. Forget media, and the rest, just stick to resolutions if you can. 



> Google boy google!
> 
> So, there you are, Bob's your uncle!



And Salim's your grandfather

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

> roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever you're on about here is a mystery to me. Anyhow, I would say that Indian media quoting one thing, Pak media another is nothing new. Both are pretty crap (as is a lot of official "independent" media round the world). So just stick to the resolutions. *At least you have agreed that the resolution does say "are being", meaning that Pakistani troops did not have to vacate out of Kashmir completely, before the agreement was gotten from the Indian side (which it never was, so halting the demilitarization process due to Indian hindrance). *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The troops had to vacate first before the Plebiscite and there is no question of any future tense being there in the resolution.
> 
> "Are being" does not mean "has been".
> 
> Do read the Truce Agreement of the UN and it says
> 
> 1. (l) 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.*
> 
> I thought you inferred that English was your first language!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny the way that he says the UN resolutions are relevant here..
> 
> "Sardar Qayyum censured to the continual surfacing of barbed wire fence by India along the LoC and said; 'it is a blatant and flagrant violation of all the international laws *including the UN resolutions *on Kashmir."
> Pakistan Times | Kashmir: Qayyum Vows for Intra-Kashmiri Dialogue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, what?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Musharraf said nothing of what you or Indian media think he said. Here's his prime minister at the time saying it..
> 
> Pakistan Premier says UN Resolution Key to Kashmir
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan Times Monitoring Report
> 
> NEW DELHI (India): *The UN-mandated referendum on the future of disputed state of Jammu n' Kashmir must be the basis for resolving the decades-old problem with rival India, Pakistan Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali said on Sunday. *
> 
> About President Musharraf's offer of flexibility both by India n' Pakistan on the topic of Kashmir, Jamali said to Indian news television channel NDTV 24x7 in an interview: *'I don't think the President meant that [a deviation from UN resolutions].' *
> 
> Musharraf's remarks were received with a mixture of relief and alarm and some commentators described him as--'too generous to India'.
> 
> 'UN Resolution...Basis of resolving Kashmir Issue'
> 
> Jamali reaffirmed that 'UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite remained the basis of resolving the Kashmir issue'.
> 
> 'The basis of the whole solution lies in the UN resolution. That has to be kept in mind. You cannot overlook it,' the Premier remarked.
> 
> 'Resolutions not to be Forgotten'
> 
> Asked what Musharraf meant when he said the demand for resolutions could be set aside, Jamali said 'When President Musharraf said 'set aside', he probably meant...yes they have to be followed.'
> 
> 'The UN resolutions will be carried through. They have to come up,' he said and warned that if the UN resolutions were abandoned, it would make things 'difficult to work' between India and Pakistan.
> 
> Responding to another question about 'setting aside UN resolutions and plebiscite in Kashmir', the Prime Minister stated, 'we cannot forget them.' The solution of Kashmir issue lies in UN resolutions, he added.
> 
> Backdrop
> 
> New Delhi forcibly occupies around 45 percent of Muslim-majority Jammu n' Kashmir State, and insists on its baseless view that 'it was an integral part of India.'
> 
> With a brutal way, Indian troops in the held-Kashmir have martyred tens of thousands of the innocent people for raising voice for their birth right of self-determination during the 14-year freedom struggle in India held-Kashmir. The two nuclear-armed neighbors have fought two of their three wars over the revolt-racked state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan Times | Kashmir: Qayyum Vows for Intra-Kashmiri Dialogue
> 
> So there you have it. Let's forget what irrelevant people say. Singh, Mush, Qayyum have no hold on international law. The UN resolutions do. This topic is about who has not followed the UN resolutions. It's pretty clear India broke its agreement, and stopped the demilitarization process. Forget media, and the rest, just stick to resolutions if you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is pretty clear that Pakistan NEVER implemented the Resolution and has no intention of doing so either!
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> And Salim's your grandfather
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you said you knew English well. And of European descent.
> 
> Here it proves you know hardly a sausage about the English Language.
> 
> "Bobs, your Uncle" is an English phrase and it has nothing to indicate that your Uncle's name is Bob. Learn English, old boy before you are shown up since Pretenders cannot hold a candle in the face of factual truth i.e. you know English!*
Click to expand...


----------



## UnitedPak

The very idea of Kashmiris themselves deciding their own future sounds totally ridiculous to the democracy loving Indians. The only explanation is that Indians who have never set a foot in Kashmir seem to be under the impression that they own Kashmir and everyone in it.

Every agreement has been broken by India when it comes to Kashmir. What was the whole point of the 2 nation theory which allowed a Hindu India to exist in the first place? We could have gone back to the pre-British Muslim rule.

Kashmiris were promised a referendum, and thats still what they want today. Indian claims that a referendum isnt possible are baseless and will only further question India's so called democracy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

The Rediff Interview/Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan

'Independent Kashmir is a mental luxury'

September 21, 2005

Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan, who previously held the posts of both president and prime minister of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir -- Azad Kashmir, as he likes to put it -- is in New Delhi to participate in the 'Heart-to-Heart talks' about Kashmir.

Independent Kashmir not possible

Organised by Harcharan Singh Josh, president of the Indian Council of World Affairs, and Bhim Singh of the Panther's Party, the talks are being held between Kashmiris on either side of the Line of Control that divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan.

The meeting was first scheduled to be held in Jammu but Sardar Qayyum Khan did not want to travel to Jammu on an Indian visa, which he said amounts to accepting Jammu and Kashmir as a part of India.

"I had a problem and I told the organisers," he told Senior Associate Editor Onkar Singh in an interview at New Delhi's Ashok Hotel, where he is staying with other members of his contingent.

*"Independent Kashmir is a mental luxury," he said while ruling out the possibility of the two Kashmirs becoming one independent unit. Preferring to give short answers, the 80-year-old politician from across the border is one of the few saner voices from Pakistan, who talks of a practical solution to the Jammu and Kashmir problem.*

Don't expect miracles from dialogue process

What do you think of the peace initiative between India and Pakistan?

Despite various difficulties which are inherent in the situation, I think the peace initiative between the two countries headed by Dr Manmohan Singh, prime minister of India, and General Pervez Musharraf, president of Pakistan, is moving forward in the right direction. I sincerely hope these discussions are taken to their logical end. I hope they would continue in the same spirit in which they have started. At least that is what my personal expectations are.

What about the peace talks that were initiated by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee?

I would say that the moves made prior to this initiative were also in the right direction. I supported those moves as well. We Kashmiris would support any move that brings peace in Kashmir. Vajpayee is the only person who could have done things.

What do you mean?

I mean he could have done what he did in Lahore. This is the specific point that I would like to point out.

You were given an opportunity to travel to the Indian side of Kashmir but you chose not to go there. Why?

You see, I could not go on an Indian visa to Jammu. That was my problem. If I have to visit Jammu from Muzaffarabad via Srinagar and then go to Poonch and Rajouri, I would be travelling some 4,000 kilometers and that is not feasible.

In your speech at this convention you referred to the reluctance of India to recognise that Pakistan is a reality. What made you say that?

Pakistan is a reality. It is a question where we go into the history and political background. Many, many steps need to be taken by both sides to win the confidence of the people. The ethos of hatred, enmity and antagonism that has been existing puts pressure all the time against Pakistan's defence, economy and security which is known only to the experts; the public would not know about it.

The rogue and the meek

The All-Parties Hurriyat Conference thinks that independent Kashmir is a growing reality?

Independent Kashmir is a mental luxury as I call it. It does not exist anywhere. It does not exist in the scheme of things. You cannot create it. It does not suit India, Pakistan and China. There is no authority, no organisation. Then who can create an independent Kashmir?

Does it suit the Kashmiris themselves?

No, independent Kashmir does not suit the Kashmiris either. They would feel strangulated. Why should we discuss a thing which does not exist anywhere? And which we cannot bring into existence.

So the best solution according to you is to give autonomy to either side of Kashmir?

To begin with, this is one step that could set things in motion. But this should be treated as an interim step. Let me add that autonomy is not the solution, it is moving forward towards the solution. You got to go step by step. You cannot stop all of a sudden. This could be part of confidence building measures. This decidedly is not the end.

Does Sardar Qayyum Khan have a solution in mind?

I have no solution in my mind except that India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris should sit down and open-heartedly discuss all options on the table for a long time and then find a way out.

'Kashmir is falling off the American radar'

Why can an independent Kashmir not exist is something some Kashmiri leaders on the Indian side would like to know.

I have said it earlier and I say it again, that independent Kashmir is a mental luxury and it does not exist. And I for one am not going to waste time discussing something that does not exist.

Where do India and Pakistan go from here?

The two countries would have to strengthen and enhance the confidence building measures and take them to their logical conclusion. We must move forward step by step.

Pakistan wants India to reduce troops in Kashmir and we say they should first wind up the terrorist camps.

This is a blind and baseless allegation and people can go and supervise it. This is not something that can be hidden. We are open to inspection.

What kind of autonomy do you have?

We have a president, a prime minister and an assembly which performs the job of legislation. Of course we have our own election commission which conducts elections in our part of Kashmir.

What kind of future do you see for Kashmiris?

I see the Kashmiris on either side prospering in the future and trade and commerce between the two nations going up.

If India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris have to make concessions, then what kind of concessions are the Kashmiris prepared to make to find a solution to the problem?

I do not know what kind of concessions the Kashmiris can make. But there will have to be a point from where they would have to begin reconciliations. But if you stick to your positions and make no concessions, then there is no movement forward. This is only a perception and a proposal in principle.

Who represents Kashmiris at the negotiating table?

This is a question that has been exploited. I was asked this question by the BBC. My answer is that if we are given an opportunity then we will tell you who would represent the Kashmiris at the negotiating table.

Why should Pakistan decide that the Hurriyat will represent Kashmiris from the Indian side?

That is in the absence of an arrangement. In such a situation many things can happen. Let the time come and we will find out who represents the Kashmiris.

One-time Pakistan supporter Syed Ali Shah Geelani says Pakistan has sold out Kashmir?

This question can best be answered by Geelani himself. I cannot speak for him and I have not been in communication with him for many years.

Are you pained by the sufferings of the Kashmiri Pandits?

Of course I am pained by their sufferings. The non-Muslims in Kashmir have lived in far greater amity than anywhere else in the subcontinent. It is a painful thing that they should have been displaced from their homes.

Photograph: Prakash Singh/AFP/Getty Images

'Independent Kashmir a mental luxury'


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Looking for Solutions in Kashmir: Pakistan&#8217;s Perceptions


Suba Chandran
Assistant Director, IPCS

Integration with India: Impossibility

What are the possible solutions in Pakistani perceptions to the Kashmiri conflict? First, there is a unanimous approval in Pakistan that India will not be able to integrate Kashmiris into the Indian state. Pakistan considers that &#8220;India&#8217;s use of force might have succeeded against Punjabi secessionists since the Indian Punjab unlike Kashmir is not a disputed territory.&#8221; Besides the use of force, in Pakistan&#8217;s perception &#8220;Indian efforts to pacify Kashmiri demands and to divide the Kashmiri opposition by offers of autonomy, such as reviving Article 370, have failed because the Kashmiris do not trust such offers.&#8221; The 2002 elections, in their perceptions &#8220;might have been necessary to form a representative government to run the affairs of the state, they did not legitimize India&#8217;s rule and cannot be a substitute for resolving the dispute.&#8221;



The underlying assumption of Pakistan on India-Kashmir relations is that India has failed to integrate Kashmir and would never be succeed in the future. No doubt, India has failed to integrate the Kashmiris (care need to be taken to differentiate between Kashmir and Kashmiris) politically and emotionally into the national mainstream. But where Pakistan&#8217;s perceptions on the integration and existence aspects of Kashmiris into mainstream politics are taking in the voices of Srinagar as representative of entire Kashmir. No doubt, the Hurriyat represents a section of Kashmiri opinion, but in no way the Hurriyat could be called as the sole spokesman for Kashmir. Not only is the Hurriyat divided; even the component parties are deeply divided among themselves. Second, like that of the Hurriyat, Srinagar also represent a section of Kashmiri opinion and do not speak for the entire Kashmir. While majority in and around Srinagar would not like to be part of India politically and emotionally, the same cannot be said about the same outside Srinagar. Majority of the Kashmiris (other than the Srinagaris) may not want to be a part India emotionally, but would be willing to live with it politically as long as the governments in the State and the Center are able to provide them good governance. This is why in the 2002 elections, there was less than ten percent polling in Srinagar outside it (except Sopore) it was more than 40 percent.



Independence: A Lip Service

Would Pakistan agree to Kashmir becoming an independent entity? The report is again candid. It says: Although Islamabad pays lip service to the right of Kashmiris to determine their own future, its official policy rejects a possible &#8220;third option&#8221; of independence. In Islamabad&#8217;s view, an independent Kashmir is not acceptable because it would undermine Pakistan&#8217;s interests.



General Musharraf&#8217;s statement to abandon the UN resolutions should be seen through this perception. The UN resolution basically demands for a plebiscite. And a plebiscite in Kashmir would be in the interest of neither Pakistan nor India. Kashmiris, if given an opportunity to express their will, no doubt would opt for independence. Is an independent Kashmir in the interests of Pakistan? General Musharraf&#8217;s statement only reflects the real interests and not any flexibility from Pakistan&#8217;s side.



The report makes an important and interesting observation on Kashmir and independence. It says: At the very most, Pakistan might accept an option of independence for only the Kashmir Valley and some Muslim majority areas of Jammu, through for example, a regional referendum held under US auspices. This in fact would be the bargaining position of Pakistan in any of future dialogue with India.



Pakistan&#8217;s Kashmir policy is simple. The Valley should not be with India. It does not matter whether it joins Pakistan or not. It is based on the simple dictum: It may not be for me but never should it be for you. Plebiscite, self determination, plight of Kashmiris and suppression of their voices are only a bogus cover for this underlying objective.



LoC as Border: Not Acceptable

India&#8217;s bargaining position invariably revolves around converting the LoC into international border. It would never be acceptable for Pakistan, for it consider the status quo as the problem. And they are right. How can the problem be a solution? India obviously needs to move ahead. But how far can India go ahead?



From an Indian perspective, maximum autonomy to both Kashmirs with a soft border could be an option that could be sincerely explored. Surprisingly, the report suggests that for some Pakistani analysts support this compromise. This means, there does exist a constituency that this could be a way out. This solution would result in all the three parties compromising to an extent without too much. India could keep its part of Kashmir politically; Kashmiris would get autonomy and could move along the border which would be soft without any problem; and Pakistan could retain its part of Kashmir with getting autonomy for Kashmir.



But the problem is, the report says, it would be not be acceptable to the military. If this is something that could be acceptable to the people of Pakistan or sold to them, then India should seriously pursue this option along with another set of proposals to remove the fear of Pakistani military. A series of CBMs on conventional and nuclear issues apart from Kashmir would help starting this process. Even if it means a regional arms control ? conventional and nuclear, it is worth pursuing.

IPCS - Pakistan


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Musharraf&#8217;s double standards exposed
S.P. Sharma
Tribune News Service

Jammu, July 16
The double standards of Pakistan on the Kashmir issue got exposed during the Tuesday&#8217;s elections for the National Assembly of the Azad Kashmir (***) in which General Pervez Musharraf debarred the pro-independence candidates from contesting the polls.

While General Musharraf was pampering the separatists and pro-independence elements operating on this side of the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir, he was firm in not allowing their counterparts in the *** to even file their nomination papers.

General Musharraf has on various international platforms, demanded the introduction of &#8220;self-rule&#8221; on this side of Jammu and Kashmir, but reports said that fingers were being raised on the elections in *** by Sahibzada Ishaq Zaffar, president of the Peoples Party Azad Jammu Kashmir (PPAJK), who has accused General Musharraf of &#8220;manipulating the election results&#8221;.

India has also said that the elections in the *** lack credibility.

Zaffar has said that General Musharraf was fiddling in the affairs of the ***, particularly at a time when a &#8220;broader consensus was required on the Kashmir issue&#8221;.

A Pakistan Muslim League leader, Sardar Sarwar Khan, has also accused him of &#8220;taking sides&#8221; with the ruling Muslim Conference (MC) during the *** elections.

Elections have been held for 40 seats and the schedule for election to the eight special seats would be issued later. The MC has emerged as the single largest party.

Reports indicate that about 50 per cent polling was registered in the ***. This was very low compared to the 70 per cent polling during the recent byelection for four assembly seats in J&K valley.

Doubts were being raised on the fairness of the elections in the *** right from the beginning. Nomination papers of 30 of 31 candidates of the pro-independence J&L Liberation Front of Amanullah Khan were rejected.
The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Jammu & Kashmir


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Pakistan offers to drop demand for Kashmir plebiscite
By Katherine Butler Deputy Foreign Editor
Published: 19 December 2003

The President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, has offered to drop a 50-year-old demand for a referendum on the future of Kashmir and to meet India "halfway" in the search for a peaceful settlement.

The President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, has offered to drop a 50-year-old demand for a referendum on the future of Kashmir and to meet India "halfway" in the search for a peaceful settlement.

Pakistan was prepared, he said, to be "bold and flexible" to resolve the conflict which has brought nuclear-armed India and Pakistan to war twice since 1947 and to the brink of war in 2002.

Pakistan has long held the position that a United Nations-supervised plebiscite should give the people of Indian-ruled Kashmir the right to decide whether their political future lies with India or Pakistan.

UN Security Council resolutions dating from the 1940s support that position but no vote has been organised because of India's objections.

But on Wednesday General Musharraf said: "We are for United Nations Security Council resolutions. However, now we have left that aside. If we want to resolve this issue, both sides need to talk to each other with flexibility, coming beyond stated positions, meeting halfway somewhere. We are prepared to rise to the occasion, India has to be flexible also."

Both sides are aiming to seize the agenda ahead of a summit of south Asian leaders early next month and Pakistan has recently made an effort to ward off growing international impatience.

Pakistan's offer throws the ball into the court of the Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who will travel to Islamabad for the summit. But commentators saw the proposal as potentially clearing one of the biggest obstacles to a peaceful outcome.

India has not yet officially responded to the proposal. But J N Dixit, the former Indian foreign secretary and India's former envoy to Pakistan, said the President's offer marked an important shift. "We should be able to respond with flexibility and see if we can find a middle ground," said Mr Dixit.

General Musharraf warned India against failing to seize his offer. "The basis of everything, the basis of a reduction in militancy ... is moving forward on a process of dialogue. If that political dialogue doesn't come about, who wins and who loses? It is the moderates who lose and the extremists who win, and that is exactly what has been happening."

He also attacked India for taking advantage of a recent thaw in relations and a ceasefire to speed up construction of a fence along the Line of Control dividing Kashmir. The diplomatic thaw has restoredtransport links between India and Pakistan.

Mr Vajpayee's room for manoeuvre is limited with elections scheduled for next year. He is not even due to meet General Musharraf for talks at the regional summit but it is expected that the two leaders could meet informally.

General Musharraf said he would not beg for a meeting. "The ball is in his court. If he wants to meet me, I'll meet him. If he doesn't want to meet me, I am not that keen." 

Pakistan offers to drop demand for Kashmir plebiscite - Independent Online Edition > Asia


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> The very idea of Kashmiris themselves deciding their own future sounds totally ridiculous to the democracy loving Indians. The only explanation is that Indians who have never set a foot in Kashmir seem to be under the impression that they own Kashmir and everyone in it.
> 
> Every agreement has been broken by India when it comes to Kashmir. What was the whole point of the 2 nation theory which allowed a Hindu India to exist in the first place? We could have gone back to the pre-British Muslim rule.
> 
> Kashmiris were promised a referendum, and thats still what they want today. Indian claims that a referendum isnt possible are baseless and will only further question India's so called democracy.



The idea of Indian democracy is that it stays within the dominion of India.

Kashmiri people are free to decide their future as long as they pledge allegiance to India. They have no valid reason to separate. 

They are given cultural, religious, geographical autonomy from the rest of India. They are free to lead their lives in whichever fashion. They are free to develop Kashmir and Kashmiri identity with the broader Indian Identity.
Also, they benifit from Central planning and a free trade with the rest of India. 

They are not being oppressed as is claimed by Pakistan. If the Kashmiris want peace, they will get peace the same day.

For the Referendum Issue, kindly read this thread carefully before talking about broken promises.

This applies for not just Kashmiris, but for all Indians. The idea of India is to unite disparate people under a central govt. so that each region can benefit from the other. Every other indian state has realized the advantages of the union, it is only a matter of time before kashmiris integrate as well.


----------



## Keysersoze

Have changed title as it may be seen as a provocation


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Cosmetic changes will make no difference for the perversity and irrationality that prevails.

I am tired of these type of thread that breed despondency and no hope inspite of the great efforts being made by the respective governments to bring sanity and peace.

Plebiscite.

Will Pakistan do so for Balwaristan, Balochistan or Pakhtoonistan?

Just think that over.

Just becaue some pople take up the gun culture and have some demonstrations and become larger than life, that is lapped up by the international media, which has its own axe to grind, means that the people actually want it?

If so, let the media draw the boundaries of the world!


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

*Cosmetic changes will make no difference for the perversity and irrationality that prevails.

I am tired of these type of thread that breed despondency and no hope inspite of the great efforts being made by the respective governments to bring sanity and peace.

Plebiscite.

Will Pakistan do so for Balwaristan, Balochistan or Pakhtoonistan?

Just think that over.

Just because some people take up the gun culture and have some demonstrations and become larger than life, that is lapped up by the international media, which has its own axe to grind, means that the people actually want it?

If so, let the media draw the boundaries of the world!*


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Keyerose.

The title continuesbto be the same!


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Here is the paste and copy

Re: The Kashmir Resolutions - Explanations for Salim


----------



## roadrunner

Salim said:


> The troops had to vacate first before the Plebiscite and there is no question of any future tense being there in the resolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The troops had to start vacating and then India had to agree to withdraw its troops down to a pre-specified amount (12000-18000). India refused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Are being" does not mean "has been".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn right! "are being" does not mean "has been. Put that into the resolution and you get "*further, that the Pakistani forces have been withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission*"
> 
> This is exactly what the wording should have been IF what you are saying is correct..that Pakistani forces needed to completely vacate Kashmir before the Indian forces had to vacate. You've actually proved yourself wrong better than I could have with that own goal !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do read the Truce Agreement of the UN and it says
> 
> 1. (l) 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.*
> 
> I thought you inferred that English was your first language!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Salim, I suspect you will regret this also. It says the GoP must AGREE to withdraw its troops from the state. It does not say that it must withdraw them physically. The GoP agreed to this part of the resolution and that is why UNCIP passed some more reaolutions to follow on the demilitarization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Musharraf said nothing of what you or Indian media think he said. Here's his prime minister at the time saying it..
> 
> Pakistan Premier says UN Resolution Key to Kashmir
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I referenced isn't it that contradicts what you referenced? Two sides to these stories, don't believe everything you read in rediff (i'm not using Pakistani sources, you're using Indian sources, and then I'm using Pakistani sources in return).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is pretty clear that Pakistan NEVER implemented the Resolution and has no intention of doing so either!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you could follow what I've typed, you would realize that India did not agree to reduce its troop number down to 18,000. That is what halted the demilitarization. Only 6,000 Pakistan troops would remain. Perhaps the 7 Indian soldiers :1 Pakistani soldiers does have some truth in it within the beliefs of the Indian ranks after all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> I thought you said you knew English well. And of European descent.
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here it proves you know hardly a sausage about the English Language.
> 
> "Bobs, your Uncle" is an English phrase and it has nothing to indicate that your Uncle's name is Bob. Learn English, old boy before you are shown up since Pretenders cannot hold a candle in the face of factual truth i.e. you know English![/COLOR]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Thanks for that explanation
Click to expand...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

UnitedPak said:


> The very idea of Kashmiris themselves deciding their own future sounds totally ridiculous to the democracy loving Indians. The only explanation is that Indians who have never set a foot in Kashmir seem to be under the impression that they own Kashmir and everyone in it.
> 
> Every agreement has been broken by India when it comes to Kashmir. What was the whole point of the 2 nation theory which allowed a Hindu India to exist in the first place? We could have gone back to the pre-British Muslim rule.
> 
> Kashmiris were promised a referendum, and thats still what they want today. Indian claims that a referendum isnt possible are baseless and will only further question India's so called democracy.



The phrase "the world's largest democracy" is one of the dumbest things coined in history considering the forceful occupation of Kashmir, the neglect of a referendum, and that Dalits are forced to vote for people who will give them the lower end jobs.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Road Runner,

Take a break.

Bone up on English and international affairs and then come back!

That is why Dalits are calling the shots!

Which world are you living in?

Think instead of Balwaristan, Pakhtoonistan and Balochistan for a change!


----------



## roadrunner

Salim said:


> Musharrafs double standards exposed
> S.P. Sharma
> Tribune News Service
> 
> Jammu, July 16
> The double standards of Pakistan on the Kashmir issue got exposed during the Tuesdays elections for the National Assembly of the Azad Kashmir (***) in which General Pervez Musharraf debarred the pro-independence candidates from contesting the polls.



Can you not argue your case from the UN resolutions? You seemed adamant that they were in India's favours and India was not breaking any resolutions. Copying and pasting is just a way of diverting the topic to hide your lack of being able to reply to factual posts.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

roadrunner said:


> Can you not argue your case from the UN resolutions? You seemed adamant that they were in India's favours and India was not breaking any resolutions. Copying and pasting is just a way of diverting the topic to hide your lack of being able to reply to factual posts.



I argued in English which is your first language. But then you did not understand inspite of your European ancestry which is not something to be proud of given what the European invaders did to the native folks! 

I am not that shallow as you. So, please forgive me if I appear educated and with facts.


----------



## roadrunner

Salim said:


> I argued in English which is your first language. But then you did not understand inspite of your European ancestry which is not something to be proud of given what the European invaders did to the native folks!
> 
> I am not that shallow as you. So, please forgive me if I appear educated and with facts.



 Let's stick to the topic?


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Will do when you understand your first language.

Right now, you are at sixes and sevens without a clue as to what you want to say!

You must get comprehensible.


----------



## roadrunner

Salim said:


> Plebiscite.
> 
> Will Pakistan do so for Balwaristan, Balochistan or Pakhtoonistan?



The Balochistan and Pakhtoonistan issues are separate. They were fairly divided during partition. As such no international law requires them to be re-assessed. Not the same with Kashmir. International law does require a referendum to be carried out there. GoP not choosing to carry out a referendum in Balochistan etc is not illegal. It is illegal for India to not carry out a referendum though in Kashmir. One more point, the Balochis do not want to be divided from Pakistan. They were fighting for royalties (2 tribes only), and the Pashtuns I highly doubt would want to join with Afghanistan in a Pashtunistan considering the state of the economy. I think a referendum in both those areas would favour Pakistan in current conditions. A referendum though in Kashmir would not favour India (and probably not Pakistan either, but more so Pakistan than India).


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Really?

Then why are there law and order hassles?

Quit hedging!

Everything is illegal for India and perfectly legal for Pakistan!

Great logic!


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> The phrase "the world's largest democracy" is one of the dumbest things coined in history considering the forceful occupation of Kashmir, the neglect of a referendum, and that Dalits are forced to vote for people who will give them the lower end jobs.



India is the "world's largest democracy" only for the people wish to remain part of India.

There is no democracy for separatists. 

Dalits are free to choose whomsoever they want. They are not forced to vote for anyone. Kindly spare the lame statements.


----------



## roadrunner

Salim said:


> Really?
> 
> Then why are there law and order hassles?
> 
> Quit hedging!



two words, Al Q. In fact, India probably has more law and order troubles than in Pakistan. Now try to stick to the topic, if possible.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> India is the "world's largest democracy" only for the people wish to remain part of India.
> 
> There is no democracy for separatists.
> 
> Dalits are free to choose whomsoever they want. They are not forced to vote for anyone. Kindly spare the lame statements.



Let's start a new thread over this if you like. But if India is such a great democracy, where are the democratic rights of the Kashmiri people for plebiscite (forget the separatists), not to mention International Law? Democratic countries surely do respect international law, do they not? The UN is a democratic body is it not?


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

roadrunner said:


> Let's start a new thread over this if you like. But if India is such a great democracy, where are the democratic rights of the Kashmiri people for plebiscite (forget the separatists), not to mention International Law? Democratic countries surely do respect international law, do they not? The UN is a democratic body is it not?



And Pakistan, not being a true democracy, does not!

Is that what you are suggesting?

And what do you think this thread is all about?

Mars?

Stop running away from reality!


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Let's start a new thread over this if you like. But if India is such a great democracy, where are the democratic rights of the Kashmiri people for plebiscite (forget the separatists), not to mention International Law? Democratic countries surely do respect international law, do they not? The UN is a democratic body is it not?



I have no intention of starting a new thread, but please do so if you wish to.

Kashmiris have democracy within the dominion of India. They can fully exert their Kashmiri culture, identity, religion and values within Kashmir and elect their leaders freely and fairly. They don't have a legal case for separation.

International law? I"m sure India is following international law to its fullest extent.

UN resolution will never be implemented because Musharraf and GOI won't let it happen. I have said so many times on this forum. It was a one time solution whos time has passed.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

roadrunner said:


> two words, Al Q. In fact, India probably has more law and order troubles than in Pakistan. Now try to stick to the topic, if possible.



Why things are getting too hot for you when you meander and get a stunning reply to bring you back to the topic?

Let us say we have more problems. We don't whine but face up to it as any man, worthy of himself as a man, would do!


----------



## UnitedPak

Salim your arguments are baseless. Kashmiris *are* being treated like Prisoners, for one they have half the Indian army at their doors, raping, killing and taking away there freedom. You are basically accepting that they shouldnt have any rights as long as they dont want to be a part of India. What a choice.



> There is no democracy for separatists.



Ok, that would mean there is no democracy for the vast majority of Kashmiris, so they are prisoners. So much for the integral part.

I know a lot of Kashmiris and I can tell you right now that 99&#37; of Muslim Kashmiris will either vote for complete Independence or join Pakistan. I have never come across a single Muslim Kashmiri in person who wanted to be a part of India. Indian claims that Kashmiris will change their minds when they see the economic gains are ridiculous and laughable. Is it meant to be a bribe or you getting desperate for reasons to give them?

Dont insult real democracies, India is nothing but a Brahmin dictatorship. If anything opposes the Hindu majority, you get the Sikh massacres of 1984 and the Muslim massacres of 2001. Not to mention the other massacres in Assam, Manipur and Mao.
India holding on to Kashmir just shows that Indians dont consider Kashmiris as human beings. What kind of selfishness does it take to allow such suffering just for self satisfaction?


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Kashmiris have democracy within the dominion of India. They can fully exert their Kashmiri culture, identity, religion and values within Kashmir and elect their leaders freely and fairly.



Whether Kashmiris can exert their culture is not the case. The question is do they want to be a part of India, and the answer is no they do not. Is not the tenet of democracy to let the people decide? In that case, why is India so much against democracy and letting the people decide? 



> They don't have a legal case for separation.



Nonsense. The legal case for the separation of Kashmir is very strong, as per holding a plebiscite in which they can choose either India or Pakistan. UN resolutions do not vanish after a time or something. 



> International law? I"m sure India is following international law to its fullest extent.



Not the binding chapter 6 resolutions. 



> UN resolution will never be implemented because Musharraf and GOI won't let it happen.



Nonsense Musharraf wants the UN resolutions implemented, GoI does not. It's pretty obvious. Pakistan will win any referendum in Kashmir, GoI will lose. Look where all the fighting is as proof. And if you still don't believe it, hold the plebiscite, or at least support it, since you are so confident of winning it. 



> I have said so many times on this forum. It was a one time solution whos time has passed.



Nonsense again. UN resolutions do not fade with time. They remain. The solution of demilitarization under the UNGOMIP (or whatever it is now), is a solution that still exists. Pakistan agrees to demilitarization. India avoids it by saying that Kashmir is an integral part of India and so the issue is not important.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

> Nonsense Musharraf wants the UN resolutions implemented, GoI does not. It's pretty obvious. Pakistan will win any referendum in Kashmir, GoI will lose. Look where all the fighting is as proof. And if you still don't believe it, hold the plebiscite, or at least support it, since you are so confident of winning it.



Read the following article: I daresay you will find it interesting:

*News Today - An English evening daily published from Chennai*

Another one:

*http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EFDE143FF93AA25751C1A9659C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/U/United%20Nations*

So, I am focussing on the Musharraf not wanting Plebiscite argument and ignoring the rants against brahmin dominated oppresive India.

Whats your say on those articles? Do you still think Musharraf wants plebiscite?


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Read the following article: I daresay you will find it interesting:
> 
> *News Today - An English evening daily published from Chennai*
> 
> Another one:
> 
> *Pakistan May Relent on Kashmir Demand - New York Times*
> 
> So, I am focussing on the Musharraf not wanting Plebiscite argument and ignoring the rants against brahmin dominated oppresive India.
> 
> Whats your say on those articles? Do you still think Musharraf wants plebiscite?



Look, Musharraf is being flexible on Kashmir. He knows (as we all do), that India will never implement the UN resolutions, because it will lose Kashmir. He is trying to find another route. But Musharraf is not trying to avoid plebiscite like you put it. It's a spin that one can see right through. If you want it to work, then you have to convince people that Pakistan will lose Kashmir in a plebiscite. Every person with the slightest knowledge of Kashmir, knows that out of a choice between India and Pakistan, the majority of Kashmiris will vote to join Pakistan. Therefore, why would Musharraf be against such a plebiscite? Use some logic please. The reasons why India is against plebiscite are as clear as crystal.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

> Salim your arguments are baseless. Kashmiris are being treated like Prisoners, for one they have half the Indian army at their doors, raping, killing and taking away there freedom. You are basically accepting that they shouldnt have any rights as long as they dont want to be a part of India. What a choice.



So what you state is the Gospel Truth and the Sermon from the Mount, right?


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

roadrunner said:


> Look, Musharraf is being flexible on Kashmir. He knows (as we all do), that India will never implement the UN resolutions, because it will lose Kashmir. He is trying to find another route. But Musharraf is not trying to avoid plebiscite like you put it. It's a spin that one can see right through. If you want it to work, then you have to convince people that Pakistan will lose Kashmir in a plebiscite. Every person with the slightest knowledge of Kashmir, knows that out of a choice between India and Pakistan, the majority of Kashmiris will vote to join Pakistan. Therefore, why would Musharraf be against such a plebiscite? Use some logic please. The reasons why India is against plebiscite are as clear as crystal.



So every person with the slightest knowledge of Kashmir knows that they will vote for Pakistan?

Really?

Ask the Shias for a start.

Islam alone is not the factor since you seem to be basing your "knowing the slightest of Kashmir" on that.

I am afraid they (the Shias) are well aware of the way Sunnis are being planted in Northern Kashmir and Northern Areas to change the demographic balance and they are not the slightest amused!

The problem with you all is that you do not consider the Shias at all. Even there is a Pakistani Parliamentarian who has the audacity to repeatedly demand in Parliament that Shias be declared as Kaffirs like the Ahmediyas!


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Look, Musharraf is being flexible on Kashmir. He knows (as we all do), that India will never implement the UN resolutions, because it will lose Kashmir. He is trying to find another route. But Musharraf is not trying to avoid plebiscite like you put it. It's a spin that one can see right through. If you want it to work, then you have to convince people that Pakistan will lose Kashmir in a plebiscite. Every person with the slightest knowledge of Kashmir, knows that out of a choice between India and Pakistan, the majority of Kashmiris will vote to join Pakistan. Therefore, why would Musharraf be against such a plebiscite? Use some logic please. The reasons why India is against plebiscite are as clear as crystal.



Well, what I don't understand is, if Musharraf is sincere in his demand for a free kashmir, why isn't he unilaterally giving "Azad" kashmir its azadi.

India, as you say, is quite clear on the issue. No plebiscite and no separation for Kashmr. India is evil and oppressive. Fine. I'll let that pass just to narrow down the argument.

But Musharraf is being the hero here, according to you. So why not be a true hero and grant AK independence unilaterally? It will put tremendous international pressure on India if he does so.

If Pakistan is so sure that people of AK are on their side, then why rig elections? Why bar pro-azadi candidates from contesting? Why not allow the media in? Sincerety is measured by actions, not words.

Again, its you who is putting a twist on words. The Kashmiris will have 3 choices, not 2. They will have the choice of separation also. So why ignore that choice? Why assume that kashmiris will vote for pakistan?

I"m sure seeing the situation in Pakistan right now, no sane group of people will want to become a part of it, unless they have been brainwashed. Reports coming out of the valley indicate that pro-Pakistanis are realizing the folly of fighting to join Pakistan, seeing the current situation there. They are thinking practically and looking to better their lives.


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> Salim your arguments are baseless. Kashmiris *are* being treated like Prisoners, for one they have half the Indian army at their doors, raping, killing and taking away there freedom. You are basically accepting that they shouldnt have any rights as long as they dont want to be a part of India. What a choice.



They have all the rights until they take up arms against the state or spread 
separatist propaganda.
When they do, they are arrested for anti-national activities. 


Tell me one place in Pakistan where the same laws are not applied.




> Ok, that would mean there is no democracy for the vast majority of Kashmiris, so they are prisoners. So much for the integral part.



The vast majority of Kashmiris are peaceful. They successfully held fair elections last year, as the whole world acknowledges.

The people who resort to violent means are treated as criminals, and that is anything but unfair. 



> I know a lot of Kashmiris and I can tell you right now that 99% of Muslim Kashmiris will either vote for complete Independence or join Pakistan. I have never come across a single Muslim Kashmiri in person who wanted to be a part of India. Indian claims that Kashmiris will change their minds when they see the economic gains are ridiculous and laughable. Is it meant to be a bribe or you getting desperate for reasons to give them?



Don't be stupid and call the chance to lead a comfortable life a bribe. Live doesn't revolve around religion. People need to feed their families as well. 

I really don't understand the hypocritical mindset of people like you.

Its called being practical and thinking with your brain and not your backside.

Separatist movements arise mainly due to unemployment and poverty, and if taken care of, people can lead decent lives and become a part of mainstream society.
The times of imperialism are over. In modern times, everyone is free to choose their vocation and their way of life, including Kashmiris. 

Isn't that why the Gwadar port is being built in Balochistan? To integrate the tribals with mainstream?

Also, I wonder how many thousand kashmiris you have met in your life.




> Dont insult real democracies, India is nothing but a Brahmin dictatorship. If anything opposes the Hindu majority, you get the Sikh massacres of 1984 and the Muslim massacres of 2001. Not to mention the other massacres in Assam, Manipur and Mao.
> India holding on to Kashmir just shows that Indians dont consider Kashmiris as human beings. What kind of selfishness does it take to allow such suffering just for self satisfaction?



Right, I am ignoring the ranting against India here also, kindly desist from hate speech and such irresponsible comments. Also kindly look at what Pakistan is doing before calling India an evil hindu country.


----------



## UnitedPak

Are you denying that a massacre took place, or just labelling it "a rant" because you have no argument.
And from what I just read, you have no understanding of Kashmir or Islam if you think the violent uprising in Kashmir was caused by poverty. Jesus...


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> Well, what I don't understand is, if Musharraf is sincere in his demand for a free kashmir, why isn't he unilaterally giving "Azad" kashmir its azadi.
> 
> India, as you say, is quite clear on the issue. No plebiscite and no separation for Kashmr. India is evil and oppressive. Fine. I'll let that pass just to narrow down the argument.



Oh of course, and let India pull another Siachen. India's official position still is "Integral part of India", what does that imply to you, with respect to India's actions, were Pakistan to pull out? But does this point really need elaborating? 




> I"m sure seeing the situation in Pakistan right now, no sane group of people will want to become a part of it, unless they have been brainwashed.



All the less reason for India to have any qualms about allowing a plebiscite.



> Reports coming out of the valley indicate that pro-Pakistanis are realizing the folly of fighting to join Pakistan, seeing the current situation there. They are thinking practically and looking to better their lives.



Ah yes.. the reports based on "Indian Intel".


----------



## vish

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Not really - the arguments RR laid out in the first few posts, with references and highlights and the correspondence from UN officials was quite clear as to where blame was being assigned, and how the demilitarization was to take place, which is not how Indians paint it.
> 
> If you have rebuttals to the points raised in those firs posts, please do so in that thread, rather than just grandstanding that 'the thread was inconclusive'.



No its not. I disagree; the forces were never removed. Only after the forces from your side were to be removed, were we to go back.

These resolutions also had demographic constraints (which have been violated by the GoP and the separatists) and were binding for the entire state (and not just the Valley).

Plus, why does everyone ignore that Pakistan has separated Gilgit and Baltistan from the erstwhile state and these are now forever in Pakistan? Why overlook the territory China has occupied? What about the region "transferred" to the PRC?

And as far as my conclusion goes... I'll stand by it.

These resolutions are now outdated and no longer hold any ground.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

vish said:


> No its not. I disagree; the forces were never removed. Only after the forces from your side were to be removed, were we to go back.


Then you haven't read the posts properly. 

The resolutions specifically says "while being withdrawn", and the next post clearly points out where India was considered guilty. Please specifically point out where RR's argument is wrong, referencing his posts, instead of just typing an opinion saying that he is wrong.



> These resolutions also had demographic constraints (which have been violated by the GoP and the separatists) and were binding for the entire state (and not just the Valley).
> 
> Plus, why does everyone ignore that Pakistan has separated Gilgit and Baltistan from the erstwhile state and these are now forever in Pakistan? Why overlook the territory China has occupied? What about the region "transferred" to the PRC?


But India never even brought that up with Pakistan, that she woudl only implement the resolutions if NA's and AC were included into the mix, instead she just refused, and she refused before any demographic changes were large enough to have any impact - so that argument does not fly.


> These resolutions are now outdated and no longer hold any ground.


Unless you can show that the resolutions had a time limit they are not outdated - that India considers them so because it does not want the people of the region to decide their fate is obvious, but it does not reduce their legitimacy, nor that of the condition of a plebiscite built into the Instrument of Accession.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

vish said:


> No its not. I disagree; the forces were never removed. Only after the forces from your side were to be removed, were we to go back.



AM is right. You're trolling. This has been made so clear in many many posts in this thread. Pakistani forces did not have to be completely removed. They only had to start withdrawing. Then UNCIP would ask India to agree to reducing its troop numbers. That was the sequence of events that was supposed to occur. The break in the chain occurred when India did not agree to reduce its troop number down to 18,000, instead insisting on 24,000 at least (Pakistan had agreed to reducing down to 6,000) 24,000 : 6,000 is a 4:1 ratio.. 

Here is the resolution in question that says Pakistani troops did not have to withdraw completely before India had agreed to reduce its troop numbers. The phrase "are being" means the Pakistani troops did not have to evacuate the region, they just needed to start the withdrawal. 

Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948.
(Document No.1100, Para. 75, dated the 9th November, 1948).

(1) 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 itstroops from that State. CHECK - Pakistan agreed 

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from theState of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident thereinwho have entered the State for the purpose of fighting. CHECK - Pakistan tried

(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission. - CHECK - Pakistan awaited the following 

When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani 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 Pakistani forces *are being* withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.- CHECK - "are being withdrawn", when Pakistani troops ARE BEING withdrawn, then India must agree to reduce its troops.  



> These resolutions also had demographic constraints (which have been violated by the GoP and the separatists) and were binding for the entire state (and not just the Valley).



What demographic constraints? If you mean that the number of Hindus has decreased since 1947, then you're wrong. The number of Hindus have increased in Kashmir since 1947, and the number of Muslims has decreased. 



> Plus, why does everyone ignore that Pakistan has separated Gilgit and Baltistan from the erstwhile state and these are now forever in Pakistan? Why overlook the territory China has occupied? What about the region "transferred" to the PRC?
> 
> And as far as my conclusion goes... I'll stand by it.
> 
> These resolutions are now outdated and no longer hold any ground.



The UN resolutions do not have an expiry date. They remain until a conflict is resolved.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Excerpts from an article detailing some of Nehru's positions on Kashmir, and how he had unilaterally determined that no referendum woudl be held in Kashmir. This in my opinion validates the assertions made at the beginning of the thread that India was to blame for the lack of implementation of the UNSC resolutions, since Nehru quite clearly did not want to do so:

--------------------------
Against this background, Nehru's letter to Bakshi on the 1957 Assembly elections tells us a lot. He condoned a wrong and licensed it for the future. Polling was held on March 25 in Jammu and on March 30 in the Valley. Bakshi invited him to visit Jammu for electioneering and mentioned, tongue in cheek, there would be only eight contests in the Valley because many of the candidates opposing the N.C. were eliminated owing to omissions in the nomination papers. Nehru sent a very Nehruvian reply on March 10: "I agree with you that it was very unfortunate that nearly all the opposition candidates in Kashmir proper had been practically eliminated even before polling," adding revealingly: "This has had a bad effect in other countries." How very "unfortunate", indeed. On March 17, he issued an appeal to the electorate to vote for the N.C.'s candidates.

The same style was in play on adherence to the pledge to hold a plebiscite. Nehru wrote to Bakshi on March 13, 1957:* "Perhaps, you have noticed that at no time have I said that under no circumstances will there be a plebiscite. What I have said is that a plebiscite is not a feasible proposition after all that has happened, and that Pakistan has not fulfilled the conditions necessary for it. When I have been asked if we will be agreeable to a plebiscite if every condition was fulfilled, my answer has been that this is a hypothetical question which can only be considered when such a situation arises.

"I know that you and Pantji and some others have often said that there can never be a plebiscite in Jammu & Kashmir State. I think that that kind of a statement is not helpful at present, certainly from the point of view of people in the outside world, though it may be helpful in Kashmir." Do what you will inside Kashmir but be smart enough to cover up for "the outside world"*.* Union Home Minister G.B. Pant could not have ruled out plebiscite in Srinagar on July 7, 1955 without Nehru's prior approval.*

On April 2, 1956, he himself had made statements at a press conference, which suggested that he had, indeed, ruled out a plebiscite. A question was put to him: *"An inference has been drawn that you do not want now any plebiscite to be held in Kashmir. Is it correct?" Nehru replied: "Largely so; I shall explain myself. What I have said was that we have tried and discussed the question of plebiscite for six or seven years, but the preconditions have not been fulfilled. Meanwhile, other things have taken place, like the military aid etc., which have increased tremendously the difficulties of this problem. It is not that I am not willing to discuss this problem still further. But as a practical person I say this leads to a blind alley. We have, therefore, to discuss it from another point of view in regard to conditions that have arisen now and try to come to an agreement."*

Offer of a settlement on the basis of the ceasefire line was the logical corollary. Nehru made this offer while addressing a public meeting in New Delhi on April 18, 1956. *"I am willing to accept that the question of the part of Kashmir which is under you should be settled by demarcating the border on the basis of the present ceasefire line. We have no desire to take it by fighting."
*
The volume contains Nehru's notes on his talks with the last U.N. mediator on Kashmir, Gunnar Jarring, on March 26, April 6 and 8, 1957. Ahead of that, a note to the Commonwealth Secretary on March 19, 1957 summed up his policy. The Prime Minister of Pakistan Feroz Khan Noor "is a bumptuous bounder". This was very true. Not so the claim that "we have carried out every commitment that we have made". The policy he had adopted was set out in explicit terms: "We do not propose to make any proposals or suggestions except on the basis of Pakistan vacating the aggression." Talks with Jarring were doomed to failure.
---------------------------------
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2315/stories/20060811000507900.htm


----------



## Halaku Khan

roadrunner said:


> When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani 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 Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.-



This is interesting. So the UN Commission has to notify India of two things:

(1) That the "tribesmen and Pakistani nationals" have withdrawn
(2) That the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn.

Once this is done, then the Government of India agrees to begin withdrawal of most (but not all) of its troops, in stages, as agreed between India and the UN Commission. 

Since the UN Commission never gave this notification to the Government of India, India cannot be held responsible for blocking the implementation.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Halaku Khan said:


> This is interesting. So the UN Commission has to notify India of two things:
> 
> (1) That the "tribesmen and Pakistani nationals" have withdrawn
> (2) That the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn.
> 
> Once this is done, then the Government of India agrees to begin withdrawal of most (but not all) of its troops, in stages, as agreed between India and the UN Commission.
> 
> Since the UN Commission never gave this notification to the Government of India, India cannot be held responsible for blocking the implementation.



Not true, at least per the words of the UNCIP official quoted here:



> Sir Owen Dixon, Head of the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), in his report to the Security Council on 15 September 1950. He stated that, &#8220;in the end I became convinced that India&#8217;s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of plebiscite of such character, as would in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled."



The official would have had to have entered into negotiations and contact with Indian authorities before he could come to a conclusion that Indian agreement would not be obtained.


----------



## Halaku Khan

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Not true, at least per the words of the UNCIP official quoted here:
> 
> The official would have had to have entered into negotiations and contact with Indian authorities before he could come to a conclusion that Indian agreement would not be obtained.




One would have to read the full report of the said UN official to see what he has to say about Pakistan. One would also have to look into the said official's neutrality. 

In any case the official is giving his opinion about a hypothetical scenario about what might happen after Pakistan withdrew its tribesmen and nationals, and began withdrawing its forces - which are conditions that Pakistan never complied with in the first place.

Anyway, the UN resolutions are quite impractical today for various reasons - demographic tampering in the Northern areas, impossibility of handing over Hindu and Buddhist areas to an Islamic nation, and so on. 

So this discussion is basically academic.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Halaku Khan said:


> One would have to read the full report of the said UN official to see what he has to say about Pakistan. One would also have to look into the said official's neutrality.
> 
> In any case the official is giving his opinion about a hypothetical scenario about what might happen after Pakistan withdrew its tribesmen and nationals, and began withdrawing its forces - which are conditions that Pakistan never complied with in the first place.
> 
> Anyway, the UN resolutions are quite impractical today for various reasons - demographic tampering in the Northern areas, impossibility of handing over Hindu and Buddhist areas to an Islamic nation, and so on.
> 
> So this discussion is basically academic.


Not at all - if any of the reasosn you have articulated are valid, then the way to render the resolutions obsolete is to go back to the UNSC and make that case and ask for fresh resolutions. Until then these resolutions stand.

On the issues of 'neutrality and complete report' feel free to find what you can and post it. We have made the case from the Pakistani side, if you wish to counter it you need to provide sources to back up what you said. Otherwise I see no reason to suspect the officials neutrality. His comments on suspecting Indian intentions are backed up by Nehru's own comments on not holding a referendum.

As I said in the other thread, what is important is the principle of self-determination. This could be implemented in K Valley and AK alone, among various other possibilities, with J&L and NA's retaining the status quo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halaku Khan

On one hand we have the indisputable failure of the Pakistani side to honour its commitments. On the other side all we have is speculation as to what India would have done had Pakistan actually honoured its commitments. 

In any case the UN resolutions are dead. If blame is to be assigned, then the blame goes to Pakistan.




AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Not at all - if any of the reasosn you have articulated are valid, then the way to render the resolutions obsolete is to go back to the UNSC and make that case and ask for fresh resolutions. Until then these resolutions stand.



No - Pakistan and India have specifically agreed in the Simla agreement to solve the Kashmir problem (and in fact all problems) bilaterally. So there is no question of involving any other party, including the UN. 

As you have mentioned in this post, the Simla agreement states that the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.

The mutual agreement by Pakistan and India that the Kashmir dispute be resolved bilaterally does not in any way contradict the UN Charter.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> As I said in the other thread, what is important is the principle of self-determination. This could be implemented in K Valley and AK alone, among various other possibilities, with J&L and NA's retaining the status quo.



In any final settlement, Pakistan will have to give the same treatment to the Northern areas as India gives to the valley.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## haviZsultan

*Indian attrocities in Kashmir:*



> Presently, the situation in Kashmir, according to international organiasations & global media has not changed yet very much. It is still alarming and sparking flames in South Asia, that more then seven hundred thousand Indian army deployed in a small 40 -80 square miles area is the heaviest concentration in human history, and its all without any moral, political and legal code. 92 thousand Kashmiris have been killed by the Indian army in 17 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Since January 1989 to April 30, 2007:
> 
> 
> 
> Total killing. 91,865
> 
> 
> Custodial Killing 6,899
> 
> 
> Women gang raped
> 
> 
> & Molested 9,708
> 
> 
> Civilian arrested 113,798
> 
> 
> Structures arsoned /
> 
> 
> Destroyed 105,353
> 
> 
> Children orphaned 106,930
> 
> 
> Women widowed 22,530
> 
> 
> 
> The International NGO's Amnesty International, Human rights watch, Asia watch, Red Cross, Medicine sans frontier and others are not allowed to visit Kashmir. Torture is widespread, particularly in the temporary detention centres; methods of torture include electric shock, prolonged beatings and sexual molestation of innocent women.
> 
> 
> Kashmir is a disputed territory. Presently, the ceasefire line between the forces of India and Pakistan has divided Kashmir into two parts. One part is under Indian occupation: this comprises 63% of the whole territory and includes the Vale; it has a population 7.5 million. The other part, with approximately 3 million people, includes Azad Kashmir and the Northern region of Gilgit and Baltistan and is administered by Pakistan. About 1.5 million Kashmiris are refugees in Pakistan, some 400,000 live in Britain, and about 250,000 are scattered around the world. The present arbitrary bifurcation of Kashmir has resulted in the division of thousands of Kashmiri families.
> 
> 
> Kashmiris living there have no life safety and human honour. Women are degraded and humiliated, almost 10 thousands women are raped; not only adult women but even eight year old girls are victimised.
> 
> 
> Since the Indian government crackdown against Kashmiris in the disputed territory of Kashmir began in earnest in January 1990, security forces and Indian army have used rape as a weapon: to punish, intimidate, coerce, humiliate and degrade. Rape by Indian security forces most often occurs during crackdowns, cordon-and-search operations during which men are held for identification in parks or schoolyards while security forces search their homes. In these situations, the security forces frequently engage in collective punishment against the civilian population by assaulting residents and burning their homes. Rape is used as a means of targeting women to punish and humiliate the entire community. Rape has also occurred frequently during reprisal attacks on civilians. In many of these attacks, the selection of victims is seemingly arbitrary and the women, like other civilians assaulted or killed, are targeted simply because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Women who are the victims of rape are often stigmatised, and their testimony and integrity impugned. Social attitudes which cast the woman, and not her attacker, as the guilty party pervade the judiciary, making rape cases difficult to prosecute and leaving women unwilling to press charges.
> 
> 
> Government authorities have failed to bring the culprits on record. The normal trend of the Government during these years is to hide the atrocities committed by the Indian armed and paramilitary forces in order to dodge the Amnesty International and the world Human Rights Organization.
> 
> 
> Various NGOs and human rights organisations are working for feminism and other civil & social rights, but in my opinion no satisfied work regarding Kashmiri women's safety and modesty. Women and Children are the victim of the worst human rights violations in this area of armed conflicts and ethnic war. It is crystal clear that sexual violence, which was used to subjugate and destroy a people as a form of ethnic cleansing, was an abhorrent and heinous war crime. These persistent and gross abuses, flagrant denials of the human rights of women and their right to life itself, demanded an urgent response from international human rights bodies.
> 
> 
> According to data maintained by a media portal of United Kingdom (UK) on reported cases of rape and molestation in which security forces were allegedly involved, nearly 500 women were raped in various parts of Jammu and Kashmir between1990-1994. Media portal maintains that it has compiled the reports from what was reported by state media. The portal maintains that non-governmental organisations (NGO) hardly took interest in documenting the plight of these silent sufferers of Jammu and Kashmir.
> 
> 
> According to a 1994 United Nations publication from 1990 to 1996, 882 women were reportedly gang-raped by security forces in Jammu and Kashmir. But Social Stigma associated with word "Rape" has made work of human rights and women NGOs cumbersome. They say that women are reluctant to come forward. Extra Judicial killings, rapes, custodial killings, kidnappings, burning of houses by Indian security forces within IHK remain a common practice. The whole IHK has risen against the Indian Army and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act AFSPA and POTA that enables the Indian Army to arrest and kill anyone, anytime, anywhere, in a bid to suppress the ongoing Kashmir liberation movement, the Indian authorities have laid a network of torture cells to practice human rights violations. In these torture cells, the worst repressive means such as electric shocks, ironing of sensitive parts of body, are practised against the innocent Kashmiris without caring for the age and health conditions. Besides, the female folk are also taken to these centres where they are reportedly gang-raped for protesting against the Indian brutalities or filing complaints against terrorising of their near and dear ones.
> 
> 
> This poverty struck women have nothing to feed their children. Their husbands went missing and they could not even wail over their missing husbands.1000 widows, whose husbands have disappeared but not been proven dead. Their children were killed in front of their eyes and yet they are doing rounds of the government offices to prove that their children were killed in cold blood. The dreaded attack by soldiers and an assault on their honour and body remains in the minds of every woman in Kashmir. The young widows and teenaged orphan girls are facing more problems due to their youth as they are always at danger of getting molested or raped. It is matter of concern that most of the married women face the problem of miscarriages, which is one of the fastest growing problem in the rural and border areas of Kashmir.
> 
> 
> These happenings are not confined to Muslims. In the last 16 years the women of Kashmir have had to bear male vengeance in silence and they have been unable to find spare to transcend that. Estimates given by various organisations place widowS between 30 000 to 40 000 and Orphans between 50 000 to 80 000.the raped women are doubly victimised and have to live the rest of their carrying to stamp of stigma in silence."
> 
> 
> The peace process began three years ago between India and Pakistan on Kashmir, and there has been dozens of talks for 60 years, three wars in 1947, 1965 and 1971, thousands of innocent peoples from both sides have been killed. But the end is no where in sight. The United Nations had 6 resolutions passed time to time but justice, and implementation of these resolutions have been delayed.
> 
> 
> It is imperative that the United Nations, European Union and Organisation of Islamic Conference and other powers to start the negotiation and mediation with Kashmiri leadership and influential organisations from both sides of Kashmir. Because both countries Pakistan and India have got nuclear capacity because of Kashmir. Political pundits predict cloud of nuclear war is seeing on sky of South Asia clearly. In these difficult circumstances, this dress code edict is simply misplaced, if not a deliberately planted red herring. More pain for the Kashmiri women, thousands of whom have already lost their husbands, sons and loved ones to the bullets and atrocities of the marauding Indian soldiers and many of whom have also fallen victim to sexual defilement.
> 
> 
> The European parliament has adopted MEP Emma Nicholson report titled "Kashmir; Present situation and future prospects" on May 25, 2007, by an overwhelming 522 votes in favour to 19 votes against. The report recognised Kashmiris right to self-determination, deploring massive human rights abuses in Jammu & Kashmir, encouraging the Peace process between India and Pakistan and emphasising inclusion of Kashmiris in the Peace process. The Amnesty International released a latest Global report 2007 said in that there is many violence, torture, custodial deaths enforced disappearances and extra-judicial executions continued in Jammu & Kashmir in the year 2006.
> 
> 
> Rape in war is not merely a matter of chance nor is it a question of sex. It is rather a question of power and control which is `structured by male soldiers' notions of their masculine privilege. Kashmir is rising flame, which is increasing speedily. If United Nations, European Union and other world wide NGO's do not succeeded in finding an acceptable solution with the participation of kashmiris, it will cause disaster for this part of South Asia. World powers and Global Institutions need to understand this burning issue.
> 
> 
> The people of Kashmir demand an end to the military occupation of their land. Because they demand what they have been pledged by both India and Pakistan and guaranteed by the United Nations Security Council with the unequivocal endorsement of the United States, demilitrisation of Kashmir and a free plebiscite vote organised impartially.
> 
> 
> Every Kashmiri is waiting anxiously for somebody to help attain freedom for them. I am a women so I understand feelings and emotions, inner voice of every Kashmiri woman.
> 
> 
> 
> Farhat Jabeen is Student of PhD



HR Kashmir: Rape of Kashmiri women and the South Asia


----------



## haviZsultan

*A team of doctors who performed autopsy of Maqbool at Charari Sharif Hospital on Saturday told Greater Kashmir that &#8220;he died due to cardiac arrest caused by extensive torture and multiple burns. His private parts had been damaged.&#8221;*

*Quoting Ritu Dewan, a professor at Mumbai University who studied the impact of presence of troops in Kashmir pointed out, "Women face other milder forms of sexual violence like eve teasing and molestation. Next to girls schools and hostels, there are camps of troops and the result is continuous sexual harassment, passing of comments, molestation, snatching of dupattas, pulling away of burqas, singing cheap filmi songs, taunting, teasing, obscene gestures etc." Shekhawat said because of these, young women become more burdened by the pressures of patriarchal scrutiny, whereby their freedom of mobility gets largely curtailed. *

*&#8220;I pleaded before the troopers that I am expecting a baby and have to immediately reach the hospital. But they hit my stomach and private parts with rifle ***** and batons. I helplessly cried for mercy but they continued to thrash me. Finally I started to bleed profusely and fell unconscious,&#8221; she said and broke down.
*


Baby, Delivery, Freedom, Gujrat, Hospital, HR Abuses, Independence, India, Indian Army, Kashmir, Oppression, Torture
Gujrat In Kashmir
In Human Rights, Kashmir on 29 August, 2008 at 5:48 pm

&#8220;I pleaded before the troopers that I am expecting a baby and have to immediately reach the hospital. But they hit my stomach and private parts with rifle ***** and batons. I helplessly cried for mercy but they continued to thrash me. Finally I started to bleed profusely and fell unconscious,&#8221; she said and broke down.

Source Greater Kashmir

What can you say about a woman eight months pregnant who begged to be spared. Her assailants instead slit open her stomach, pulled out her fetus and slaughtered it before her eyes.

Source Boloji

But this then is the character of the Nation called India, it matters not whether the assailants are wearing government approved uniforms or not, they have the approval from the corridors of power. Be it the blue turbaned Manmohan Singh or the poet Atal Behari.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## haviZsultan

*:. Latest study says 66&#37; Kashmiris tortured



Srinagar, Oct 16: An international organisation research on the Kashmir conflict has reported that 85 per cent of Valley population have confrontation with the violence while 66 percent have witnessed torture. 

The research was conducted in two districts across 30 villages from the last three months and those occurring since the start of the conflict by the web portal Online Portal - Covering Headlines, Business, Family, Entertainment, Webmastering and much more. - 7thSpace Interactive, to assess experiences with violence and mental health status among the conflict-affected Kashmiri population.

The survey reported that the civilian population in Kashmir is exposed to high levels of violence, as demonstrated by the high frequency of deliberate events as detention, hostage, and torture.

Respondents reported frequent direct confrontations with violence since the start of conflict, including exposure to crossfire (85.7%), round up raids (82.7%), the witnessing of torture (66.9%), rape (13.3%), and self-experience of forced labour (33.7%), arrests/kidnapping (16.9%), torture (12.9%), and sexual violence (11.6%).

The male population has reported more confrontations with violence than females, and had an increased likelihood of having directly experienced physical/mental maltreatment, violation of their modesty, and injury. Males also had high odds of self-being arrested/ kidnap. The portal&#8217;s survey found that Kashmiri male population reported significantly more confrontations with almost all violent events; this can be explained by higher participation in outdoor activities. The reported violence may result in substantial health, including mental health problems, the survey noted.

The survey found high levels of psychological distress that impacts on daily life and places a burden on the health system. Ongoing feelings of personal vulnerability (not feeling safe) were associated with high levels of psychological distress.

Over one-third of respondents were found to have symptoms of psychological distress, women scored significantly higher. A third of respondents had contemplated suicide.

Community mental health programmes should be considered as a way reduce the pressure on the health system and improve socio-economic functioning of those suffering from mental health problems.

The ongoing conflict exacts a huge toll on the communities' mental well-being, writes the portal.

The survey was done as part of routine programme evaluation to assess confrontation with violence and its consequences on mental health, health service usage, and socio-economic functioning.

[Rising Kashmir]

[KW Note: Jammu and Kashmir is the U.N. recognized disputed state under the illegal occupation of India since 1947.

Since 1988, the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir has been hit by confrontation between Kashmiri Freedom Fighters and the Indian Military, which has resulted in more than One hundred thousand of deaths. Unofficial sources put the number of Indian troops deployed in the state to seven hundred thousand.

According to Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) an estimated 8 to 10 thousand persons have become victims of Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance (EID).



&#8220;The Indian Kashmir has witnessed one of the biggest ever anti-India and pro-freedom marches in the recent past. According to estimates 1.8 million people participated in one of the freedom marches organized by the separatist leadership,&#8221; American Chronicle reports in a news story.]*

http://www.kashmirwatch.com/showhea...chive=&start_from=&ucat=1&var0news=value0news


----------



## haviZsultan

I am just here to congratulate the Indians on their great achievements in Kashmir. What Indians have done for Kashmir I doubt all the world put together can do for it, dont you think so?

Gang rape (20-30 soldiers rape 1 woman), torture, tearing pregnant womens stomachs and killing unborn children, torturing people, arresting without reason, seizure of property, killing and genocide... 

I mean this is obviously something to be proud of is it not? Some great achievements back there. 

Wow brilliant work back there... . 



Is there any INDIAN here who does not approve of these crimes and the occupation of Kashmir? I am just asking because its actually disloyalty to India is'nt it?


----------



## smeaglegolum

dimension117 said:


> I am just here to congratulate the Indians on their great achievements in Kashmir. What Indians have done for Kashmir I doubt all the world put together can do for it, dont you think so?
> 
> Gang rape (20-30 soldiers rape 1 woman), torture, tearing pregnant womens stomachs and killing unborn children, torturing people, arresting without reason, seizure of property, killing and genocide...
> 
> I mean this is obviously something to be proud of is it not? Some great achievements back there.
> 
> Wow brilliant work back there... .
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any INDIAN here who does not approve of these crimes and the occupation of Kashmir? I am just asking because its actually disloyalty to India is'nt it?



You are simply exaggerating. You should also remember what you have done in E. Pakistan, a complete genocide, much worst than wtha is happened in kashmir. So don't open old wounds, just get going and think of present and future.


----------



## haviZsultan

smeaglegolum said:


> You are simply exaggerating. You should also remember what you have done in E. Pakistan, a complete genocide, much worst than wtha is happened in kashmir. So don't open old wounds, just get going and think of present and future.



Thread is about Kashmir. 

East Pakistan is here. Ask any bangladeshi and they will mention RAW quite a few times.

India doctrine was written by MBI Munshi about illegal RAW activities and brutality across the world. So internal genocide obviously exists jaisay Gujrat and Mumbai and Vadodra and etc. External genocide also exists where Indian agents are at work destabilising foreign lands. India has a huge gdp which can be spent on these heinous crimes and murder. 

680 million were handed down to taliban actually. Here:


> LAHORE, Pakistan*Three arrested members of a militant gang especially deputed by the so-called Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan have disclosed that RAW has been funding suicide bomb attacks in Pakistan and that the Indian agency has funneled PKR 680 million through its contacts in the NDS, the Afghan secret agency.*
> 
> The gang of three persons has brazenly admitted that they belong to a group of persons who had been deputed to destabilize democratic Pakistan in order to create a confrontation with the Pakistani military. They were told to carry out their activities under the pretext of enforcement of Shariah in the country.
> 
> Operators of the Federal Investigations Agency [FIA], a Pakistani intelligence agency, working beyond the call of their duty, came into contact with a source ready for a tip-off against a reward. The tip-off led to the arrest of Khurram Ishtiaq, Ghulam Mustafa and Shamim. The persons had been working under Qari Hussain, second-in-command to Baitullah Mehsud.
> 
> All of the three had been arrested on Aug. 13, 2008, while they were on the prowl for a target. The militants had been arrested red-handed as they possessed complete suicide kits, including two jackets and 70 kilogram of explosives and detonators.
> 
> The accused were hardened militants and took a lot of time to break and make confessions. They revealed that Qari Hussain had been working to help three adjutantsFarukh Usman alias Shahjee, Tayyab alias Baba; Ustad, the trainer to destabilize the elected government.
> 
> Qari Hussain, the leader, prepares suicide bombers and dispatches them throughout Pakistan. He also manages funds for the splinter groups from RAW which works in collusion with the Afghan intelligence agency NDS.
> 
> Farukh Usman works as Qaris deputy and runs the sub-setup to carry out attacks in Lahore and Punjab in general. He was the mastermind of suicide attacks on the FIA building, Naval War College, Model Town, Lahore High Court and PAF bus in Sargodha, investigations have revealed.
> 
> Tayyab alias Baba mainly deals with Rawalpindi/Islamabad. He was the man behind blasts at Aabpara Market and Marriott Hotel. The third person known only as Ustad is an expert at making bombs. He is said to be of Indian origin and he works with a vengeance. He is the man who leads suicide bombers to the marked site of the blast.
> 
> The investigation revealed that there are two sub-teams: three persons of one team work under Ustad. Two of the arrested personsShahmim Alam alias Sohail alias Kashif alias Uncle and Khurram Ishtiaq alias Ibrahimhave been active members of the TTP and worked under direct guidance of Ustad.
> 
> Shamim was the facilitator. His task was to distribute funds to suicide bombers at the behest of Qari Hussain and Tayyab alias Baba. Being educated and a well-dressed civilian-look-alike, he was assigned another important job of providing reconnaissance of the target area.
> 
> He possesses the canny ability of mixing up with urbanites. Khurram Ishtiaq alias Ibrahim is a well-trained militant. His job is to harbor suicide bombers at a secret venue until they are led to the area of operation to carry out the job. The third person of this setup, Sajid, is a resident of Ali Khel, Waziristan. It is not certain whether his services were utilized and in what way this was done.
> 
> Another team which works under Farrukh Usman alias Shahjee includes Bablu, Rehan, Ghulam Mustafa alias Asif (the third arrested person) and Abdul Rahim. Bablus assignment is to provide explosives at the nick of time when the suicide bombers have been finally prepared to perform the sacred feat.
> 
> Ghulam Mustafa and Abdul Rahim, both diehard terrorists, serve as guards in the rear ensure that none of perpetrators develop cold feet at the last minute and try to escape. In that case, there is only one choice left and that too leads the would-be perpetrator to heavens.
> 
> Former boss of the FIA, Tariq Lodhi, had recommended a reward and commendation for the team that arrested these terrorists. But sources say the FIA new chief, Shoaib Suddle, turned it down on the grounds that agency operators just did their job and no reward should be given for performing a duty.
> 
> The team members disclosed that they had arrested two prime targets during the government of former President Pervez Musharraf and both had a head money of $5 million each but the reward money was shared by two other premier spy agencies instead of passing some of the reward money to the individuals who had arrested them on their own initiative.
> 
> The team has long been working on the militants but they got the culprits apprehended through a middleman who was ready to divulge more but only if he was rewarded for the catch.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## smeaglegolum

This thread is about Kashmir Resolutions not about Kashmir atrocities. If you want to discuss open a new thread on it.


----------



## roadrunner

Alright, a bit of time for this. 



Halaku Khan said:


> On one hand we have the indisputable failure of the Pakistani side to honour its commitments. On the other side all we have is speculation as to what India would have done had Pakistan actually honoured its commitments.



Pakistan did not fail to honour its commitments. This has been proven to you through 1) the context of the UN resolution that showed the Pakistani forces did not have to withdraw in their entireity and 2) that Sir Owen Dixon stated that it was India that stalled the process. You have not produced one iota evidence that Pakistan stalled the process. Until you do, the statements, and the evidence that India had stalled the demilitarization process have been given. 



> In any case the UN resolutions are dead. If blame is to be assigned, then the blame goes to Pakistan.



UN resolutions do not cease to exist after 100 years. They cease to exist once a conflict is resolved, or when there is a bilateral agreement to change them - of which there has not been. 



> No - Pakistan and India have specifically agreed in the Simla agreement to solve the Kashmir problem (and in fact all problems) bilaterally. So there is no question of involving any other party, including the UN.



This is false. It is explicitly stated in paragraph 1 of the Simal Agreement that the UN Charter is to be followed. The exact text is here 

"That the principles and purposes off the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the countries" 



> As you have mentioned in this post, the Simla agreement states that the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.
> 
> The mutual agreement by Pakistan and India that the Kashmir dispute be resolved bilaterally does not in any way contradict the UN Charter.



This is false. Article 103 of the UN charter states: 

"In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, *their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail*." 

Simla Agreement is an international agreement. As the UN charter states, the UN resolutions take presidence over an international agreement when a conflict over that agreement arises - that has been the case in the Simla Accord since it has not worked. 



> In any final settlement, Pakistan will have to give the same treatment to the Northern areas as India gives to the valley.



The Northern Areas never were a part of Kashmir. They were forcibly annexed in the later years and added onto Kashmir. 

But I will agree they should be given the vote along with the Kashmir Valley on who they want to join.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halaku Khan

roadrunner said:


> Alright, a bit of time for this.
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan did not fail to honour its commitments. This has been proven to you through 1) the context of the UN resolution that showed the Pakistani forces did not have to withdraw in their entireity and 2) that Sir Owen Dixon stated that it was India that stalled the process. You have not produced one iota evidence that Pakistan stalled the process. Until you do, the statements, and the evidence that India had stalled the demilitarization process have been given.



Pakistani forces had to begin withdrawing, and the tribesmen had to be fully withdrawn and after that happened the UN was to provide a notification to India. 

Since Pakistani forces did not even begin withdrawing, Pakistan was in violation of its commitments.

Dixon's words are pure speculation as to what India would have done had Pakistan actually honored its commitments.




roadrunner said:


> UN resolutions do not cease to exist after 100 years. They cease to exist once a conflict is resolved, or when there is a bilateral agreement to change them - of which there has not been.



They remain on the books, yes. But any resolution becomes irrelevant when the context in which it was issued is no longer exists.



roadrunner said:


> This is false. It is explicitly stated in paragraph 1 of the Simal Agreement that the UN Charter is to be followed. The exact text is here
> 
> "That the principles and purposes off the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the countries"
> 
> 
> 
> This is false. Article 103 of the UN charter states:
> 
> "In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, *their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail*."
> 
> Simla Agreement is an international agreement. As the UN charter states, the UN resolutions take presidence over an international agreement when a conflict over that agreement arises - that has been the case in the Simla Accord since it has not worked.



The point is that there is no conflict between the UN Charter and the mutual agreement by Pakistan and India to resolve the Kashmir issue bilaterally. Nothing in the UN Charter forbids such a mutual agreement.




roadrunner said:


> The Northern Areas never were a part of Kashmir. They were forcibly annexed in the later years and added onto Kashmir.
> 
> But I will agree they should be given the vote along with the Kashmir Valley on who they want to join.



They were a part of the princely state of J&K, which is what matters. The native people of that area should be given the vote. Obviously any demographic tampering by Pakistan should not be rewarded.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## asaad-ul-islam

Halaku Khan, I think there's been a mistake, something's wrong with your flag. Please choose your appropriate flag. Also, I just wanted to say that I find your name interesting, Halaku Khan. I take it you are very emotional when it comes to muslims and islam?


----------



## roadrunner

Halaku Khan said:


> Pakistani forces had to begin withdrawing, and the tribesmen had to be fully withdrawn and after that happened the UN was to provide a notification to India.
> 
> Since Pakistani forces did not even begin withdrawing, Pakistan was in violation of its commitments.
> 
> Dixon's words are pure speculation as to what India would have done had Pakistan actually honored its commitments.



Do try and read this thread completely before posting stuff that has been answered already. ALL the tribesmen had withdrawn, and Pakistani forces had begun withdrawing. The proof of this was that the UN resolution from the previous year said that only when Pakistani forces had started withdrawing, AND the tribesmen had withdrawn, was India to be questioned about reducing itrs troop numbers in Kashmir. That questioning started. It's mentioned all in a previous post, which I'll post here. Do pay attention to the highlighted area where it says India was to be notified once Pakistan had fulfilled its obligations of reducing troop numbers and once all the tribesmen had withdrawn. 



Roadrunner said:


> And one of the common responses of Salim on UN resolutions "Pakistan had to withdraw all its troops from Kashmir as per resolution 47". Nonsense. Here's resolution 47 in the flesh.
> 
> Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948.
> (Document No.1100, Para. 75, dated the 9th November, 1948).
> 
> (1) 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 itstroops from that State. CHECK - Pakistan agreed
> 
> (2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from theState of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident thereinwho have entered the State for the purpose of fighting. CHECK - Pakistan tried
> 
> (3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission. - CHECK - Pakistan awaited the following
> 
> *When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani 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 Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission*.- CHECK - "are being withdrawn", when Pakistani troops ARE BEING withdrawn, then India must agree to reduce its troops.
> 
> But did it? Answer is next.
> 
> Onto 1952, and Pakistani troops were being withdrawn, now UNCIP *asks* India to reduce its troops as per resolution 47 above.
> 
> UN resolution 98 of 23RD December 1952
> 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 India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952
> 
> But oh no, did it agree to reduce its troops? Here are those words again
> UNCIP representative: "in the end I became convinced that India&#8217;s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of plebiscite of such character, as would in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled."
> UNCIP chief representative



And Dixon was the chief UN observer of UNCIP. He did not speculate. The commitment as per the resolutions was to engage talks with India only after the Pakistanis had fulfilled their half of the bargain. They did, and that is when UNCIP tried to get India to demilitarize, which it did not. 



> They remain on the books, yes. But any resolution becomes irrelevant when the context in which it was issued is no longer exists.



So the Kashmir conflict has ended? I think not. The context in which these resolutions were given were that the Kashmiris had not chosen who they wanted to join thrugh plebiscite. The same situation exists to this day. 



> The point is that there is no conflict between the UN Charter and the mutual bilateral agreement by Pakistan and India to resolve the Kashmir issue bilaterally. Nothing in the UN Charter forbids such a mutual agreement.



You've missed the point. Whilst nothing in the UN charter forbids a mutual agreement, article 103 of the UN charter states quite clearly that if a conflict arises between the two parties of a mutual agreement, then the UN resolutions shall prevail. You can look at it like the UN resolutions are dormant if the two parties can solve their problems with each other, but if they cannot then the UN resolutions are back. Since the Kashmir conflict has continued for another 4 decades, I think it's pretty safe to say that the two parties remain in conflict with each other. Pakistan has said that India is not serious to resolve these issues, and Article 103 is therefore invoked bringing back the UN resolutions, since there is a conflict in the mutual agreement. 



> They were a part of the princely state of J&K, which is what matters. The native people of that area should be given the vote. Obviously any demographic tampering by Pakistan should not be rewarded.



The people of the Northern Areas should be given a vote. I agree. 

I do not agree that Northern Areas were/are a part of Kashmir though. That territory was illegally annexed by Indian invaders just before Partition occurred.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Halaku Khan

roadrunner said:


> Do try and read this thread completely before posting stuff that has been answered already. ALL the tribesmen had withdrawn, and Pakistani forces had begun withdrawing. The proof of this was that the UN resolution from the previous year said that only when Pakistani forces had started withdrawing, AND the tribesmen had withdrawn, was India to be questioned about reducing itrs troop numbers in Kashmir.



Yes, I have read all that. As Pakistani forces withdrew, local authorities were to take charge. Please cite sources if you are claiming that tribesmen had fully withdrawn, that Pakistani forces had begun withdrawing, and that local authorities had started to take charge of the vacated areas. Which area was handed over to local authorities? 

Also, was there any official notification issued to India the tribesmen have fully withdrawn and that the Pakistanis have started withdrawing? Don't think so. So the ball was not in India's court. Dixon's attempt to blame India in this situation is suspect.





roadrunner said:


> So the Kashmir conflict has ended? I think not. The context in which these resolutions were given were that the Kashmiris had not chosen who they wanted to join thrugh plebiscite. The same situation exists to this day.



In this day and age, any solution which envisages Buddhist and Hindu areas being handed over to an Islamic republic is clearly out of question. That is why the UN resolutions have lost relevance, aside from demographic tampering in the Northern areas.



roadrunner said:


> You've missed the point. Whilst nothing in the UN charter forbids a mutual agreement, article 103 of the UN charter states quite clearly that if a conflict arises between the two parties of a mutual agreement, then the UN resolutions shall prevail. You can look at it like the UN resolutions are dormant if the two parties can solve their problems with each other, but if they cannot then the UN resolutions are back. Since the Kashmir conflict has continued for another 4 decades, I think it's pretty safe to say that the two parties remain in conflict with each other. Pakistan has said that India is not serious to resolve these issues, and Article 103 is therefore invoked bringing back the UN resolutions, since there is a conflict in the mutual agreement.



No that is not true - what you posted says that if there is any conflict between obligations as a result of a bilateral agreement, and obligations under the UN Charter, then the UN Charter will prevail. But here the obligations under the bilateral agreement do not violate the Charter. 




roadrunner said:


> The people of the Northern Areas should be given a vote. I agree.
> 
> I do not agree that Northern Areas were/are a part of Kashmir though. That territory was illegally annexed by Indian invaders just before Partition occurred.



Illegally annexed by Indian invaders just before 1947? That is not true - they had been part of the princely state for many years.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## roadrunner

I've answered the rest of this. You simply fail to accept it. I might answer it tomorrow if I get time. I'd rather focus on this for now. 



Halaku Khan said:


> No that is not true - what you posted says that if there is any conflict between obligations as a result of a bilateral agreement, and obligations under the UN Charter, then the UN Charter will prevail. But here the obligations under the bilateral agreement do not violate the Charter.



I should re-phrase what I wrote in reply to this. This is Article 103 of the UN Charter. 

_"In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail." _

So what does it mean? 

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of Pakistan and India under the UN charter and a mutual agreement, the obligations under the present Charter prevail. 

This is clear. IF Simla says that the UN resolutions which call for plebiscite are irrelevant, then this is a conflict in obligations. Therefore, Simla does not have the power to overrule the UN resolutions according to the UN charter, and so the UN resolutions still stand. 

Apologies for interpreting it wrong first time, but the conclusion is still the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halaku Khan

asaad-ul-islam said:


> Halaku Khan, I think there's been a mistake, something's wrong with your flag. Please choose your appropriate flag.


Ha Ha.

No nothing wrong with the flag. I scrupulously follow the UN Charter 



asaad-ul-islam said:


> Also, I just wanted to say that I find your name interesting, Halaku Khan.



Halaku was a great warrior wasn't he? Sort of like Ghori, Gaznavi et al. 



asaad-ul-islam said:


> I take it you are very emotional when it comes to muslims and islam?


Well, I endeavor to be clinical rather than emotional. I think the real conflicts are not physical conflicts between people but rather mental and psychological conflicts inside individuals.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Halaku Khan

roadrunner said:


> IF Simla says that the UN resolutions which call for plebiscite are irrelevant, then this is a conflict in obligations. Therefore, Simla does not have the power to overrule the UN resolutions according to the UN charter, and so the UN resolutions still stand.
> 
> Apologies for interpreting it wrong first time, but the conclusion is still the same.



The UN resolutions are indeed irrelevant, but that is not a result of the Simla agreement. They had lost relevance even before the Simla agreement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Halaku Khan said:


> The UN resolutions are indeed irrelevant, but that is not a result of the Simla agreement. They had lost relevance even before the Simla agreement.



The UN resolutions do not have a time limit. They exist until a conflict ends or their usage is changed through further overriding agreements, or that they become inapplicable as a situation changes. None of those has occurred. If it has do point it out. 

And the UN resolutions calling for plebiscite are very much still applicable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Halaku Khan

roadrunner said:


> The UN resolutions do not have a time limit. They exist until a conflict ends or their usage is changed through further overriding agreements, or that they become inapplicable as a situation changes. None of those has occurred. If it has do point it out.
> 
> And the UN resolutions calling for plebiscite are very much still applicable.



In this case the situation has indeed changed. Here I am using the term "situation" more generally to include human factors. Things that were considered normal and acceptable in previous centuries are no longer acceptable now.

So the situation has changed in the sense that it is no longer acceptable to contemplate handing over Buddhist and Hindu areas to an Islamic republic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Halaku Khan said:


> In this case the situation has indeed changed. Here I am using the term "situation" more generally to include human factors. Things that were considered normal and acceptable in previous centuries are no longer acceptable now.
> 
> So the situation has changed in the sense that it is no longer acceptable to contemplate handing over Buddhist and Hindu areas to an Islamic republic.



At least you now acknowledge that the UN resolutions take presidence over the Simla agreement, and nothing in Simla can legally override those resolutions. Good. That is the first part to you understanding the Kashmir issue better. 

Now, for the second part. It does not matter if the "situation" has changed. It is whether the applicability of the resolutions still exist. And yes, they do exist, because the sole purpose of the UN resolutions was to give the vote to the Kashmiri people. This applies now as it did when the resolution was past. 

The Buddhist/Hindu/Muslim areas are irrelevently grouped anyhow. They are all Kashmiris, that is the important thing. It is up to them to decide their fate through the vote, as the UN resolutions call for.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Halaku Khan

roadrunner said:


> At least you now acknowledge that the UN resolutions take presidence over the Simla agreement, and nothing in Simla can legally override those resolutions. Good. That is the first part to you understanding the Kashmir issue better.



Actually, the UN resolutions being dead, the question of their precedence over anything does not arise.




roadrunner said:


> Now, for the second part. It does not matter if the "situation" has changed. It is whether the applicability of the resolutions still exist. And yes, they do exist, because the sole purpose of the UN resolutions was to give the vote to the Kashmiri people. This applies now as it did when the resolution was past.
> 
> The Buddhist/Hindu/Muslim areas are irrelevently grouped anyhow. They are all Kashmiris, that is the important thing. It is up to them to decide their fate through the vote, as the UN resolutions call for.



No, it would completely outrageous, horrifying and contrary to all civilized laws to even consider handing over Buddhists and Hindus to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in which they would have to live as second class citizens, if at all they are allowed to live. That is a major reason why the UN resolutions are dead, although there are other reasons too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Halaku Khan said:


> Actually, the UN resolutions being dead, the question of their precedence over anything does not arise.



The basis for you suggesting the UN resolutions are dead have been disproven. You claimed the Simla Agreement nullified them. I showed you the SImla Agreement does not contradict any article from the UN charter, and since Article 103 of the UN charter implies that the obligations of the UN take precedence over any mutual agreement, the UN resolutions cannot be overruled by any agreement. 



> No, it would completely outrageous, horrifying and contrary to all civilized laws to even consider handing over Buddhists and Hindus to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in which they would have to live as second class citizens, if at all they are allowed to live. That is a major reason why the UN resolutions are dead, although there are other reasons too.



There's many Muslims that live in India as second class citizens, and perhaps some Hindus live in Pakistan as second class citizens (though there's many influential Hindus in Pakistan). This is not the point and has nothing to do with legality of the UN resolutions. Pakistan's constitution treats all its citizens as equals, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs. No one group has more rights than the other in Pakistan, and they are all subject to the same basic laws. More importantly, the UN resolutions cannot be overruled on something so subjective as this. The Kashmiris are a group of people irrespective of whether they are Muslims or Hindus, it is now for each of them to choose who they want to join.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Halaku Khan

roadrunner said:


> The basis for you suggesting the UN resolutions are dead have been disproven. You claimed the Simla Agreement nullified them.



No I claimed that they are dead because the context is which they were made no longer holds. And this context includes the acceptability of considering a solution that involves handing over Buddhist and Hindu areas to the Islamic republic of Pakistan. The fate of the Buddhists and Hindus of J&K may have been considered a minor detail then, with all the upheaval going on everywhere - but now it would be completely unimaginable to hand them over.



roadrunner said:


> No one group has more rights than the other in Pakistan, and they are all subject to the same basic laws.



That's the theory - but in practice there are spectacles like a former Federal Minister calling on Muslims to kill Ahmedis without fear. That too on national TV. 



roadrunner said:


> More importantly, the UN resolutions cannot be overruled on something so subjective as this.



You may say its a subjective detail but for many people it is an unimaginable horror. In today's time its just not an option. 




roadrunner said:


> The Kashmiris are a group of people irrespective of whether they are Muslims or Hindus, it is now for each of them to choose who they want to join.



First of all its not just Kashmiris - it is all the native residents of J&K. 

By your logic all the people of undivided India were all one group irrespective of whether they were Hindus or Muslims.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Halaku Khan said:


> No I claimed that they are dead because the context is which they were made no longer holds. And this context includes the acceptability of considering a solution that involves handing over Buddhist and Hindu areas to the Islamic republic of Pakistan. The fate of the Buddhists and Hindus of J&K may have been considered a minor detail then, with all the upheaval going on everywhere - but now it would be completely unimaginable to hand them over.



Then you're simply lying about what you said. Here is a quote from you. 



Halaku Khan said:


> No - Pakistan and India have specifically agreed in the Simla agreement to solve the Kashmir problem (and in fact all problems) bilaterally. *So there is no question of involving any other party, including the UN. *



Simla cannot override the UN resolutions in this case. Article 103 is proof of this. 

Your new reason for ignoring the UN resolution does not have any legal basis whatsoever. 



> That's the theory - but in practice there are spectacles like a former Federal Minister calling on Muslims to kill Ahmedis without fear. That too on national TV.



One can compare this with Modi in Gujerat. This again is a weak argument with no legal basis. It is your interpretation. And no Federal Minister has called on Ahmadiyas to be killed, at least not one that held his job after saying such a thing. 



> You may say its a subjective detail but for many people it is an unimaginable horror. In today's time its just not an option.



Not really. The Hindu Chief Justice of Pakistan can look after all the Hindus in Pakistan and make sure they are treated fairly under the law. This is for another thread. This thread is on the UN resolutions, not what you feel. 



> First of all its not just Kashmiris - it is all the native residents of J&K.
> 
> By your logic all the people of undivided India were all one group irrespective of whether they were Hindus or Muslims.



All the people of undivided India had the chance to vote India or Pakistan when the choice was given. All the people in Kashmir should be given the same vote. 

Can you stick to discussing the UN resolutions, or Simla if you like since this thread is on the legalities of the conflict, not your beliefs that Pakistan is an intolerant, baby killing country.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halaku Khan

roadrunner said:


> Then you're simply lying about what you said. Here is a quote from you.



My dear fellow if you try hard enough you may understand that those two statements that I made are not contradictory.



roadrunner said:


> Simla cannot override the UN resolutions in this case. Article 103 is proof of this.



we have been over this - you'll have to go back to my previous posts.



> Your new reason for ignoring the UN resolution does not have any legal basis whatsoever.


Sabbath is made for man and not man for the sabbath. Law has to bend to morality. If you are claiming that its OK for Buddhists and Hindus to be handed over to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, even after Pakistan's utterly savage, barbaric, and bestial behavior in 1971 - then that is completely unacceptable.



> All the people of undivided India had the chance to vote India or Pakistan when the choice was given. All the people in Kashmir should be given the same vote.



I think you have a logical problem. First of all don't use the term Kashmiris because not all the people of J&K are Kashmiri. And furthermore not all Kashmiris are Muslim. Once you start using the right terminology, things should become obvious.



> Can you stick to discussing the UN resolutions, or Simla if you like since this thread is on the legalities of the conflict, not your beliefs that Pakistan is an intolerant, baby killing country.


But it is precisely because of Pakistan's record that Buddhists and Hindus would be horrified by the prospect of being forced into the Islamic republic of Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

You are not debating the UN resolutions and the legality of Kashmir using the international standards. 

What you are debating is whether Pakistan is a barbaric, hate-filled country. I do not mind for you to think this way, even though I strongly disagree, but this is not relevant to this thread since, we are discussing the legalities of the UN resolutions, and whether Pakistan was at fault, and whether India is not following those resolutions. 

Your opinions of Pakistan do not matter.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> The basis for you suggesting the UN resolutions are dead have been disproven.



Actually UN resolutions are dead for all practical purposes because you never planned to work though UN system in the first place. Did UN resolution call for armed invasion (1947, 1965, Kargil). The purpose of a UN resolution was to solve the issue through the UN (International) system, no two ways about it. The moment you took another route (armed conflict)to solve the issue, I don't see why the other party (India) should respect the other other side of the bargain when you want it to. In short Pakistan has used the UN route whenever it was or is comfortable with it, it did not have qualms about abandoning it when it thought it could finish the conflict through armed means. Since Pakistan does not give two hoots about ending the staemate through Un system I don't understand why India should, after all the the international community seems to ignore the issue completely, even Pakistani government thinks it is not a viable solution, otherwise you would not be seeing your leaders talk about "Out of the box solution" etc . To sum it up UN resolutions are a piece of paper which Pakistan talks about following in sudden bursts whenever it does not have any other means, thus India need not adhere to UN resolution . So for Practical purpose UN resolutions are practically dead

IPF

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Halaku Khan

indiapakistanfriendship said:


> Actually UN resolutions are dead for all practical purposes because you never planned to work though UN system in the first place. Did UN resolution call for armed invasion (1947, 1965, Kargil). The purpose of a UN resolution was to solve the issue through the UN (International) system, no two ways about it. The moment you took another route (armed conflict)to solve the issue, I don't see why the other party (India) should respect the other other side of the bargain when you want it to. In short Pakistan has used the UN route whenever it was or is comfortable with it, it did not have qualms about abandoning it when it thought it could finish the conflict through armed means. Since Pakistan does not give two hoots about ending the staemate through Un system I don't understand why India should, after all the the international community seems to ignore the issue completely, even Pakistani government thinks it is not a viable solution, otherwise you would not be seeing your leaders talk about "Out of the box solution" etc . To sum it up UN resolutions are a piece of paper which Pakistan talks about following in sudden bursts whenever it does not have any other means, thus India need not adhere to UN resolution . So for Practical purpose UN resolutions are practically dead
> 
> IPF



Very good point. Aside from the whole moral issue of handing over Buddhists and Hindus to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan - a strong legal case can be made that since Pakistan has violated the UN resolutions by first not withdrawing its forces and then by resorting to terrorism and force, the resolutions are no longer binding on India.


----------



## roadrunner

indiapakistanfriendship said:


> Actually UN resolutions are dead for all practical purposes because you never planned to work though UN system in the first place. Did UN resolution call for armed invasion (1947, 1965, Kargil). The purpose of a UN resolution was to solve the issue through the UN (International) system, no two ways about it. The moment you took another route (armed conflict)to solve the issue, I don't see why the other party (India) should respect the other other side of the bargain when you want it to. In short Pakistan has used the UN route whenever it was or is comfortable with it, it did not have qualms about abandoning it when it thought it could finish the conflict through armed means. Since Pakistan does not give two hoots about ending the staemate through Un system I don't understand why India should, after all the the international community seems to ignore the issue completely, even Pakistani government thinks it is not a viable solution, otherwise you would not be seeing your leaders talk about "Out of the box solution" etc . To sum it up UN resolutions are a piece of paper which Pakistan talks about following in sudden bursts whenever it does not have any other means, thus India need not adhere to UN resolution . So for Practical purpose UN resolutions are practically dead
> 
> IPF



This thread is on the UN resolutions, their applicability, the legalities of the agreements, and also proving that Pakistan did everything it could to implement the UN resolutions, India obstructed the demilitarization process. 

Evidence has been presented, and not one of the Indians on this board has refuted the legal arguments presented here. As previously done, what you are saying is that Pakistan has discarded the resolutions (when it has not, and doesn't have the right to), Pakistan started armed conflict over Kashmir, neither of these make one jot of difference to the legality of the prior UN resolutions calling for plebiscite. If you did want them to make a difference, you would have to take it to the UN again to override the previous resolutions based on Pakistan having done something like initiate a war. It is not for you to unilaterally decide this, and tell the UN what resolutions it should keep, what it should not keep.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

I'm warning you both. Stick to the UN resolutions. Else your posts will be deleted. This is not about whether you believe Pakistan to be a bad country, or whether you believe Pakistan should be punished for doing this or that. It is about international law, the UN resolutions.


----------



## Halaku Khan

roadrunner said:


> I'm warning you both. Stick to the UN resolutions. Else your posts will be deleted. This is not about whether you believe Pakistan to be a bad country, or whether you believe Pakistan should be punished for doing this or that. It is about international law, the UN resolutions.



This is what I said in my last post:


> Very good point. Aside from the whole moral issue of handing over Buddhists and Hindus to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan - a strong legal case can be made that since Pakistan has violated the UN resolutions by first not withdrawing its forces and then by resorting to terrorism and force, the resolutions are no longer binding on India.


I think it's pretty much on topic. You can't violate the resolutions, resort to terrorism and then complain that the other side is not following the resolutions.


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> I'm warning you both. Stick to the UN resolutions. Else your posts will be deleted. T*his is not about whether you believe Pakistan to be a bad country, or whether you believe Pakistan should be punished for doing this or that.* It is about international law, the UN resolutions.



Duhhh where did that come from!!!


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

indiapakistanfriendship said:


> Actually UN resolutions are dead for all practical purposes because you never planned to work though UN system in the first place. Did UN resolution call for armed invasion (1947, 1965, Kargil). The purpose of a UN resolution was to solve the issue through the UN (International) system, no two ways about it. The moment you took another route (armed conflict)to solve the issue, I don't see why the other party (India) should respect the other other side of the bargain when you want it to. In short Pakistan has used the UN route whenever it was or is comfortable with it, it did not have qualms about abandoning it when it thought it could finish the conflict through armed means. Since Pakistan does not give two hoots about ending the staemate through Un system I don't understand why India should, after all the the international community seems to ignore the issue completely, even Pakistani government thinks it is not a viable solution, otherwise you would not be seeing your leaders talk about "Out of the box solution" etc . To sum it up UN resolutions are a piece of paper which Pakistan talks about following in sudden bursts whenever it does not have any other means, thus India need not adhere to UN resolution . So for Practical purpose UN resolutions are practically dead
> 
> IPF





Halaku Khan said:


> I think it's pretty much on topic. You can't violate the resolutions, resort to terrorism and then complain that the other side is not following the resolutions.



First off, the UN resolutions did not exist in 1947, when the Tribal invasion took place, in response to the Maharajah's atrocities.

Secondly, show me where the UN resolutions suggest that 'armed conflict' in the area governed by the resolutions invalidates them. The resolutions remain valid unless the dispute is resolved, or they are superseded by another set of resolutions, nor does Simla (first clause in the agreement) invalidate them, as RR has argued.

Third, go through the views of Nehru from the fifties, including direct quotes, to see how he had already determined unilaterally that India was going to annex the territory in violation of the UNSC resolutions, and not hold a referendum. The militancy and war in 1965 came about long after Nehru and the GoI's decision to say 'heck with the UN resolutions'. Check the dates.

The decision to not implement the UN resolutions has been clearly shown to be that of India's, through the views of Owen Dixit, and Nehru's own words.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halaku Khan

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> First off, the UN resolutions did not exist in 1947, when the Tribal invasion took place, in response to the Maharajah's atrocities.



Tribal invasion was more likely a behavioral response to the urge to grab territory. But leave that aside - we are talking about the post 1947 period.




AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Secondly, show me where the UN resolutions suggest that 'armed conflict' in the area governed by the resolutions invalidates them.



Pakistan violated the UN resolutions first by not withdrawing its forces, and has since violated them by innumerable acts of terror and violence.

When one party to any agreement takes any step that is inconsistent with the agreement, the agreement ceases to be binding on the other party.

I hope you are not going to argue that Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism and violence is consistent with the UN resolutions' requirements of withdrawal of all forces and tribesmen and nationals. 

And of course there is also the whole issue of whether an agreement which was signed sixty years ago is appropriate for today's conditions. That is another ground which can invalidate the agreement.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Third, go through the views of Nehru from the fifties, including direct quotes, to see how he had already determined unilaterally that India was going to annex the territory in violation of the UNSC resolutions, and not hold a referendum. The militancy and war in 1965 came about long after Nehru and the GoI's decision to say 'heck with the UN resolutions'. Check the dates.
> 
> The decision to not implement the UN resolutions has been clearly shown to be that of India's, through the views of Owen Dixit, and Nehru's own words.



All that doesn't count because the ball was not in India's court.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## roadrunner

Halaku Khan said:


> Pakistan violated the UN resolutions first by not withdrawing its forces, and has since violated them by innumerable acts of terror and violence.



This has been proven wrong at least 6 times in this thread. Can't you read it? 

Pakistan did not have to withdraw ALL its forces. It needed to only start withdrawing its forces. The keyworda are "are being withdrawn". Whilst those forces were being witdrawn, India was to agree to withdraw its troop number down to 18,000. It refused, and that is why the process broke down. It's all mentioned in the first page or two of this thread with the resolutions. I don't know why you can't read it. 



> When one party to any agreement takes any step that is inconsistent with the agreement, the agreement ceases to be binding on the other party.



Nope. That's not how it works. When an agreement becomes binding, you are obliged to follow it. It's like a contract. If you break it, then you've acted illegally. Until you rectify the situation by following that contract through, you're acting illegally. 



> I hope you are not going to argue that Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism and violence is consistent with the UN resolutions' requirements of withdrawal of all forces and tribesmen and nationals.



*Pakistan did not have to withdraw all its forces*. Get this through your head. It only needed to start withdrawing its forces, which Pakistan did. 



> And of course there is also the whole issue of whether an agreement which was signed sixty years ago is appropriate for today's conditions. That is another ground which can invalidate the agreement.



If it is inappropriate you'll need to get another UN resolution to invalidate the present one. Until you do, those "old" resolutions are binding. 



> All that doesn't count because the ball was not in India's court.



Nope. Everything you've said in your post, I have disproven in this reply. If you'd cared to read the earlier posts, you'd find they were disproved many moons ago. Pakistan did not have to completely withdraw its forces, it only needed to start withdrawing its forces, which it did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halaku Khan

roadrunner said:


> This has been proven wrong at least 6 times in this thread. Can't you read it?
> 
> Pakistan did not have to withdraw ALL its forces. It needed to only start withdrawing its forces.



All this has been addressed in post 69. Thanks.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Halaku Khan said:


> All this has been addressed in post 69. Thanks.



It hasn't been addressed in that post.

Your only contention is that 'India was not informed'. That is akin to putting the horse before the cart. Liaquat Ali Khan had agreed to issue orders to start withdrawing Pakistani forces in accordance with the UN resolutions, and leave behind the suggested number.

It was at this point that India refused to accept the 18,000 Indian soldiers in the UNSC resolution, and argued that it need to leave behind an additional 3000 soldiers. This was quite obviously against what the UN resolutions stated. Owen Dixits comments that blame India were based on the Indian refusal to agree to withdrawal conditions based on the UNSC resolutions, and its insistence on additional forces.

Therefore, the ball was indeed entirely in India's court. Nehru's quotes are important in this context because they give us insight into the thought process of the GoI, and why it suddenly decided that it needed to leave behind 3000 more troops, and stall the process. His comments quite clearly indicate that the GoI had decided against implementing the UN resolutions, and therefore undermined the entire demilitarization process so as to stop progress towards a referendum.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halaku Khan

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> It hasn't been addressed in that post.
> 
> Your only contention is that 'India was not informed'. That is akin to putting the horse before the cart. Liaquat Ali Khan had agreed to issue orders to start withdrawing Pakistani forces in accordance with the UN resolutions, and leave behind the suggested number.
> 
> It was at this point that India refused to accept the 18,000 Indian soldiers in the UNSC resolution, and argued that it need to leave behind an additional 3000 soldiers. This was quite obviously against what the UN resolutions stated. Owen Dixits comments that blame India were based on the Indian refusal to agree to withdrawal conditions based on the UNSC resolutions, and its insistence on additional forces.
> 
> Therefore, the ball was indeed entirely in India's court. Nehru's quotes are important in this context because they give us insight into the thought process of the GoI, and why it suddenly decided that it needed to leave behind 3000 more troops, and stall the process. His comments quite clearly indicate that the GoI had decided against implementing the UN resolutions, and therefore undermined the entire demilitarization process so as to stop progress towards a referendum.



Actually my contention is that Pakistan never began the process of withdrawing and handing over to local authorities. 

Also the UN resolutions say that India should withdraw "the bulk" of its forces in stages in a manner to be negotiated between the UN Commission and India (without Pakistan being a party to these negotiations). Saying that 18,000 troops are required is certainly not a violation.

As far as your other contentions, if you can provide sources, I will look into them, time permitting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Halaku Khan said:


> Actually my contention is that Pakistan never began the process of withdrawing and handing over to local authorities.
> 
> Also the UN resolutions say that India should withdraw "the bulk" of its forces in stages in a manner to be negotiated between the UN Commission and India (without Pakistan being a party to these negotiations). Saying that 18,000 troops are required is certainly not a violation.
> 
> As far as your other contentions, if you can provide sources, I will look into them, time permitting.



If you read the thread, you'd save everyone a lot of time. 

Now your contention. Pakistan did start the process of withdrawing. This is shown by the fact that resolution 47 was passed which said Pakistan must start withdrawing its troops and then, AND ONLY THEN, must India agree to reduce troop numbers. Which it did not. 

_"and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, [then] the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission"_ (the "then" has been inserted by me to make it clear to you what this sentence means. 

The second paragraph of yours is simply ridiculous. If you even read the first page of this thread, you'd know your answer. Pakistan was asked in resolution 98 to reduce its troop number to 6,000. India was asked to reduce its troops number down to 18,000. It did not agree, stating it needed 21,000 troops to ensure security.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halaku Khan

roadrunner said:


> If you read the thread, you'd save everyone a lot of time.
> 
> Now your contention. Pakistan did start the process of withdrawing. This is shown by the fact that resolution 47 was passed which said Pakistan must start withdrawing its troops and then, AND ONLY THEN, must India agree to reduce troop numbers. Which it did not.
> 
> _"and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, [then] the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission"_ (the "then" has been inserted by me to make it clear to you what this sentence means.
> 
> The second paragraph of yours is simply ridiculous. If you even read the first page of this thread, you'd know your answer. Pakistan was asked in resolution 98 to reduce its troop number to 6,000. India was asked to reduce its troops number down to 18,000. It did not agree, stating it needed 21,000 troops to ensure security.



Nothing you have said proves that the process of withdrawing and handing over to local authorities had started.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Halaku Khan said:


> Nothing you have said proves that the process of withdrawing and handing over to local authorities had started.



This was proven in post #3. Here it is for your benefit again, since you can't read. 

Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948.
(Document No.1100, Para. 75, dated the 9th November, 1948).

(1) 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 itstroops from that State. CHECK - Pakistan agreed 

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from theState of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident thereinwho have entered the State for the purpose of fighting. CHECK - Pakistan tried

(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission. - CHECK - Pakistan awaited the following 

*When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani 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 Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission*.- CHECK - "are being withdrawn", when Pakistani troops ARE BEING withdrawn, then India must agree to reduce its troops. 

The Commission (UNCIP) had to notify the Indian government that the Pakistani forces were in the process of being withdrawn, AND THEN India had to agree to reducing its troop number. Using your head, if UNCIP asked India to agree to reduce its troop number down to 18,000, then Resolution 48 must have been fulfilled (meaning Pakistani troops had started to withdraw). The passing of Resolution 98 is proof that Resolution 48 had been fulfilled. 

UN resolution 98 of 23RD December 1952
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 India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952 

Apologies for the caps and writing everyone else, but Halaku Khan doesn't appear able to read the earlier posts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halaku Khan

roadrunner said:


> The Commission (UNCIP) had to notify the Indian government that the Pakistani forces were in the process of being withdrawn, AND THEN India had to agree to reducing its troop number. Using your head, if UNCIP asked India to agree to reduce its troop number down to 18,000, then Resolution 48 must have been fulfilled (meaning Pakistani troops had started to withdraw). The passing of Resolution 98 is proof that Resolution 48 had been fulfilled.
> 
> 
> Apologies for the caps and writing everyone else, but Halaku Khan doesn't appear able to read the earlier posts.



No, this argument is not valid. The fact that there were discussions between Indian and the UN does not mean that Pakistani forces had begun withdrawing. There needs to be actual proof of what areas were vacated, and what were the local authorities that took over, what were the supervisory arrangements established by the UN over these local authorities, and so on. Thereafter, an official notification was to be issued, which also never happened.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

There is some obvious issue with the reading of the words of the resolution by RR,

It clearly talks of the hypothetical situation of the the actions that need to happen when the forces are actually withdrawn (at a future date), nowhere does it talk of such a thing actually happening and the notification being forwarded to India.

Case rejected as null and void.


----------



## roadrunner

Halaku Khan said:


> No, this argument is not valid. The fact that there were discussions between Indian and the UN does not mean that Pakistani forces had begun withdrawing. There needs to be actual proof of what areas were vacated, and what were the local authorities that took over, what were the supervisory arrangements established by the UN over these local authorities, and so on. Thereafter, an official notification was to be issued, which also never happened.



What do the words, 

*"When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2 hereof have withdrawn", *mean to you? 

The Commission notifies the Government of India when the forces start withdrawing. 

Then India must agree to reduce its troops numbers to 18,000 

Was India asked to reduce its troop numbers down to 18,000? 

Yes it was in Resolution 98, but it did not agree. 

This is all stated in the resolutions quite clearly. It's a simpl process

a.Commission notifies India Pak forces are withdrawing. 
b. UNCIP tries to get India to demilitarize now
c. India demilitarizes 

a. was carried out, b. was carried out, c. was not carried out. a. had to happen before b. and c.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

^^ The above point is what I was referring to when I said that LAQ had issued agreed with Owen Dixit's proposal and issued orders to withdraw. This was taken as the start of the withdrawal from Pakistan's side (being withdrawn) and negotiations with India collapsed soon after since the GoI insisted that she be allowed to retain 3000 troops over the 18000 limit set by resolution 98.

*HK:*

The events were from my recollection of several books I have read. One I am certain was O B Jones's _Pakistan_, the others I cannot recollect the titles of. I'll head to the library and try and post the relevant excerpts once finals are over

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nihat

We have to agree to a solution though , enough is enough - Kashmir drains so much resources from both nations that they don't fully concentrate on economy and general uplift.

It has to be either one of Joint administration of the entire region including Indian and Pakistani Kashmir or LoC as the IB .

Kashmir as a separate nation will never work , it'll become a hotbed for secret services from both nations and will never be able to develop fully.


----------



## beetel

Nihat said:


> We have to agree to a solution though , enough is enough - Kashmir drains so much resources from both nations that they don't fully concentrate on economy and general uplift.
> 
> It has to be either one of Joint administration of the entire region including Indian and Pakistani Kashmir or LoC as the IB .
> 
> Kashmir as a separate nation will never work , it'll become a hotbed for secret services from both nations and will never be able to develop fully.



If it is independence or joint administration pakistan will loose more than India in case of land(Here keeping out jammu and laddakh out)..
What is coming out now is it is better for pakistan to retain what they have now..


----------



## roadrunner

Stick to the thread you two. 

This isn't a thread for your opinions on Kashmir's monetary costs. 

It's on the UN resolutions on Kashmir, legalities. 

If you have any relevant arguments, state them here, otherwise, don't post irrelevant opinions here.


----------



## karnivore

roadrunner said:


> "When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2 hereof have withdrawn", mean to you?
> 
> The Commission notifies the Government of India when the forces start withdrawing.


Incorrect. Commission is supposed to notify the GoI, when:

the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals have withdrawn (completely),
 resulting in terminating the situation, which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council, as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces, and
the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn i.e. demilitarization on Paks side has begun.
a. was never given effect to, and hence b. never happened. Therefore no notification.


roadrunner said:


> Then India must agree to reduce its troops numbers to 18,000
> 
> Was India asked to reduce its troop numbers down to 18,000?
> 
> Yes it was in Resolution 98


Incorrect. India was never asked to reduce its troops down to 18,000 vide res. 98. Actually, both the countries were asked to negotiate on the number of troops to remain at the end of demilitarization, within the maximum limit set by the UN. Res. 98 is concerned with the plan of demilitarization. It is not a direction/ order/ request to demilitarize, as you are trying to imply.


Resolution 98 said:


> 4. *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 India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952;


Discussion, negotiation and agreement on the demilitarization plan was not subject to the notification under B(I) of s/1100, only the act of demilitarization (on Indias part) was.


roadrunner said:


> but it did not agree.


Incorrect. India did not disagree to demilitarize per se. She did not agree to the maximum number of 18,000 troops and wanted 3,000 more troops.


roadrunner said:


> This is all stated in the resolutions quite clearly. It's a simpl process
> 
> a.Commission notifies India Pak forces are withdrawing.
> b. UNCIP tries to get India to demilitarize now
> c. India demilitarizes
> 
> a. was carried out, b. was carried out, c. was not carried out. a. had to happen before b. and c.


Only that no notification was ever issued to India. If it was, the notification number and date would be much appreciated.


AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> ^^ The above point is what I was referring to when I said that LAQ had issued agreed with Owen Dixit's proposal and issued orders to withdraw. This was taken as the start of the withdrawal from Pakistan's side (being withdrawn) and negotiations with India collapsed soon after since the GoI insisted that she be allowed to retain 3000 troops over the 18000 limit set by resolution 98.


India claims that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals were never completely removed and hence the situation, which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council, as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces has not been terminated. In fact, she claims that, *the ensuing months, after the adoption of the resolution *(_s/1100_), *saw Pakistan brazenly advancing deep into Baltistan and Ladakh, hundreds of kilometres to the east while the so-called Azad Kashmir forces, which were to be disbanded, were expanded and consolidated and formed what the UNCIP Military Adviser described as a "formidable force"*. (The official position of India can be had at, The United Nations: Jammu & Kashmir; Embassy of India - Washington, DC)

This meant, from Indias point of view, that step 2 was not fully honoured by Pakistan. Therefore, India was, and continues to be, not obligated to fulfill step 3 i.e plebiscite.

There seems to be an impression that since, negotiation on demilitarization had began, therefore Pak had fulfilled its part of the bargain. First, as I have already mentioned, negotiation on demilitarization was never subject to fulfillment of step 2. Second, the absence of any specific UN notification to India (at least I am not aware of any such notification and if anyone points me to such notification, I will be much obliged.) seems to justify Indias position on step 2.

PS. Sorry for waking up a sleeping thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## asq

Salim said:


> So 'are being" means "has been done"?
> 
> 60 years and still on the go!
> 
> Marvellous!
> 
> Do it and then talk.



Hay Salim it was done.Liaqat ali the first prime Minister of Paskitan withdrew our fighter from the outskirts of sri nagar to the present position, india did not.

We were in Sri nagar airport.
we did withdraw, india did not even an inch.

that is exactly how India has behaved in the past 60 years, ruthless, killers of innocents, dictatorial and use of Stalinist tactics.


----------



## asq

karnivore said:


> Incorrect. Commission is supposed to notify the GoI, when:
> 
> &#8220;the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals&#8221; have withdrawn (completely),
> resulting in &#8220;terminating the situation, which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council, as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces&#8221;, and
> &#8220;the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn&#8221; i.e. demilitarization on Pak&#8217;s side has begun.
> a. was never given effect to, and hence b. never happened. Therefore no notification.
> 
> Incorrect. India was never &#8220;asked&#8221; to reduce its troops down to 18,000 vide res. 98. Actually, both the countries were &#8220;asked&#8221; to negotiate on the number of troops to remain at the end of demilitarization, within the maximum limit set by the UN. Res. 98 is concerned with the plan of demilitarization. It is not a direction/ order/ request to demilitarize, as you are trying to imply.
> 
> Discussion, negotiation and agreement on the demilitarization plan was not subject to the notification under B(I) of s/1100, only the act of demilitarization (on India&#8217;s part) was.
> 
> Incorrect. India did not disagree to demilitarize per se. She did not agree to the maximum number of 18,000 troops and wanted 3,000 more troops.
> 
> Only that no notification was ever issued to India. If it was, the notification number and date would be much appreciated.
> 
> India claims that &#8220;the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals&#8221; were never completely removed and hence &#8220;the situation, which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council, as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces&#8221; has not been terminated. In fact, she claims that, &#8220;*the ensuing months, after the adoption of the resolution *(_s/1100_), *saw Pakistan brazenly advancing deep into Baltistan and Ladakh, hundreds of kilometres to the east while the so-called Azad Kashmir forces, which were to be disbanded, were expanded and consolidated and formed what the UNCIP Military Adviser described as a "formidable force"*.&#8221; (The official position of India can be had at, The United Nations: Jammu & Kashmir; Embassy of India - Washington, DC)
> 
> This meant, from India&#8217;s point of view, that step 2 was not fully honoured by Pakistan. Therefore, India was, and continues to be, not obligated to fulfill step 3 i.e plebiscite.
> 
> There seems to be an impression that since, negotiation on demilitarization had began, therefore Pak had fulfilled it&#8217;s part of the bargain. First, as I have already mentioned, negotiation on demilitarization was never subject to fulfillment of step 2. Second, the absence of any specific UN notification to India (at least I am not aware of any such notification and if anyone points me to such notification, I will be much obliged.) seems to justify India&#8217;s position on step 2.
> 
> PS. Sorry for waking up a sleeping thread.



So India's solution to the problem is?

CONTINUE OCCUPATION AND KILLING OF CIVILIANS".

What a shame. What a tongue and cheek story


----------



## karnivore

asq said:


> CONTINUE OCCUPATION...


Yes, until conflict is resolved.



asq said:


> ...KILLING OF CIVILIANS".


No, and I strongly condemn any military excess.



asq said:


> What a tongue and cheek story


Which part ? Note carefully, that I was only providing counter argument to the belief that res. 98 is proof of fulfillment of Pakistan's end of bargain, as enshrined in doc. s/1100.


----------



## asq

hay Kar. tongue and cheek is the whole of your post, as u are making new excuses each time to keep the status quo and not making any helpful statement or suggestions to solve the problem. to save human sufferings. And that is called tongue and cheek.

If India is so Democratic, have human concerns and is multi cultural society, than why it is not going out of the way to solve this lingering inhuman act at the earliest. it shows that Indian has no concern when it come to Muslim lives, as in Gujarat and in many other places in India. those leaders of your the kind Modi and Bal Thackeray get away with murder and they are still leaders, every one knows that they caused riots and yet they are untouched. 

To me Indian Democracy is a farce, i think Pakistan is much better, at least we realized and left Bangladesh, I think Pakistan has the heart and Indian has no heart and its Democracy is a show piece for the world, but we the Pakistanis and Indian Muslim know the reality of it.

U say that you strongly condemn the killing, but it has for 60 years and will continue, it looks that you are just saying this because you are on Pak Def forum, had you and other Indian said this truthfully killings would have Stoppard long time ago.

It looks Indian has no desire to be the partner for peace, instead it is making excuses, therefore;-

"if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem".


----------



## karnivore

asq said:


> hay Kar. *tongue and cheek is the whole of your post*, as u are *making new excuses* each time to keep the status quo and not making any helpful statement or suggestions to solve the problem. to save human sufferings. And that is called tongue and cheek.
> 
> If India is so Democratic, have human concerns and is multi cultural society, than why it is not going out of the way to solve this lingering inhuman act at the earliest. it shows that Indian has no concern when it come to Muslim lives, as in Gujarat and in many other places in India. those leaders of your the kind Modi and Bal Thackeray get away with murder and they are still leaders, every one knows that they caused riots and yet they are untouched.
> 
> To me Indian Democracy is a farce, i think Pakistan is much better, at least we realized and left Bangladesh, I think Pakistan has the heart and Indian has no heart and its Democracy is a show piece for the world, but we the Pakistanis and Indian Muslim know the reality of it.
> 
> U say that you strongly condemn the killing, but it has for 60 years and will continue, it looks that you are just saying this because you are on Pak Def forum, had you and other Indian said this truthfully killings would have Stoppard long time ago.
> 
> It looks Indian has no desire to be the partner for peace, instead it is making excuses, therefore;-
> 
> "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem".



Well, it appears as a "new excuse", because you have never been told about the true official position that India takes, and the basis, on which she does so. It appears "tongue in cheek" because, you probably realise, that legal case against India is just as strong (or weak) as against Pakistan, which in turn implies, that they both share the blame in equal proportion.

And, by the way, Pakistan did not leave Bangladesh because of any "realization". She was made to leave.


----------



## asq

Yes we did leave and had our soldiers pow, we could have decided to stand and fight and you should know after sixry years that we know how to fight as it has been proven in battle ground and air many a times, so don't tell me we were scared and we left, we decide to stop killing and even became pow.

You need to learn lot about Pakistan Army and it fighting skills, in every case they are better than Indian, it has been proven in the battle field. in saicha 7 soldiers fought and killed 50 Indians. In 70 war in sindh, this soldier guided missiles to kill 17 Indian tanks, In Kargil Col. Captain Sher gul killed 15 Indian officers while surrounded by Indian Army when asked refused to surrender and killed 24 Indians.

I can go on and on but do not ever think that we the Pakistanis don't know fighting, we only fight what is right and Bangladesh was not right.

So believe me we decide to stop so that we do not kill innocent, on the other hand India continue to kill innocents.


----------



## Nihat

Fanboys and Rhetoric Galore on both sides , very nice.

Keep going guys and thread goes to dogs very soon.


----------



## Halaku Khan

cross-post:

India had not committed to any specific troop levels in the agreement - however, Pakistan was committed to withdrawing ALL its troops.

As regards statements of the rapporteur, he was speculating on what India may or may not have done if Pakistan had in fact lived up to his commitments, which it did not. Such speculations have no legal weight whatsoever.

Nehru's alleged remarks also would not enter into the legal picture. What is important is what was written down and signed, and the actual actions taken.

The first breach of the agreement was Pakistan's failure to withdraw, and so the onus of trashing the agreement lies on Pakistan. The terrorism from 1965 onwards was a further violation, which has created a situation not envisaged in the agreement.

When one party breaks an agreement and creates a situation not envisaged in the agreement, the agreement no longer becomes binding on the other party. That is what has happened to the UN agreement.

The Simla agreement commits both parties to settle the issue bilaterally. That is well and good and does not contradict the UN charter. However this bilateral settlement cannot be on the basis of a defunct agreement.


----------



## syeda rehman

kashmir zindabad


----------



## humblehobbes

Ignoring the one line post above. and a question for all the Plebiscite seekers, Why does no one ever bring in the pre-condition, which has been not been taken by Pakistan! Any one care to explain? Just thinking like Hobbes as in the picture here


----------



## humblehobbes

**********Bing*********** a reminder for replies


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Halaku Khan said:


> cross-post:
> 
> India had not committed to any specific troop levels in the agreement - however, Pakistan was committed to withdrawing ALL its troops.
> 
> As regards statements of the rapporteur, he was speculating on what India may or may not have done if Pakistan had in fact lived up to his commitments, which it did not. Such speculations have no legal weight whatsoever.
> 
> Nehru's alleged remarks also would not enter into the legal picture. What is important is what was written down and signed, and the actual actions taken.
> 
> The first breach of the agreement was Pakistan's failure to withdraw, and so the onus of trashing the agreement lies on Pakistan. The terrorism from 1965 onwards was a further violation, which has created a situation not envisaged in the agreement.


Please read the resolutions carefully - Sir Owen Dixon's comments carry great weight given the _Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948 _, which is referred to in many subsequent resolutions:
---------------------
*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 be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.
----------------------
India never agreed to the 'details', which is what Dixon's mission was about, and what he criticized India over, so the part about 'notifying India' never had a chance to be implemented.

And Nehru's remarks and his governments policies, in trying to unilaterally integrate J&K into India and equating rigged elections to a plebiscite and calling the status quo a 'resolution of the dispute', are important, given that India rebuffed attempts by the UN commission and world community to agree to those 'details'.



> When one party breaks an agreement and creates a situation not envisaged in the agreement, the agreement no longer becomes binding on the other party. That is what has happened to the UN agreement.


Please point out to me in the UN charter where the justification provided by you calls for the UNSC resolutions to become irrelevant.



> The Simla agreement commits both parties to settle the issue bilaterally. That is well and good and does not contradict the UN charter. However this bilateral settlement cannot be on the basis of a defunct agreement.



Neither does the reference to 'bilateral engagement' annul the multiple UNSC resolutions to which both nations had committed repeatedly, given that just recently the Indus Water Treaty related issues have gone in front of the World Bank for arbitration.


----------



## arihant

Now back to topic. Issue is of whole Jammu and Kashmir state.

But if we whole state is divided into three parts now. ***, IOK and COK. Now it's not issue of just two parties but also include China.

Now, tell me what is your stand on whole J&K. Do you feel whole J&K be united or we should leave the 20&#37; of COK.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

arihant said:


> Now back to topic. Issue is of whole Jammu and Kashmir state.
> 
> But if we whole state is divided into three parts now. ***, IOK and COK. Now it's not issue of just two parties but also include China.
> 
> Now, tell me what is your stand on whole J&K. Do you feel whole J&K be united or we should leave the 20&#37; of COK.



That's not the topic - the UN resolutions are.

But to answer your question, Pakistan's agreement with China on Aksai Chen indicates that in the event of a plebsicite resulting in India obtaining J&K, China would have to engage in negotiations with India over final status of the territory - so the status of Aksai Chen is still 'disputed'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halaku Khan

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> 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 be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.
> ----------------------
> India never agreed to the 'details', which is what Dixon's mission was about, and what he criticized India over, so the part about 'notifying India' never had a chance to be implemented.



In the agreement, some things are clear cut - there is no controversy about Pakistan's commitment to withdraw 100% of its troops. Other things are left undefined, to be settled by further discussions. I would suggest that it was the unreasonable obtuseness of Dixon, under pressure from the Pakistani side, that was responsible for any lack of agreement. 

There is nothing in the agreement that says that Dixon must reach agreement with India before Pakistan carries out it's commitments. So there is nothing that excuses Pakistan's failure to live up to its well-defined commitments. 



> And Nehru's remarks and his governments policies, in trying to unilaterally integrate J&K into India and equating rigged elections to a plebiscite and calling the status quo a 'resolution of the dispute', are important, given that India rebuffed attempts by the UN commission and world community to agree to those 'details'.


Let us stick to the legalities.



> Please point out to me in the UN charter where the justification provided by you calls for the UNSC resolutions to become irrelevant.


It's a universal principle of agreements - you can't have one side violating it's commitments, and then expecting the other side to do its part.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Halaku Khan said:


> In the agreement, some things are clear cut - there is no controversy about Pakistan's commitment to withdraw 100% of its troops. Other things are left undefined, to be settled by further discussions. I would suggest that it was the unreasonable obtuseness of Dixon, under pressure from the Pakistani side, that was responsible for any lack of agreement.
> 
> There is nothing in the agreement that says that Dixon must reach agreement with India before Pakistan carries out it's commitments. So there is nothing that excuses Pakistan's failure to live up to its well-defined commitments.


Once again, you need to read the resolutions properly. The part about Pakistani troops withdrawing from J&L comes immediately after the line I quoted in my earlier post: *"both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission."*
You cannot therefore claim that somehow the call for withdrawal was clear cut (because it fits your narrative) and not subject to the line above.



> Let us stick to the legalities.


As done above, but the 'legalities' are affected by actions and statements taken by the Indian leadership - If the Indian leadership states that there shall be no plebiscite, and holds elections and includes J&K in the Indian constitution, those are tangible changes violating the commitment in the UN that the dispute shall be resolved via plebiscite.



> It's a universal principle of agreements - you can't have one side violating it's commitments, and then expecting the other side to do its part.


The commitment was already violated by Indian actions as mentioned above - you basically had the Indian government saying (and doing via constitutional amendments) that the status quo would remain - a clear violation of the commitment to the UNSC resolutions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## blackbriar

dabong1 said:


> So you would have no problem with the UN sending forces to the LOC and watching over a gradual withdrawl process of armed forces from both sides.....pakistan would support this proposal and maybe both ambassadors to the UN could put this propsal forward.
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan is willing for the people of NA and AJK to to take part in a UN vote.....am sure we can get the chinese to let the people living on snow peaked mountain tops take part in the election also......are you willing to have election in your bit under the UN?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So seem to forget that theres are UN resolutions and the promises of nehru to the people of kashmir and there are no UN resolutions concerning balochistan.....if you want to go down that path then why cant the peoples of Punjab,Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Andhra Pradesh, Tripura ect also have the same non UN benfit that balochistan gets.
> Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory and not recognised as an Indian integral part, according to the International community.....the same does not apply when it comes Balochistan,Punjab,Arunachal Pradesh, Assam.
> 
> 
> 
> We have been fighting you guys from day one and have heard the same lame prophecies for years that pakistan would be finished and india will be some graet power.....please give it a rest.



well the removal of the forces from both sides should have been done when the resolution was passed..the application of the resolution does not lie when the pakistanis mood changes.they dint agree to remove there forces in 1948...and chose a war of attrition.now when the war of attrition and all other methods employed have failed, they agree suddenly to agree to the resolution to the letter.it does not work with the mood swings of the pakistani leadership.
also as u say that NA, AJK and the part with china would be ready to vote(including aksai chin annexed in1962),but the whole point of the arguement rests on the fact that the demography,map of J&K should not have changed since 1948.well the answer is in the question.isnt it...and yeah we come back again to the first point.the first part of the resolution was not completed..cant proceed to the 2nd part.

the arguement again rests on the UN resolution which was never followed.and ur asking of a plebiscite in other indian states and pakistani states,well that is exactly what i say.self determination call from some ppl in a state cannot be acceded to by india or pakistan,to keep the integrity of our respective countries.and the same applies to balochistan and J&K.ppl may ask for self-determination,that does not mean we are going to give it to them.and as u say j&k is disputed,well its disputed cus pakistan keeps sending terrorists across the border.once pakistan stops the dispute is over.

and i never said pakistan would be over,its a self destructive strategy pakistan is following.as i said a bigger country with bigger financial,human,and material resources is going to outlast the other.we r ready to wait till eternity.the LOC area keeps burning while we continue building our economy in the hinterland.i agree there are terror attacks in the hinterland,but they are like pin pricks in such a huge country.and as the hinterland keeps devoloping at 9% growth,the amount of resources available to fight the war at the LOC also keeps increasing.so yeah pakistan can keep continuing the same predictable methods of proxy war.it works fine with us.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

blackbriar said:


> well the removal of the forces from both sides should have been done when the resolution was passed..the application of the resolution does not lie when the pakistanis mood changes.they dint agree to remove there forces in 1948...and chose a war of attrition.now when the war of attrition and all other methods employed have failed, they agree suddenly to agree to the resolution to the letter.it does not work with the mood swings of the pakistani leadership.
> also as u say that NA, AJK and the part with china would be ready to vote(including aksai chin annexed in1962),but the whole point of the arguement rests on the fact that the demography,map of J&K should not have changed since 1948.well the answer is in the question.isnt it...and yeah we come back again to the first point.the first part of the resolution was not completed..cant proceed to the 2nd part.
> 
> the arguement again rests on the UN resolution which was never followed.and ur asking of a plebiscite in other indian states and pakistani states,well that is exactly what i say.self determination call from some ppl in a state cannot be acceded to by india or pakistan,to keep the integrity of our respective countries.and the same applies to balochistan and J&K.ppl may ask for self-determination,that does not mean we are going to give it to them.and as u say j&k is disputed,well its disputed cus pakistan keeps sending terrorists across the border.once pakistan stops the dispute is over.
> 
> and i never said pakistan would be over,its a self destructive strategy pakistan is following.as i said a bigger country with bigger financial,human,and material resources is going to outlast the other.we r ready to wait till eternity.the LOC area keeps burning while we continue building our economy in the hinterland.i agree there are terror attacks in the hinterland,but they are like pin pricks in such a huge country.and as the hinterland keeps devoloping at 9% growth,the amount of resources available to fight the war at the LOC also keeps increasing.so yeah pakistan can keep continuing the same predictable methods of proxy war.it works fine with us.



Oh please - read through this thread http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/7904-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.html

The UNSC resolutions did not just demand Pakistan to withdraw from Kashmir - this important line preceded the withdrawal part:



> *
> RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN ON 13 AUGUST 1948. (DOCUMENT NO. S/1100, PARA 75, DATED THE 9TH NOVEMBER, 1948)​*
> *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 be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.
> 
> 1. (l) 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.
> 
> (2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavor 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.
> 
> (3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.



The thread I linked to details how India was he obstacle in the negotiations on the 'details' that would have led to the Pakistani withdrawal, and put in motion the series of steps that would have led to plebiscite.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bandit

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Once again, you need to read the resolutions properly. The part about Pakistani troops withdrawing from J&L comes immediately after the line I quoted in my earlier post: *"both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission."*
> You cannot therefore claim that somehow the call for withdrawal was clear cut (because it fits your narrative) and not subject to the line above.
> 
> 
> As done above, but the 'legalities' are affected by actions and statements taken by the Indian leadership - If the Indian leadership states that there shall be no plebiscite, and holds elections and includes J&K in the Indian constitution, those are tangible changes violating the commitment in the UN that the dispute shall be resolved via plebiscite.
> 
> 
> The commitment was already violated by Indian actions as mentioned above - you basically had the Indian government saying (and doing via constitutional amendments) that the status quo would remain - a clear violation of the commitment to the UNSC resolutions.



Of course clutching at straws now. The Indian stand started changing in 1954 onwards IIRC, when it contended that material situation had changed, Pakistan had had enough time to withdraw troops if it were committed to the resolution. But of course since actions seem to be the best judge for you, those carried out by Pakistan by sending in tribals mixed with army are a better indicator of what Pakistan and Jinnah had in mind...their staying put there after the agreement confirmed the suspicions.


----------



## bandit

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The thread I linked to details how India was he obstacle in the negotiations on the 'details' that would have led to the Pakistani withdrawal, and put in motion the series of steps that would have led to plebiscite.



Come on now, what would the details about the withdrawal of irregular tribesmen be between nations, mode of transportation??
Pakistan had to withdraw its irregulars and troops but you seriously believe Indian would have not expedited it by holding negotiations.
Whatever failure to uphold the resolutions has been is from the Pakistani sides, please dont pick illogical nuances just to prove your point.

As for the technicalities the Appendix 6 has a clause stating that Plebiscite is binding _only_ in case of Pakistan adopts Part I and II of the agreement. Nowhere does it state that Pakistan can renege on the agreement in any case, clearly the onus was on Pakistan to move ahead.


----------



## blackbriar

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Oh please - read through this thread http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/7904-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.html
> 
> The UNSC resolutions did not just demand Pakistan to withdraw from Kashmir - this important line preceded the withdrawal part:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread I linked to details how India was he obstacle in the negotiations on the 'details' that would have led to the Pakistani withdrawal, and put in motion the series of steps that would have led to plebiscite.


but the UN resolution required the withdrawl before the plebiscite was carried out.read ur link properly.
***
The resolution clearly states:

1.The presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation and the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops fromthat State


2.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
***
now u may argue that pakistan tried withdrawing but India did not follow suit.similarly india argues pakistan did not withdraw and hence india did not follow suit.afterall pakistan was the aggressor.this as i already posted earlier is history lost in time.its indias word against pakistans word.
can we break this impasse..thats what we r discussing here.


----------



## dabong1

blackbriar said:


> but the UN resolution required the withdrawl before the plebiscite was carried out.read ur link properly.
> ***
> The resolution clearly states:
> 
> 1.The presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation and the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops fromthat State
> 
> 
> 2.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
> ***
> now u may argue that pakistan tried withdrawing but India did not follow suit.similarly india argues pakistan did not withdraw and hence india did not follow suit.afterall pakistan was the aggressor.this as i already posted earlier is history lost in time.its indias word against pakistans word.
> can we break this impasse..thats what we r discussing here.



I have tried to give you an example of how to break the impass with both nation withdrawing under the supervison of the UN but you dismissed the idea........you dont want peace or a fair resolution just your own way.
Pakistan will never be dictated to by india or follow any one sided peace process and the fight will continue.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

bandit said:


> Of course clutching at straws now. The Indian stand started changing in 1954 onwards IIRC, when it contended that material situation had changed, Pakistan had had enough time to withdraw troops if it were committed to the resolution. But of course since actions seem to be the best judge for you, those carried out by Pakistan by sending in tribals mixed with army are a better indicator of what Pakistan and Jinnah had in mind...their staying put there after the agreement confirmed the suspicions.



The UNSC resolutions took into account events on the ground such as the invasion by the tribesmen, the war between the IA and the PA and issued resolutions recommending a means of resolution that was agreed to and endorsed by the international community, India and Pakistan - therefore the time to harp and whine about the Tribal invasion, as you did in your last sentence, was at that time, when the resolutions were being framed, or when time to adopt them and commit to them came - India instead accepted them wholeheartedly.

The Pakistani withdrawal was, as highlighted through text in the resolutions itself, contingent upon the UN commissions negotiations with India and Pakistan on the details of steps that had to be taken by both nations to facilitate the implementation of the UNSC resolutions. The UN rapporteur comments in this regard (see beginning of thread) blaming Indian obstinacy, are important in highlighting which nation was really the roadblock.

In support of the above contention:



> On August 13, 1948, the Security Council Commission, now called the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, adopted a resolution mandating a cease-fire and withdrawal of troops. This was followed by another resolution which included principles regarding the plebiscite which was now to be under the authority of the Security Council itself. The Peace Plan proposed by the Commission for India and Pakistan and accepted by both parties had three stages: (1) a cease fire, (2) *a truce involving an agreed plan for a balanced military withdrawal of both sides and* (3) a plebiscite. The cease fire took effect on January 1, 1949.
> 
> Also in January 1949, the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) was established with a mandate "to supervise, in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the cease-fire between Indian and Pakistan." It continues today, with 38 military observers.
> 
> *India objected to the truce plan proposed by the Commission for India and Pakistan. The Commission proposed arbitration over the truce plan with Admiral Nimitz as arbitrator. Pakistan accepted this plan. However, even with strong appeals for this arbitration made by U.S. President Truman and United Kingdom Prime Minister Attlee, India refused to accept arbitration over the truce. *
> http://130.94.183.89/parker/kash.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bandit

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The UNSC resolutions took into account events on the ground such as the invasion by the tribesmen, the war between the IA and the PA and issued resolutions recommending a means of resolution that was agreed to and endorsed by the international community, India and Pakistan - therefore the time to *harp and whine* about the Tribal invasion, as you did in your last sentence, was at that time, when the resolutions were being framed, or when time to adopt them and commit to them came - India instead accepted them wholeheartedly.



The "harp and whine" is intended to highlight Pakistans intentions at the time when it attempted to grab the land...did Jinnah say anything about giving Kashmiris the freedom that Pakistanis now whine day in and day out. The mentioned acts show the intent with which Pakistan invaded Kashmir....plain old land grab.



> or when time to adopt them and commit to them came - India instead accepted them wholeheartedly.



Of course whole heartedly as it addressed the concerns about Pakistani forces moving back...but that of course didnt happen...Pakistan just sat on the land that it had managed to grab.



> The Pakistani withdrawal was, as highlighted through text in the resolutions itself, contingent upon the UN commissions negotiations with India and Pakistan on the details of steps that had to be taken by both nations to facilitate the implementation of the UNSC resolutions. The UN rapporteur comments in this regard (see beginning of thread) blaming Indian obstinacy, are important in highlighting which nation was really the roadblock.



Please try to look at the neutrality of the article before posting it as a source. The whole article is a harangue by the author with statements such as _*"India seized much of Kashmir"*_ and other inflammatory statements, the organization that funded the paper is a well known Pakistani mouthpiece in NY.

In fact the proposals made by the UN mediators were rejected both by India and Pakistan at different points in time, more specifically the Dixon plan which envisaged the division of Kashmir into 3 separate parts. So please stop blaming India for what you never intended to do in the first place.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

bandit said:


> The "harp and whine" is intended to highlight Pakistans intentions at the time when it attempted to grab the land...did Jinnah say anything about giving Kashmiris the freedom that Pakistanis now whine day in and day out. The mentioned acts show the intent with which Pakistan invaded Kashmir....plain old land grab.


Please try and read somethign beyond the distorted and hateful history tough in India, that overlooks the excesses of the Maharajah and how they played a crucial role in the Tribal invasion.

There was an indigenous and unsupported (externally)rebellion against the dictator Maharajah by kashmiris, that resulted in a brutal crackdown by teh Maharajahs troops driving out thousands of Kashmiris into Pakistan - that was the initial catalyst for the Tribal invasion, and so yes, if Jinnah did know about it, the Tribal war against the Maharajah in support of rebelling Kashmiris was in fact about supporting the rights of Kashmiris and freeing them from the yoke of the dictator Maharajah.



> Of course whole heartedly as it addressed the concerns about Pakistani forces moving back...but that of course didnt happen...Pakistan just sat on the land that it had managed to grab.
> 
> Please try to look at the neutrality of the article before posting it as a source. The whole article is a harangue by the author with statements such as _*"India seized much of Kashmir"*_ and other inflammatory statements, the organization that funded the paper is a well known Pakistani mouthpiece in NY.
> 
> In fact the proposals made by the UN mediators were rejected both by India and Pakistan at different points in time, more specifically the Dixon plan which envisaged the division of Kashmir into 3 separate parts. So please stop blaming India for what you never intended to do in the first place.


Pleas stop regurgitating a point that has already been debunked, with quotes from the UNSC resolutions - the Pakistani withdrawal was contingent upon an agreement arrived at between India, Pakistan and the UN commission - that much is clear, and if you disagree then please show that by refuting my points regarding the UNSC resolutions indicating so.

As for the comments made by the source I posted and here is an India source pointing out much the same:


> The UNCIP therefore began to veer round the idea of arbitration by a thirdAdmiral Chester W. Nimitz party regarding the disputed points about demilitarization which stood in the way of signing of the Truce Agreement and induction of a plebiscite Administration for which post the security council had nominated Admiral Chester Nimitz of the USA. Accordingly, it presented to the Governments of India and Pakistan on August 29, 1949 its proposal about submitting to arbitration their differences regarding the implementation of Part II of the resolution of August 13, 1948. As if by prior arrangement, President Truman of the USA and Premier Attlee of the U.K. wrote to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan about the same time to accept this suggestion about arbitration.
> 
> The Government of Pakistan accepted the suggestion but the Government of India rejected it on the plea that the outstanding issue of disbanding and disarming of "Azad" Kashmir forces was a matter not for arbitration but "for affirmative and immediate decision".
> 
> Though the arbitration proposals thus fell through, it hardened the attitude of the USA and the UK against India.
> Kashmir: The Storm Center of the World by Bal Raj Madhok



Furthermore, after these events, Sir Owen Dixon was appointed as a single UN rapporteur, and his comments related to the Indian obstinacy and roadblocks are also documented at the beginning of this thread. Combine that with the comments of Nehru documented in this thread by me, and it is clear that Nehru was the true poison in the way of the settlement of the dispute between India and Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bandit

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Please try and read somethign beyond the distorted and hateful history tough in India, that overlooks the excesses of the Maharajah and how they played a crucial role in the Tribal invasion.



Nowhere in Indian history books is the history of Kashmir taught so please stop assuming that I only know the Indian side of the story.



.


> There was an indigenous and unsupported (externally)rebellion against the dictator Maharajah by kashmiris, that resulted in a brutal crackdown by teh Maharajahs troops driving out thousands of Kashmiris into Pakistan - that was the initial catalyst for the Tribal invasion, and so yes, if Jinnah did know about it, the Tribal war against the Maharajah in support of rebelling Kashmiris was in fact about supporting the rights of Kashmiris and *freeing them from the yoke of the dictator Maharajah*.
> .



Looking at the bold statement above, now you are the one who seems to have fallen for your governments propaganda. You seriously believe you were the angel liberators of Kashmir....Haha.

Support or no support, the initial invasion and then that of the Pakistani troops violated the international law as they had no business of being in another country except for grabbing land.

Your Source-

.


> *He (Dixon) was the first U.N. representative to state in unequivocal terms that the crossing of the frontier of Jammu & Kashmir State by Pakistani invaders on October 22, 1947, and the entry of regular Pakistan Army into Kashmir in May, 1948 were contrary to international law. *




.


> Pleas stop regurgitating a point that has already been debunked, with quotes from the UNSC resolutions - the Pakistani withdrawal was contingent upon an agreement arrived at between India, Pakistan and the UN commission - that much is clear, and if you disagree then please show that by refuting my points regarding the UNSC resolutions indicating so.



Please go through the previous posts...the only thing on which the execution of the agreement was _contingent _upon was the removal of Pakistans forces from Kashmir that was clause I and it clearly states that clause II and III _including_ plebiscite depends on I. 
Nowhere is the withdawal of troops contingent upon any Indian action, and obviously Pakistan did not need any Indian action for recall of troops; as boasted by Jinnah while assuring a UN official about his control over the Tribals and his ability to withdraw them


.


> Furthermore, after these events, Sir Owen Dixon was appointed as a single UN rapporteur, and his comments related to the Indian obstinacy and roadblocks are also documented at the beginning of this thread. Combine that with the comments of Nehru documented in this thread by me, and it is clear that Nehru was the true poison in the way of the settlement of the dispute between India and Pakistan.




Pakistans reaction to the Dixon proposal-

.


> The Pakistan Government rejected the Dixon proposals on the plea that they "meant a breach on India's part of the agreement that the destinies of Jammu & Kashmir State as a whole should be decided by a plebiscite taken over the entire state". But this rejection was more tactical than genuine because there could not have been a better proposal from the Pakistan point of view..



Stop piling the blame on India on every point and do realize that Pakistan had invaded Kashmir for the sole purpose of snatching it.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

bandit said:


> Nowhere in Indian history books is the history of Kashmir taught so please stop assuming that I only know the Indian side of the story.


Unfortunately most Indians regurgitate this one sided history, so I can only assume that you all learn this from a single source.



> Looking at the bold statement above, now you are the one who seems to have fallen for your governments propaganda. You seriously believe you were the angel liberators of Kashmir....Haha.


The indigenous rebellion in Kashmir is fact as is the brutal crackdown of the Mahrajah in an attempt to quell the rebellion that caused thousands of refugees to flood into Pakistan along with the train loads of massacred Muslims arriving from India - all of this preceded the Tribal invasion. These are the facts, quoted in books by Pakistani and Western authors.


> Support or no support, the initial invasion and then that of the Pakistani troops violated the international law as they had no business of being in another country except for grabbing land.


The invasion and the presence of Pakistani troops in Kashmir was dealt with through the UNSC resolutions, which called for negotiations on a ceasefire and conditions (including a Pakistani and other outsiders withdrawal) that would be conducive to a Plebiscite in Kashmir.

What is beyond doubt is that the UNSC, after being approached by India over Pakistan's military presence in J&K, reaffirmed the point that *the territory of J&K was disputed* and that *the people of Kashmir should decide between India and Pakistan in a plebiscite*

Your Source-

Yes - and the UNSC rsolutions deal with that as explained above, but Owen Dixon also said this, as pointed out in the first few posts of the thread:
"*
Sir Owen Dixon, Head of the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), in his report to the Security Council on 15 September 1950. He stated that, in the end I became convinced that Indias agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of plebiscite of such character, as would in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled.""*

Notice that Dixon is not blaming both India and Pakistan, but India for its obstinacy. Even the Indian author points out that Pakistan did not have any real objection to Dixon's proposals and the official objection was more 'tactical'.



> Please go through the previous posts...the only thing on which the execution of the agreement was _contingent _upon was the removal of Pakistans forces from Kashmir that was clause I and it clearly states that clause II and III _including_ plebiscite depends on I.
> Nowhere is the withdawal of troops contingent upon any Indian action, and obviously Pakistan did not need any Indian action for recall of troops; as boasted by Jinnah while assuring a UN official about his control over the Tribals and his ability to withdraw them


I clearly pointed out to you and highlighted where the UNSC resolutions indicate negotiations before a Pakistani withdrawal, and here it is again:

"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 be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.*

And Dixon's comments I posted above indicate that the demilitarization of the valley was to be be done bilaterally and with the agreement of both sides.

The UNSC resolutions on Kashmir in 1952 illustrate this as well:



> *UN resolution 98 of 23RD December 1952​*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 India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952*, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952



The above clearly shows that the demilitarization of the valley was to be a bilateral and negotiated issue, and not some sort of unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan while India maintained all her forces in place.



> Stop piling the blame on India on every point and do realize that Pakistan had invaded Kashmir for the sole purpose of snatching it.


As I pointed out, even the Indian author calls Pakistan's objections 'tactical', and Dixon blames India, not Pakistan, and not both Pakistan and India, for the failure in obtaining an agreement, and today it is India that continues to be in blatant violation of the UNSC resolutions by refusing to implement them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bandit

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Unfortunately most Indians regurgitate this one sided history, so I can only assume that you all learn this from a single source.
> .



The Fallacy of assumption.

.


> The indigenous rebellion in Kashmir is fact as is the brutal crackdown of the Mahrajah in an attempt to quell the rebellion that caused thousands of refugees to flood into Pakistan along with the train loads of massacred Muslims arriving from India - all of this preceded the Tribal invasion. These are the facts, quoted in books by Pakistani and Western authors.
> .



These facts do not cover up the bigger fact that Pakistan broke international law when it invaded Kashmir. If it now asks India to act in accordance with law and treaties, it should step back first, sitting on one half of Kashmir and shouting for the other half to follow treaties really does not hold water.

.


> The invasion and the presence of Pakistani troops in Kashmir was dealt with through the UNSC resolutions, which called for negotiations on a ceasefire and conditions (including a Pakistani and other outsiders withdrawal) that would be conducive to a Plebiscite in Kashmir.
> 
> _What is beyond doubt is that the UNSC, after being approached by India over Pakistan's military presence in J&K, reaffirmed the point that *the territory of J&K was disputed* and that *the people of Kashmir should decide between India and Pakistan in a plebiscite*_.



What is beyond doubt is also the fact that the only contingency mentioned in the whole UN document is that of Pakistan withdrawing its forces for the execution of the next part that includes plebiscite.


.


> Yes - and the UNSC rsolutions deal with that as explained above, but Owen Dixon also said this, as pointed out in the first few posts of the thread:
> "*
> Sir Owen Dixon, Head of the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), in his report to the Security Council on 15 September 1950. He stated that, &#8220;in the end I became convinced that India&#8217;s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of plebiscite of such character, as would in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled.""*
> 
> Notice that Dixon is not blaming both India and Pakistan, but India for its obstinacy.
> .



Dixons proposal was rejected as it put India and Pakistan both on the same footing contrary to the spirit of the original UN resolution that recognized Pakistan as the aggressor and thus mandated its removal of forces as a precondition.

.


> Even the Indian author points out that Pakistan did not have any real objection to Dixon's proposals and the official objection was more 'tactical'.
> 
> .



Which means that Pakistan was eyeing the whole of Kashmir rather than divided Plebiscite as Dixon proposed.

.


> And Dixon's comments I posted above indicate that the demilitarization of the valley was to be be done bilaterally and with the agreement of both sides.
> 
> The UNSC resolutions on Kashmir in 1952 illustrate this as well:
> 
> 
> 
> The above clearly shows that the demilitarization of the valley was to be a bilateral and negotiated issue, and not some sort of unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan while India maintained all her forces in place.
> .



Please do not try modify facts. These bilateral reductions proposal was proposed by Dixon in December 1952- after four years during which Pakistan had failed to carry out its commitment on the agreement. It was a proposal which was rejected by India since it equated it with Pakistan which had no legal right to be in Kashmir.
Plus the cold war politics had come into play with Pakistan joining Cento and Seato and secured the support of west for its case and equating Pakistan with India on the Kashmir cause was one of the prizes Pakistan got for allying with the west.


.


> As I pointed out, even the Indian author calls Pakistan's objections 'tactical', and Dixon blames India, not Pakistan, and not both Pakistan and India, for the failure in obtaining an agreement, and today it is India that continues to be in blatant violation of the UNSC resolutions by refusing to implement them.




For the nth time, the blatant violation is from the Pakistani side for not keeping its end of the bargain and holding on to territory it has no legal right over. 
The issue of plebiscite by India *only * arises when Pakistanis quit Kashmir, until then all blames on India for not holding plebiscite are hogwash.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

bandit said:


> The Fallacy of assumption.


You lot obviously get that identical biased history from somewhere.



> These facts do not cover up the bigger fact that Pakistan broke international law when it invaded Kashmir. If it now asks India to act in accordance with law and treaties, it should step back first, sitting on one half of Kashmir and shouting for the other half to follow treaties really does not hold water.


Whatever Pakistan did, the fact remains that the platform India took the dispute to for arbitration ruled that the territory was disputed and that India and Pakistan had to enter into negotiations to demilitarize the region and make the situation conducive for a plebiscite that would allow the Kashmiris to choose the nation they wished to accede to.

The conclusions of the UNSC were agreed to by the Indian government, so essentially that remains, for now, the final neutral decision on the dispute relating to the events that occurred in 1947.



> What is beyond doubt is also the fact that the only contingency mentioned in the whole UN document is that of Pakistan withdrawing its forces for the execution of the next part that includes plebiscite.


Quite clearly not the only contingency - there is no mention of a mandatory unilateral withdrawal, and I have highlighted that point for you in both the text of the UNSC resolutions as well as by pointing out the mandate of the UN commissions and rapporteurs. That was precisely what the commissions and rapporteurs engaged in with India and Pakistan, precisely what Dixon's comments related to in which he criticized India, and precisely why the UNSC eventually passed a resolution that I quoted above:



> UN resolution 98 of 23RD December 1952
> 
> 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 India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952


If you have refutation to that point, please do so instead of continuously beating around the bush and regurgitating the same thing - you have offered nothing so far to counter my argument that the UNSC resolutions did not call for a unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan, they the resolutions in fact called for negotiations between India and Pakistan to achieve demilitarization and conditions conducive to a plebiscite, and that the UN commission and rapporteurs functioned as arbiters in those negotiations to achieve the goal of conducting a free and fair plebiscite. 



> Dixons proposal was rejected as it put India and Pakistan both on the same footing contrary to the spirit of the original UN resolution that recognized Pakistan as the aggressor and thus mandated its removal of forces as a precondition.


The removal of forces was in any case subject to negotiations between India and Pakistan, as pointed out, and in those negotiations the UN appointed arbiters came up with a solution that would satisfy the legitimate tangible concerns related to one side occupying territory vacated by the other - the suggestions were therefore not contrary to the original UN resolutions at all.


> Which means that Pakistan was eyeing the whole of Kashmir rather than divided Plebiscite as Dixon proposed.


Even the Indian author admits that Pakistan's objection was tactical and not serious, and Dixon blames India, not Pakistan - so how can you conclude that Pakistan was eying all of Kashmir, any more than India?



> Please do not try modify facts. These bilateral reductions proposal was proposed by Dixon in December 1952- after four years during which Pakistan had failed to carry out its commitment on the agreement. It was a proposal which was rejected by India since it equated it with Pakistan which had no legal right to be in Kashmir.
> Plus the cold war politics had come into play with Pakistan joining Cento and Seato and secured the support of west for its case and equating Pakistan with India on the Kashmir cause was one of the prizes Pakistan got for allying with the west.


Where did I modify facts? Please don't throw around absurd accusations because you do not like the facts. The previous UNSC resolutions clearly spelled out the need to negotiate to achieve demilitarization, and the UNSC resolutions in 1952, which override the previous ones, were essentially the result of the negotiations and arbitration that had occurred in the mean time, more specific, and clearly showed that the UNSC understood the legitimate concerns of Pakistan that a unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan would merely allow the opposing party in the dispute to occupy the vacated territory.


> For the nth time, the blatant violation is from the Pakistani side for not keeping its end of the bargain and holding on to territory it has no legal right over.
> The issue of plebiscite by India *only * arises when Pakistanis quit Kashmir, until then all blames on India for not holding plebiscite are hogwash.


And for the n'th time, Pakistan broke no 'bargain' (if you are referring to the UNSC resolutions) - I have clearly pointed out how the UNSC resolutions did not call for any sort of unilateral withdrawal (without conditions) and called for negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN appointed commissions and rapporteurs to achieve conditions conducive to plebiscite, including demilitarization.

Pakistan played the game by the book - we negotiated, expressed our concerns, and the UNSC resolutions in 1952 clearly were the result of Pakistan playing by the book, while India's violation of her commitment to the resolutions and refusal to understand the real concerns of any one side in the dispute enjoying military superiority in J&K in complete absence of the other was the real cause for the breakdown.

In fact, I suspect that India intended all along to occupy any territory vacated by Pakistan and renege on its pledge to hold a plebiscite - why on earth would it refuse sensible solutions that would have still left her with a larger military force in J&K (18000 to Pakistan's 6000), and allowed the UN to step in and hold a plebiscite. The plebiscite was after all the final goal per the resolutions, agreed to by India, that would decide which nation obtained J&K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bandit

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> You lot obviously get that identical biased history from somewhere.



And you lot are welcome to carry on with assumptions.




> Whatever Pakistan did, the fact remains that the platform India took the dispute to for arbitration ruled that the territory was disputed and that India and Pakistan had to enter into negotiations to demilitarize the region and make the situation conducive for a plebiscite that would allow the Kashmiris to choose the nation they wished to accede to.
> 
> The conclusions of the UNSC were agreed to by the Indian government, so essentially that remains, for now, the final neutral decision on the dispute relating to the events that occurred in 1947.



Quite certainly. But the point you keep ignoring is that Pakistan had to fulfil some preconditions which it did not and it is obvious why.




> Quite clearly not the only contingency - there is no mention of a mandatory unilateral withdrawal, and I have highlighted that point for you in both the text of the UNSC resolutions as well as by pointing out the mandate of the UN commissions and rapporteurs. That was precisely what the commissions and rapporteurs engaged in with India and Pakistan, precisely what Dixon's comments related to in which he criticized India, and precisely why the UNSC eventually passed a resolution that I quoted above:
> 
> 
> If you have refutation to that point, please do so instead of continuously beating around the bush and regurgitating the same thing - you have offered nothing so far to counter my argument that the UNSC resolutions did not call for a unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan, they the resolutions in fact called for negotiations between India and Pakistan to achieve demilitarization and conditions conducive to a plebiscite, and that the UN commission and rapporteurs functioned as arbiters in those negotiations to achieve the goal of conducting a free and fair plebiscite.



Are you genuinely mistaken or just acting to be;

What India agreed to was the 1948 resolution which clearly stated that Pakistan *HAD* to withdraw before plebiscite came into play and yes, the withdrawal had to be Pakstani first:-



> 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 be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.
> 
> 1. (l) 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.



Dixon proposed and India rejected because Dixon's proposals violated original spirit of the agreement that India had agreed to.




> The removal of forces was in any case subject to negotiations between India and Pakistan, as pointed out, and in those negotiations the UN appointed arbiters came up with a solution that would satisfy the legitimate tangible concerns related to one side occupying territory vacated by the other - the suggestions were therefore not contrary to the original UN resolutions at all.



The solution Dixon et al came up wth put Pakistan at par with India whereas the original resolution that India did agree to clearly recognized Pakistan as the aggressor, how could you expect India agree to a twisted version of the actual events.


.


> Even the Indian author admits that Pakistan's objection was tactical and not serious, and Dixon blames India, not Pakistan - so how can you conclude that Pakistan was eying all of Kashmir, any more than India?
> .



Pakistani intentions were clear by its four years of inaction on troops removal.




> Where did I modify facts?
> .



Right here-

.


> The previous UNSC resolutions clearly spelled out the need to negotiate to achieve demilitarization, and the UNSC resolutions in 1952,
> .



How can yu balme India for reneging on a resolution it never agreed to....Huh.

.


> Pakistan played the game by the book - we negotiated, expressed our concerns, and the UNSC resolutions in 1952 clearly were the result of Pakistan playing by the book, while India's violation of her commitment to the resolutions and refusal to understand the real concerns of any one side in the dispute enjoying military superiority in J&K in complete absence of the other was the real cause for the breakdown.
> .



The fact is that Pakistan allied itself with the west and in return got a favorable outcome from th UN. You can claim all the morality and fair game, but Pakistan lost its credibility when it invaded Kashmir and that became the benchmark to judge its future actions.

.


> In fact, I suspect that India intended all along to occupy any territory vacated by Pakistan and renege on its pledge to hold a plebiscite - why on earth would it refuse sensible solutions that would have still left her with a larger military force in J&K (18000 to Pakistan's 6000), and allowed the UN to step in and hold a plebiscite. The plebiscite was after all the final goal per the resolutions, agreed to by India, that would decide which nation obtained J&K.



Yeah you can suspect and have all your assumptions, obviously you can understand this much part in the resolution that Pakisan was recognized as the aggressor by the UN and had to vacate Kashmir first for India to make any move on the Plebiscite.

I tried to explain everything to you in the context of the resolution itself, if you are not ready to face facts straight as they are, you can continue to accuse me of beating around wherever, doesnt change facts.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

bandit said:


> And you lot are welcome to carry on with assumptions.


So why do most Indians regurgitate the same biased history?



> Quite certainly. But the point you keep ignoring is that Pakistan had to fulfil some preconditions which it did not and it is obvious why.


What preconditions? I pointed out to you that the resolutions in fact called for 'negotiations' on the issue of withdrawal, and that subsequent resolutions overrode previous ones and removed the point about a unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan. 

At the very least you have to refute my point about the condition of 'withdrawal of Pakistani forces' being subject to negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN appointed commission and rapporteurs. The latter point of whether India 'cherry picked' only one very early resolution out of the many that were passed (becoming more detailed as time progressed) I'll attempt to address next. 



> Are you genuinely mistaken or just acting to be;
> 
> What India agreed to was the 1948 resolution which clearly stated that Pakistan *HAD* to withdraw before plebiscite came into play and yes, the withdrawal had to be Pakstani first:-
> 
> Dixon proposed and India rejected because Dixon's proposals violated original spirit of the agreement that India had agreed to.
> 
> The solution Dixon et al came up wth put Pakistan at par with India whereas the original resolution that India did agree to clearly recognized Pakistan as the aggressor, how could you expect India agree to a twisted version of the actual events.


I am not mistaken sir, you have no clue about the commitment made by your nation's leadership to the UNSC resolutions, or refuse to see it to push a flawed and distorted narrative.

See Nehru's quotes below and note the dates:

*&#8220;We had given our pledge to the people of Kashmir, and subsequently to the United Nations; we stood by it and we stand by it today. Let the people of Kashmir decide.&#8221;  JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Statement in the Indian Parliament, 12 February 1951).

&#8220;We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.&#8221;  JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, 2 January 1952).

&#8220;But so far as the Government of India are concerned, every assurance and international commitment in regard to Kashmir stands.&#8221;  JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (Statement in the Indian Council of States; 18 May 1954).*

All statements reiterating India's commitment to the UN, and all in the fifties and one in 1954, when the resolution delineating the UN preferred troop levels for both India and Pakistan had been passed in 1952.

You cannot cherry pick one resolution, that you think supports your POV, out of the many that were passed, since subsequent resolutions override the past ones. The desire to reject the other resolutions is like a thief rejecting a higher courts decision against him.


> Pakistani intentions were clear by its four years of inaction on troops removal.


Please see above and my point about you needing to refute my argument on troop withdrawal.



> Right here-
> 
> .
> 
> How can yu balme India for reneging on a resolution it never agreed to....Huh.


I fail to see what your point was there, or how I was distorting facts. Please elaborate.



> The fact is that Pakistan allied itself with the west and in return got a favorable outcome from th UN. You can claim all the morality and fair game, but Pakistan lost its credibility when it invaded Kashmir and that became the benchmark to judge its future actions.


There was no alliance with the West at that time, nor can you conclusively argue that all UNSC members were in cahoots to 'rig' the UNSC resolutions - that's an absurd conspiracy theory.

The Pakistani Army's entrance into Kashmir occured after the IA's entrance. The Tribal invasion occurred after the Mharajah's atocities against his own people when they rose up in rebellion against him - in that sense the Tribal invasion in support of the people of Kashmir against a brutal dictator was the right thing to do.

After all, how do Indians classify their nation's own intervention in East Pakistan by supporting and arming violent rebels?


> Yeah you can suspect and have all your assumptions, obviously you can understand this much part in the resolution that Pakisan was recognized as the aggressor by the UN and had to vacate Kashmir first for India to make any move on the Plebiscite.
> 
> I tried to explain everything to you in the context of the resolution itself, if you are not ready to face facts straight as they are, you can continue to accuse me of beating around wherever, doesnt change facts.


I have already pointed out to you that the entity that India approached for arbitration ruled that the territory was disputed, the means of resolution was plebiscite, and that withdrawal was to be done through negotiations and subsequently ruled that withdrawal would not be bilateral. India's personal opinion does not matter -the neutral entity and arbiter ruled that a unilateral withdrawal was not feasible - India's position was wrong, and she failed to convince the UNSC of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bandit

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> So why do most Indians regurgitate the same biased history?



Seemingly many Pakistanis carry on with their biased versions about a lot many other things. I however, would refrain from assuming.



> What preconditions? I pointed out to you that the resolutions in fact called for 'negotiations' on the issue of withdrawal, and that subsequent resolutions overrode previous ones and removed the point about a unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan.
> 
> At the very least you have to refute my point about the condition of 'withdrawal of Pakistani forces' being subject to negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN appointed commission and rapporteurs. The latter point of whether India 'cherry picked' only one very early resolution out of the many that were passed (becoming more detailed as time progressed) I'll attempt to address next.



The point is Pakistan needed to remove its forces before India could move to the next part of the resolution...Agreed?

Now Pakistan had a lot of time to move its forces back and then squarely blame India for reneging on its commitments. However Pakistan chose to hold on to the land which highlighted its intentions.

Now you say that the countries had to negotiate, but please tell me what could have Pakistan discussed about withdrawing its forces from Kashmir with India. You claim higher moral grounds but Pakistans actions do not justify them based on that India prevented you from withdrawing forces.



> I am not mistaken sir, you have no clue about the commitment made by your nation's leadership to the UNSC resolutions, or refuse to see it to push a flawed and distorted narrative.
> 
> See Nehru's quotes below and note the dates:
> 
> *We had given our pledge to the people of Kashmir, and subsequently to the United Nations; we stood by it and we stand by it today. Let the people of Kashmir decide.  JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Statement in the Indian Parliament, 12 February 1951).
> 
> We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.  JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, 2 January 1952).
> 
> But so far as the Government of India are concerned, every assurance and international commitment in regard to Kashmir stands.  JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (Statement in the Indian Council of States; 18 May 1954).*
> 
> All statements reiterating India's commitment to the UN, and all in the fifties and one in 1954, when the resolution *delineating the UN preferred troop levels for both India and Pakistan had been passed in 1952.*



Nehru made the statements based on what the 1948 resolution had called for.

About the underlined part above, how do you expect India to accept a change in the original spirit of the resolution to which India agreed to and which clearly framed Pakistan as the aggressor? You of course hold that dear to yourself as it strengthens your position.



> You cannot cherry pick one resolution, that you think supports your POV, out of the many that were passed, since subsequent resolutions override the past ones. The desire to reject the other resolutions is like a thief rejecting a higher courts decision against him.



The same way you chose to ignore the roiginal resolution for 4 years for withdrawing the troops. 



> Please see above and my point about you needing to refute my argument on troop withdrawal
> 
> 
> I fail to see what your point was there, or how I was distorting facts. Please elaborate.
> .



The contingency for plebiscite was in 1948, and your point about mutual removal of troops is from different resolutions, which as I explained is not acceptable to India as it equates Pakistans position with it on Kashmir.

.


> There was no alliance with the West at that time, nor can you conclusively argue that all UNSC members were in cahoots to 'rig' the UNSC resolutions - that's an absurd conspiracy theory.



Russia abstained from the voting. Obviously in support of India.
And no you do realize you dont need all members of the UNSC in cahoots for that, just one would have done, USA.


.


> *The Security Council voted on this resolution on 23-12-1952 with the following result:-
> 
> In favor: **Brazil, **Chile, China, France, **Greece, **Netherlands, **Turkey, U.K. and U.S.A.
> 
> Against: None.
> 
> Abstaining: U.S.S.R.
> 
> ** Non-Permanent Members of the Security Council, .



.


> The Pakistani Army's entrance into Kashmir occured after the IA's entrance. The Tribal invasion occurred after the Mharajah's atocities against his own people when they rose up in rebellion against him - in that sense the Tribal invasion in support of the people of Kashmir against a brutal dictator was the right thing to do.



Now now, lets not be naive shall we, its well documented that Pakistan supported the Tribals. Jinnah even bragged that the Tribals would back out on his single command. Now what does it say about Pakistans intentions at that time. This non-state actor excuse is really getting lamer by the minute.



> After all, how do Indians classify their nation's own intervention in East Pakistan by supporting and arming violent rebels?.



Lets not digress shall we, I'll refrain.

.


> I have already pointed out to you that the entity that India approached for arbitration ruled that the territory was disputed, the means of resolution was plebiscite, and that withdrawal was to be done through negotiations and *subsequently* ruled that withdrawal would not be bilateral. India's personal opinion does not matter -the neutral entity and arbiter ruled that a unilateral withdrawal was not feasible - India's position was wrong, and she failed to convince the UNSC of it.



Sir please note that appenix VI mentions that 

.


> India agreed to cease fire with effect from 1st Jan: 1949 after some assurances were given to it during the course of discussions and correspondence with the UN Commission for India and Pakistan. One of the assurance given was that the plebiscite proposal shall not be binding upon India if Pakistan does not implement Part I and Part II of the resolution of August 13, 1948..




Subsequently it changed the terms, we really are under no compulsion to follow an arbiters rulings who changes terms after the pact and the neutrality of which is questionable anyways. Please try to read the soviet representatives accusation of US and UK interfering in Kashmir and stating that the constituent assembly shall decide on Kashmir in January 1952. It is obvious sides had been taken on Kashmir by then.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

bandit said:


> The point is Pakistan needed to remove its forces before India could move to the next part of the resolution...Agreed?


The parts of the resolution suggest the terms/details of such a withdrawal would have to be negotiated between India, Pakistan and the UN appointed commission - those negotiations were never settled, mainly because of Indian objections.



> Now Pakistan had a lot of time to move its forces back and then squarely blame India for reneging on its commitments. However Pakistan chose to hold on to the land which highlighted its intentions.
> 
> Now you say that the countries had to negotiate, but please tell me what could have Pakistan discussed about withdrawing its forces from Kashmir with India. You claim higher moral grounds but Pakistans actions do not justify them based on that India prevented you from withdrawing forces.


Pakistan did not have time to withdraw since the negotiations over the withdrawal were never completed.

What had to be discussed was what ended up being represented in subsequent UN resolutions - a bilateral withdrawal with X numbers of forces from either side left behind for law and order purposes, so that neither country could make a military grab for the territory vacated by the other.



> Nehru made the statements based on what the 1948 resolution had called for.



He should have been far more specific about that then - he clearly endorsed the UN resolutions which had in fact by then come to reflect a bilateral withdrawal from both sides leaving behind small numbers of troops.



> About the underlined part above, how do you expect India to accept a change in the original spirit of the resolution to which India agreed to and which clearly framed Pakistan as the aggressor? You of course hold that dear to yourself as it strengthens your position.


India did accept - see Nehru's statements I posted endorsing the UN resolutions.



> The same way you chose to ignore the roiginal resolution for 4 years for withdrawing the troops.


Withdrawal subject to negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN appointed commission - negotiations that were never concluded.



> The contingency for plebiscite was in 1948, and your point about mutual removal of troops is from different resolutions, which as I explained is not acceptable to India as it equates Pakistans position with it on Kashmir.


Nehru's quotes show him endorsing the UN resolutions, not making a distinction between them - so India accepted them. UNSC resolutions automatically override previous ones unless the specify otherwise



> Russia abstained from the voting. Obviously in support of India.
> And no you do realize you dont need all members of the UNSC in cahoots for that, just one would have done, USA.


The USSR should have voted against, if they had any serious objections.


> Now now, lets not be naive shall we, its well documented that Pakistan supported the Tribals. Jinnah even bragged that the Tribals would back out on his single command. Now what does it say about Pakistans intentions at that time. This non-state actor excuse is really getting lamer by the minute.


I am not familiar with that quote of Jinnah's - could you link me to it please?

And Pakistan did have a very low level effort in supporting the Tribals, once the invasion in response to the Maharajah's atrocities was a foregone conclusion, but it is fact that the Pakistani Army did not enter J&K until after the IA entered. Secondly, how was the Tribal invasion (if taken as a Pakistani invasion) different from India's military interventions in other princely states such as Hyderabad and Junagadh? You cannot complain about Pakistan doing so when India herself utilized military force to preempt possible accession by the rulers of those states to Pakistan.



> Lets not digress shall we, I'll refrain.


Its not digression - it goes to the heart of the Indian claim that what Pakistan did in kashmir (not Indian territory at the time) was 'immoral', when India did the same not just in East Pakistan, but also in Junagadh and Hyderabad. You have to accept your own wrongs as well if you insist on criticizing Pakistan on that point.
.


> Sir please note that appenix VI mentions that
> 
> .
> Subsequently it changed the terms, we really are under no compulsion to follow an arbiters rulings who changes terms after the pact and the neutrality of which is questionable anyways. Please try to read the soviet representatives accusation of US and UK interfering in Kashmir and stating that the constituent assembly shall decide on Kashmir in January 1952. It is obvious sides had been taken on Kashmir by then.



The terms were not changed - the resolution of 13 August 1949 clearly establishes the need for negotiations over the details of the withdrawal, details that were clarified in subsequent UNSC resolutions, which override the previous ones, and which Nehru endorsed.

You cannot pick and choose which resolutions you want to implement. If you had concerns over the issue, India should have attempted to influence the language of the resolutions before they were passed and overrode the previous ones.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## toxic_pus

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> We did respect the UNSC resolutions - *they call for tripartite negotiations* between India, Pakistan and a UN representative *to determine the details and process of demilitarization*, details over which the two sides could never come to agreement.
> 
> The UNSC resolutions *did not call for an unconditional, unilateral withdrawal on the part of Pakistan*.



The Truce Agreement does talk of tripartite negotiations, but not to _determine the details and process of demilitarization_. Part II/B(1) reads:

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, t*he Government of India agrees* to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages *to be agreed upon with the Commission*​
Nehru while seeking clarifications on the resolution of 13th Aug, 1948, had sought to identify the parties to the negotiation concerning demilitarization. He wrote to Joseph Korbel, the Chairman of the Commission, on 20th Aug, 1948 (UNCIPs 1st Report):
_...the paramount need for security is recognized by the Commission, and *the time* when the withdrawal of Indian forces from the State is to begin, *the stages* in which it is to be carried out and *the strength* of Indian forces to be retained in the State, are *matters for settlement between the Commission and the Government of India*. (para 4)​_Joseph Korbel, wrote back, on 25th Aug, 1948, confirming Nehrus interpretation (UNCIPs 1st Report):
_The Commission requests me to convey to Your Excellency its view that the *interpretation of the Resolution as expressed in paragraph 4 of your letter coincides with its own interpretation*...​_Pakistan, too, had sought clarification on this very issue. Joseph Korbel, in his letter to Zafarulla Khan, dated 3rd Sept, 1948, stated (UNCIPs 1st Report):
_As regards paragraphs B 1 and 2 of Part II, the Commission, while recognizing the paramount need for security of the State of Jammu ad Kashmir, confirms that the minimum strength required for the purpose of assisting the local authorities in the observance of law and order, would be *determined by the Commission and the Government of India*. The Commission considers that it is free to hear the views of the Government of Pakistan on the subject.​_In other words, India was neither obliged to negotiate with Pakistan nor to share information about demilitarization with anyone other than UN Commission. Neither did Pakistan have any right to dictate terms and conditions for its own withdrawal or seek information from India, or perhaps even from UN, about Indias withdrawal. Pakistans role was relegated to that of someone who Commission may hear, and not that of a party to the negotiation. As far as India was concerned, UN was _free to hear views_ of Jupiterions, if UN so desired.

UNCIPs 3rd Report, clarifies the positions of the two countries on this issue of demilitarization and the process of negotiations.

_''...the Pakistan delegation held (a) that the objective of the truce agreement is to create a military balance between the forces on each side and (b) that the withdrawal of her regular forces depended upon plans acceptable to the Pakistan Government for the synchronization of this withdrawal that of the bulk of the Indian forces. (para 229)

India, on the other hand, has (a) never accepted the claim of Pakistan to equality of rights in a military or any other sphere, but considers that the presence of Pakistan troops in Kashmir constitutes an act of aggression and a violation of international law; and (b) has refused to discuss with Pakistan any feature of the withdrawal of Indian forces, maintaining that the timing and staging of the Indian withdrawals and the strength of Indian forces to be retained in the State were matters for settlement between the Commission and the Government of India. The Government of India at this time also made it clear that the fulfillment by the Government of Pakistan of the conditions of withdrawal was a condition precedent to the implementation by the Government of India of any arrangement regarding the withdrawal of its own forces. (para 230)​_
The Truce Agreement is clear that Pakistan would have to evacuate the territories captured by it and the local authority will be looking after the administration of the evacuated territory under the direct supervision of the UN Commission. 

_Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission. [Part II/A(3)]_​
By no stretch of imagination can this be construed that _the objective of the truce agreement is to create a military balance between the forces on each side_. This deliberately flawed position of (a) led to (b). From Pakistans point of view, if it could be established that the withdrawal was about bringing in a _military balance_, it would then naturally mean that Pakistan got to decide what, for them, was an acceptable _military balance_. This in turn would mean that Pakistans withdrawal was contingent upon its agreement with Indian plan of withdrawal. It would then be very easy for Pakistan to weasel out of its own obligation by simply citing its disagreement with Indian plan of demilitarization. (Thats exactly what they did eventually and continue to do)

The Commission had on several occasions, clarified, that Pakistan had to _completely_ withdraw from the occupied part. The evacuated land was then to become UNs concern and Pakistan had absolutely no role to play in it (not even in the subsequent plebiscite). Pakistans argument, based on its flawed premise, was in complete contradiction with the Commissions clarifications. For example, UNCIPs 3rd Report states:

_...the Resolution [], as has been pointed out, *draws a distinction between the withdrawal of Indian and Pakistan forces*. *Pakistan troops are to begin to withdraw in advance* of the Indian troops and *their withdrawal is not conditioned on Pakistan's agreement to the plan of the Indian withdrawal*. (para 242)

That *Resolution does not suggest that Pakistan should be entitled to make her withdrawals conditional upon the consultations envisaged between the Commission and the Government of India* having led to an agreed schedule of withdrawal of Indian troops. What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities. (para 243) _​
To summarise, (a) negotiations regarding demilitarization was very much a bipartite affair, where Pakistan had limited role to play, if at all it had any role to play, and (b) Pakistans withdrawal was unconditional and unilateral, in the sense that it didnt depend on Indias plan for demilitarization.
___________________________

End Note:

UNCIPs 1st Report was prepared by Mr Alfredo Lonazo, representative of Columbia and is dated 22, Nov, 1948. Commissions chairman was Mr Joseph Korbel.

UNCIPs 3rd Report was prepared by Mr Robert van de Karchove, representative of Belgium and is dated 9 Dec, 1949. Commissions chairman was Mr Hernando Semper.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

_What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities.&#8221; _

In other words not an unconditional withdrawal, and therefore no violation by Pakistan of the UNSC resolutions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## toxic_pus

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> _What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities._
> 
> In other words not an unconditional withdrawal, and therefore no violation by Pakistan of the UNSC resolutions.



'_Assurance_' was never a problem. The Commission was there precisely to see that the demilitarization wasn't being carried on in a manner that might create an '_opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities_'. For instance, in the words of Mr Robert van de Karchove, the UN rapporteur (UNCIP's 3rd Interim Report):
_"It was feasible [...] that *the arrangements could be coordinated and supervised by the mediation party, namely, the Commission*, so as to cause the two withdrawals to represent a dual operation which would be coordinated in timing and would result in a military situation in the State which was not such as to place either side at a disadvantage." (para 242)​_Further,
_"It (the Commission)*repeatedly assured* the Pakistan Government that this would be evident in the agreement itself, and it must be noted that the terms were to be published in full immediately upon the acceptance of the Governments. The withdrawal plan for the Indian forces [...] was consequently, to be published in advance of implementation by either side." (para 244)​_Besides, India had given plenty of 'assurance' that there would be no unilateral reopening of hostilities on its part, unless provoked. 

In spite of all that Pakistan deliberately maintained an absurd stance,
_"...(a) that the objective of the truce agreement is to create a military balance between the forces on each side and (b) that the withdrawal of her regular forces depended upon plans acceptable to the Pakistan Government for the synchronization of this withdrawal that of the bulk of the Indian forces" (para 230)​_Regarding 'synchronization' Mr Karchove observed:
_"The Commission was not able to share the view of the Government of Pakistan that the only method of assuring this form of synchronization was by the full and free exchange of information between the Indian and Pakistan Governments regarding withdrawal plans." (para 242)​_Hence,
_"The Pakistan Government could not in reason expect, nor could the Commission have granted, a "synchronization" which would have been incompatible with the terms of the Resolution of 13 August." (para 243)​_
Clearly Pakistan was just looking for ways to shrug off its own responsibilities in a way that would enable it to blame India for all the failures. 

'Assurance' was never a problem. Pakistan had plenty of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## niaz

This is never ending debate. People keep asking about reliable source. Hon Sirs, nearly all the secondary sources that you refer have read the same old news reports that I have only difference is that of interpretation. Like saying a glass is half full or half empty. 


The two essential parts of the resolution were:


3. Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission. 

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 be assured.

Following the UN Resolution, there were many attempts to resolve this issue as noted below:

Talks between Quaid-e-Azam and Mountbatten.	

In November 1947, at Lahore talks took place between Quaid-e-Azam and Mountbatten in which Quaid-e-Azam initiated certain proposals in which the Governor Generals and the Prime Ministers of both the countries were scheduled to meet to find out solution to Kashmir. The talks between said dignitaries never took place due to backing out of Sardar Patel. [2] 

Liaqat Nehru Report-1950.	

In 1950, Mr., Liaquat Ali Khan, the first Prime Minister of Pakistan visited new Delhi where he signed an agreement with his counterpart, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru; which has come to be know as, &#8220;Liaquat &#8211; Nehru Pact&#8221;. This pact was followed in letter and spirit by Pakistan, while India tried to overlook. This pact was the first bilateral agreement between the Pakistan and the India but its results were not long lasting. 

1953- Bogra Nehru Talks.	

On 25 July 1953, the Pakistani Prime Minister Muhammad Ali Bogra and the Indian Prime Minister Pandit Nehru held negotiations on the question of Kashmir in Karachi which were followed by another round of talks in New Delhi from 16 August. A joint communiqu&#233; issue at the end of talks reaffirmed that the Kashmir dispute needed to be resolved in accordance with the wishes of the people of Kashmir through fair and impartial plebiscite. However when it came to implementation, India balked. [3] 

1962 Talks.	

1962 saw Sino &#8211;Indo conflict at the end of which India faced lot of pressure from international community to have solution of Kashmir. As a sequel to it, six rounds of talks were held between the foreign ministers of the two countries from December 27, 1962 to May 16, 1963 at Rawalpindi, New Delhi, Karachi, Calcutta and again Karachi and New Delhi. Various aspects of the Kashmir dispute were discussed, however the meetings concluded without any agreement due to Indian cunning attitude. 

Special Edition (Liaqat Ali Khan)

The following is a link to a magazine which is part of the Hindu Newspapers group of India.

Of the India-Pakistan summit, 1955. 

The relevant portion is quoted below;

The third reason is that in 1947 Nehru was confident of winning the plebiscite. Earlier volumes in the series record Nehru's retreat from plebiscite and moves for partition. One would suspect that when it concerned Kashmir, Nehru had reservations on a plebiscite even in 1947. Thus, he wrote to Abdullah on November 21, 1947: "Dwarkanath writes to me that there is strong feeling in the leadership of the National Conference against a referendum. I know this and quite understand it. In fact I share the feeling myself. But you will appreciate that it is not easy for us to back out of the stand we have taken before the world. That would create a very bad impression abroad and especially in U.N. circles. I feel, however, that this question of referendum is rather an academic one at present... If we said to the UNO that we no longer stand by a referendum in Kashmir, Pakistan would score a strong point and that would be harmful to our cause. On the other hand, if circumstances continue as they are and the referendum is out of the question during these next few months, then why worry about it now?... It is all a question of the best tactical approach. I would personally suggest to you not to say anything rejecting the idea of a referendum..." (V. 4, pp. 336-7). 
Nehru pleaded with the Maharaja of Kashmir (December 1, 1947): "If the average Muslim (in Kashmir) feels that he has no safe or secure place in the Union, then obviously he will look elsewhere... The present position is that in Kashmir proper, the mass of the population Muslim and Hindu is no doubt in favour of the Indian Union. In the Jammu area, all the non-Muslims and some Muslims are likely to be in favour of the Union. But this depends entirely on the policy to be pursued during the next few months" (V. 4; p. 351). 
Another consideration weighed with Nehru. He knew that a pro-Pakistan constituency existed in Kashmir. It has to be defeated or marginalised by winning over the people - through the plebiscite offer. Hence his wise counsel to the Sheikh on November 1, 1947: "The people must be made to feel that the question of accession will have to be decided finally according to their own wishes. How this is to be done can be determined later. As far as I can see, it should be done under the auspices of the United Nations" (V. 4; p. 300). Mountbatten's suggestion for reference to the U.N. came later, on December 8. 
With Lord Ismay's help V. P. Menon and Chaudhry Mohammed Ali, Secretary-General of Pakistan's Cabinet, arrived at a Draft Kashmir Agreement in November which Ismay discussed with Nehru and Liaquat in detail on December 28, 1947. It had no chance of success given Nehru's attitude despite Liaquat's concessions (V.4; pp. 408-9). 
Once the debates in the U.N. Security Council began in January 1948, Nehru became increasingly uneasy and confused. To Krishna Menon he mentioned two alternatives: "One is the possibility of Kashmir being considered more or less independent and guaranteed as such by India, Pakistan and possibly the U.N. The other is the possibility of some kind of partition either by previous agreement or as a result of the vote. I do not fancy either of these; but I do not wish to rule them out altogether" (February 20, 1949; V. 5; p. 222). 
On February 26, Mountbatten proposed that "a vote for independence should be included in the plebiscite" (V. 5; p. 232). 
Unquote.

I restate my position that Nehru always wanted to grab Kashmir. Even strongly pro Indian Chief Minister of Kashmir, Sh. Abdullah revolted and was sentenced to imprisonment in 1953 when Nehru went back on his word. Sheikh Abdullah remained in Prison until after Nehru&#8217;s death in 1964, when all of a sudden all charges against him were dropped and he was reinstated.
Pakistanis feel cheated and bitter about the duplicity of Nehru and Sardar Patel. However the fact remains that India is without doubt militarily, economically, in men and materials numerically superior to Pakistan. It is a universal truth that &#8220;Might is always Right&#8221;.


----------



## rastor

niaz said:


> However the fact remains that India is without doubt militarily, economically, in men and materials is numerically superior to Pakistan. It is a universal truth that Might is always Right.



Very true.

Sir, from reading your posts I have cultivated much respect for you. This is the sad reality....kashmir wants to be either independent or slide to pakistan but no Indian govt would agree to that. Ultimately pakistan has to reconcile itself to keeping what it has and accept that territorial re-organization is not the only way to solve this problem.....the only probable solution is along the lines of "keep what you have"......


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> _ "It was feasible [...] that the arrangements could be coordinated and supervised by the mediation party, namely, the Commission, so as to cause the two withdrawals to represent a dual operation which would be coordinated in timing and would result in a military situation in the State which was not such as to place either side at a disadvantage." (para 242)_
> 
> 
> Further,
> _
> "It (the Commission)repeatedly assured the Pakistan Government that this would be evident in the agreement itself, and it must be noted that the terms were to be published in full immediately upon the acceptance of the Governments. The withdrawal plan for the Indian forces [...] was consequently, to be published in advance of implementation by either side." (para 244)_


Again, that only supports Pakistan's position that the withdrawal was in essence neither unilateral nor unconditional.

I fail to see how you can argue otherwise when you just posted material endorsing the point I was arguing?


> Besides, India had given plenty of 'assurance' that there would be no unilateral reopening of hostilities on its part, unless provoked.



Did India not reject the demilitarization proposals presented by both McNaughton and Owen Dixon - so how exactly was not intransigent here and how exactly was the Indian rejection of the proposed demilitarization plans in consonance with the two paragraphs quoted above and not tantamount to Indian intransigence?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

rastor said:


> .....the only probable solution is along the lines of "keep what you have"......



That however is not a compromise - that is in essence the Indian position since the fifties when India decided to violate its commitment to the UNSC resolutions and move to annex and integrate the territory under is control into India - Indian officials and Nehru said as much on the record, that they would look to converting the status of the then ceasefire line into the international border.

The status quo of LoC == IB is not acceptable to Pakistan, much as a plebiscite determining the status of the entire territory of J&K is not acceptable to India - a compromise solution different from these two positions needs to therefore be worked on, and was in a way under the backchannel dialog between Pakistan under Musharraf and the GoI.


----------



## toxic_pus

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Again, that only supports Pakistan's position that the withdrawal was in essence neither unilateral nor unconditional.
> 
> I fail to see how you can argue otherwise when you just posted material endorsing the point I was arguing?


I think I have already clarified it in my earlier post. Pakistans withdrawal was unconditional and unilateral in the sense that it didnt depend on Indias plan for demilitarization. Pakistan had consistently tried to condition its own withdrawal to Indias plan for demilitarization in spite of being repeatedly clarified otherwise by the Commission. Thats where Pakistans intransigence lies.

The materials that I have posted, illustrate that Pakistan was not entitled to seek any assurance in any manner that was beyond what was already contained in the Truce Agreement itself and what the very presence of UN as a mediator ensured.

The argument that Pak withdrawal was conditional upon assurance is an argument in vacuum and altogether a desperate attempt to clutch at straw. 


> Did India not reject the demilitarization proposals presented by both McNaughton and Owen Dixon - so how exactly was not intransigent here and how exactly was the Indian rejection of the proposed demilitarization plans in consonance with the two paragraphs quoted above and not tantamount to Indian intransigence?


Firstly, rejection of any proposal which had the potential to place India at a disadvantage doesnt automatically mean intransigence. Negotiation, by its very definition meant that India had the right to reject and/or offer terms and conditions.

Secondly, neither McNaughton nor Owen Dixon made any actionable proposals. McNaughton provided a broad framework for demilitarization and nothing more, while Dixon concentrated solely on the process of plebiscite. Why their proposals were rejected is another debate and deserves a separate thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## toxic_pus

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> That however is not a compromise - that is in essence the Indian position since the fifties when India decided to violate its commitment to the UNSC resolutions and move to annex and integrate the territory under is control into India - Indian officials and Nehru said as much on the record, that they would look to converting the status of the then ceasefire line into the international border.


It is difficult of violate one's commitment when the opportunity to execute one's commitment never presented itself. But don't let these legal trivialities spoil your accusation game. 

Regarding annexation, well, Pakistan took it to the UN and UN has till date not ruled it to be 'violation' of any commitment. But again, don't let these minor facts ruin your game.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

toxic_pus said:


> I think I have already clarified it in my earlier post. Pakistans withdrawal was unconditional and unilateral in the sense that it didnt depend on Indias plan for demilitarization. Pakistan had consistently tried to condition its own withdrawal to Indias plan for demilitarization in spite of being repeatedly clarified otherwise by the Commission. Thats where Pakistans intransigence lies.
> 
> The materials that I have posted, illustrate that Pakistan was not entitled to seek any assurance in any manner that was beyond what was already contained in the Truce Agreement itself and what the very presence of UN as a mediator ensured.
> 
> The argument that Pak withdrawal was conditional upon assurance is an argument in vacuum and altogether a desperate attempt to clutch at straw.


Please re-read the text you yourself posted - the UN commission implicitly tied any Pakistani withdrawal to Indian actions on demilitarization - there is no clutching at straws here except by you to somehow cast Pakistan as being obligated to perform an 'unconditional and unilateral withdrawal' to erroneously establish a violation of the UNSC resolutions.

_""It was feasible [...] that the arrangements could be coordinated and supervised by the mediation party, namely, the Commission, so as to cause the two withdrawals to represent a dual operation which would be coordinated in timing and would result in a military situation in the State which was not such as to place either side at a disadvantage." (para 242)_

_"It (the Commission)repeatedly assured the Pakistan Government that this would be evident in the agreement itself, and it must be noted that the terms were to be published in full immediately upon the acceptance of the Governments. The withdrawal plan for the Indian forces [...] was consequently, to be published in advance of implementation by either side." (para 244)_​


> Firstly, rejection of any proposal which had the potential to place India at a disadvantage doesnt automatically mean intransigence. Negotiation, by its very definition meant that India had the right to reject and/or offer terms and conditions.


The rejection of several proposals on demilitarization by India, on the pretext of 'disadvantage', when the goal was to in fact stall implementation of the UNSC resolutions and declare LoC == IB, does qualify as intransigence, but obviously not to the party guilty of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

toxic_pus said:


> It is difficult of violate one's commitment when the opportunity to execute one's commitment never presented itself. But don't let these legal trivialities spoil your accusation game.


The commitment was to implement the principle of plebiscite to resolve the dispute of J&K as outlined in the UNSC resolutions - statements and actions tantamount to withdrawal from the resolutions was a violation of that commitment.


> Regarding annexation, well, Pakistan took it to the UN and UN has till date not ruled it to be 'violation' of any commitment. But again, don't let these minor facts ruin your game.


Not aware of that process and what rationale the UN used to make/not make a decision - perhaps you can provide further details or links to them ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rastor

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> That however is not a compromise - that is in essence the Indian position since the fifties when India decided to violate its commitment to the UNSC resolutions and move to annex and integrate the territory under is control into India - Indian officials and Nehru said as much on the record, that they would look to converting the status of the then ceasefire line into the international border.
> 
> The status quo of LoC == IB is not acceptable to Pakistan, much as a plebiscite determining the status of the entire territory of J&K is not acceptable to India - a compromise solution different from these two positions needs to therefore be worked on, and was in a way under the backchannel dialog between Pakistan under Musharraf and the GoI.



AM,

Those UNSC resolutions are nothing more than junk paper if either India or Pak decide it is so. If you mean something along the lines of "give us the valley - keep the rest" - it ain't gonna happen under threat of proxies and judging from Niaz's posting not by offer of peace too.....that which has taken blood/sweat to achieve is unlikely to be given away....

The basis of all this is not justice or the 'righteous' but power. The more powerful entity will prevail.....take the fact pakistan hasn't gotten anywhere with it's proxies or wars.....I for one would definitely be OK with India ceding kashmir for independence or change in territorial status quo but reality is different. Time for Pakistan to re-calibrate and define what is in it's best interest.


----------



## toxic_pus

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Please re-read the text you yourself posted - the UN commission implicitly tied any Pakistani withdrawal to Indian actions on demilitarization - there is no clutching at straws here except by you to somehow cast Pakistan as being obligated to perform an 'unconditional and unilateral withdrawal' to erroneously establish a violation of the UNSC resolutions.
> 
> _""It was feasible [...] that the arrangements could be coordinated and supervised by the mediation party, namely, the Commission, so as to cause the two withdrawals to represent a dual operation which would be coordinated in timing and would result in a military situation in the State which was not such as to place either side at a disadvantage." (para 242)_
> 
> _"It (the Commission)repeatedly assured the Pakistan Government that this would be evident in the agreement itself, and it must be noted that the terms were to be published in full immediately upon the acceptance of the Governments. The withdrawal plan for the Indian forces [...] was consequently, to be published in advance of implementation by either side." (para 244)_​


Indian actions on demilitarization was to be preceded by Pakistans actions on demilitarization making it logically impossible to tie Pakistans withdrawal to Indian actions. That is in fact an absurd proposition. What it could have been contingent upon was the Indian __plan__ of demilitarization. But then, the Commission had explicitly detached Pakistans withdrawal from the Indian plan of demilitarization, it being a matter to be settled entirely between GoI and the Commission.

What makes Pakistans withdrawal unconditional and unilateral, is that it is irrelevant if Pakistan agreed (or disagreed) to the timing, manner and quantum of Indian withdrawal, so long as UN played the role of mediator. Pakistan had absolutely no say in any of this. It was all UNs headache. Pakistan had to withdraw __in advance__, consequent on which India had to begin withdrawing in accordance to a plan, agreed upon by GoI and UN and published in public. UN was to __supervise__ the withdrawal to ensure that no country was at a disadvantage. Period. 

Nothing, that I have posted, says anything otherwise  explicitly or implicitly.


> The rejection of several proposals on demilitarization by India, on the pretext of 'disadvantage', when the goal was to in fact stall implementation of the UNSC resolutions and declare LoC == IB, does qualify as intransigence, but obviously not to the party guilty of it.


If you peel all the layers, you would find that India had rejected only ONE proposal regarding demilitarization. It was about the quantum of troops to be left on either side, immediately after demilitarization. The reason was Pakistan's deliberately twisted interpretation of 'local authority' in evacuated territory (in spite of repeated clarification by the Commission) and the perfidy in connection with disbanding and disarming the 'Azad forces'. The idea of converting LoC into IB was the most practical solution given Pakistan's insistence on not meeting its obligation on one pretext or the other and thereby holding up demilitarization and everything that was to follow from it. 


It is easy to point fingers when ignorance is wisdom.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The commitment was to implement the principle of plebiscite to resolve the dispute of J&K as outlined in the UNSC resolutions - statements and actions tantamount to withdrawal from the resolutions was a violation of that commitment.


Wrong. The commitment was to implement the principle of plebiscite once certain very specific conditions were fulfilled. Non fulfillment of those conditions gave India every right to withdraw from the resolutions. 

That statements do not tantamount to violation of any commitment, is another matter



> Not aware of that process and what rationale the UN used to make/not make a decision - perhaps you can provide further details or links to them ...


Don't have any links. I will try to post some details later on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

toxic_pus said:


> Indian actions on demilitarization was to be preceded by Pakistans actions on demilitarization making it logically impossible to tie Pakistans withdrawal to Indian actions. That is in fact an absurd proposition. What it could have been contingent upon was the Indian __plan__ of demilitarization. But then, the Commission had explicitly detached Pakistans withdrawal from the Indian plan of demilitarization, it being a matter to be settled entirely between GoI and the Commission.
> 
> What makes Pakistans withdrawal unconditional and unilateral, is that it is irrelevant if Pakistan agreed (or disagreed) to the timing, manner and quantum of Indian withdrawal, so long as UN played the role of mediator. Pakistan had absolutely no say in any of this. It was all UNs headache. Pakistan had to withdraw __in advance__, consequent on which India had to begin withdrawing in accordance to a plan, agreed upon by GoI and UN and published in public. UN was to __supervise__ the withdrawal to ensure that no country was at a disadvantage. Period.
> 
> *Nothing, that I have posted, says anything otherwise  explicitly or implicitly.*


Wrong - what you have posted cleary does condition Pakistani withdrawal to actions, or a plan of action that satisfied certain criteria the commission laid out - once again, read the text you yourself posted:
_
"It was feasible [...] that the arrangements could be coordinated and supervised by the mediation party, namely, the Commission, so as to cause the two withdrawals to represent a dual operation which would be coordinated in timing and would result in a military situation in the State which was not such as to place either side at a disadvantage." (para 242)

"It (the Commission)repeatedly assured the Pakistan Government that this would be evident in the agreement itself, and it must be noted that the terms were to be published in full immediately upon the acceptance of the Governments. The withdrawal plan for the Indian forces [...] was consequently, to be published in advance of implementation by either side." (para 244)_​
The underlying clearly makes a Pakistani withdrawal neither unilateral nor unconditional - any one with a rudimentary understanding of English can see that.



> If you peel all the layers, you would find that India had rejected only ONE proposal regarding demilitarization. It was about the quantum of troops to be left on either side, immediately after demilitarization. The reason was Pakistan's deliberately twisted interpretation of 'local authority' in evacuated territory (in spite of repeated clarification by the Commission) and the perfidy in connection with disbanding and disarming the 'Azad forces'. The idea of converting LoC into IB was the most practical solution given Pakistan's insistence on not meeting its obligation on one pretext or the other and thereby holding up demilitarization and everything that was to follow from it.



Peeling the layers? You mean more excuses to explain away Indian intransigence - since the Indian goal was to stall in order to withdraw from its commitment.



> It is easy to point fingers when ignorance is wisdom.


It is easy to point fingers when the party being accused is in fact guilty.



> Wrong. The commitment was to implement the principle of plebiscite once certain very specific conditions were fulfilled. Non fulfillment of those conditions gave India every right to withdraw from the resolutions.


And where was the timeline for implementation of conditions, failing to meet which a party could determine that the commitment was null and void? 

Barring an explicit timeline within the resolutions, your argument would theoretically allow for 'withdrawal from the commitment on the basis of non-implementation' after two days - and is therfore an invalid excuse for India's violation of her commitment to the UNSC resolutions.


> That statements do not tantamount to violation of any commitment, is another matter


Statements followed up by actions in the form of the forcible annexation and integration of the disputed territory under Indian control - an explicit violation of the commitment to the UNSC resolutions that declare the territory disputed and the means of dispute resolution a plebiscite.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

rastor said:


> AM,
> 
> Those UNSC resolutions are nothing more than junk paper if either India or Pak decide it is so.


Any agreement or treaty is 'junk paper' if no effective enforcement mechanism exists - by that yardstick the IWT is junk, Simla is junk etc. etc. Why should India be trusted with any agreement in the future?


> If you mean something along the lines of "give us the valley - keep the rest" - it ain't gonna happen under threat of proxies and judging from Niaz's posting not by offer of peace too.....that which has taken blood/sweat to achieve is unlikely to be given away....
> 
> The basis of all this is not justice or the 'righteous' but power. The more powerful entity will prevail.....take the fact pakistan hasn't gotten anywhere with it's proxies or wars.....I for one would definitely be OK with India ceding kashmir for independence or change in territorial status quo but reality is different. Time for Pakistan to re-calibrate and define what is in it's best interest.


You have essentially dropped all pretense of having any legal or moral claim to J&K, nor any valid excuse to justify Indian occupation and subjugation of J&K, by resorting to the excuse of last resort for scoundrels and thugs - 'might is right'. 

Since that is where you rest your case, do you then accept then that in return for India's forcible occupation and subjugation of Kashmir and the Kashmiri people, and the numerous atrocities inflicted upon those people by India in the effort to strengthen her occupation, Pakistan is well within its bounds to use covert and overt violent means, as it sees fit, to make Indian occupation and subjugation as costly for India as possible?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## toxic_pus

We are just going in circles.


AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Wrong - what you have posted cleary does condition Pakistani withdrawal to actions, or a plan of action that satisfied certain criteria the commission laid out...


To the satisfaction of UN, yes. Not Pakistan. 

That was the whole point of UN being there as a mediator. That was the whole point of negotiation between GoI and UN. That was the whole point of keeping Pakistan out from the negotiation. Because Pakistans obligation to withdraw was __absolute__, where withdrawal meant __complete__ evacuation of Pak nationals, Army and other fighting forces, while Indias obligation arose as and when Pakistan withdrew. Hence, timing, manner and quantum of Indian troop withdrawal needed to be determined to the satisfaction of UN. Not of Pakistan.


> _
> "It was feasible [...] that the arrangements could be coordinated and supervised by the mediation party, namely, the Commission, so as to cause the two withdrawals to represent a dual operation which would be coordinated in timing and would result in a military situation in the State which was not such as to place either side at a disadvantage." (para 242)_


Again, it was UN to decide if plan of Indian withdrawal fulfilled the criteria. Not Pakistan. Pakistan was not even entitled to know about the terms and conditions, until the time of agreement. You also forgot to highlight the part that says __the arrangements could be coordinated and supervised *by the mediation party, namely, the Commission*__ which makes abundantly clear that it was not something that concerned Pakistan. 

Besides, para 242 was the Commissions response to Pakistans demand that withdrawal be synchronized and that the only way to ensure such synchronization was by sharing of information.
_The Commission's reply regarding synchronization cannot be interpreted out of the context of the Resolution which, as has been pointed out, *draws a distinction between the withdrawal of Indian and Pakistan forces*. Pakistan troops are to *begin to withdraw in advance *of the Indian troops and their withdrawal is *not conditioned on Pakistan's agreement to the plan of the Indian withdrawal*. [] *The Commission was not able to share the view of the Government of Pakistan that the only method of assuring this form of synchronization was by the full and free exchange of information between the Indian and Pakistan Governments regarding withdrawal plans.* It was feasible, in the Commission's judgment and the Commission's military adviser had had this in mind, that *the arrangements could be coordinated and supervised by the mediation party, namely, the Commission*, so as to cause the two withdrawals to represent a dual operation which would be coordinated in timing and would result in a military situation in the State which was not such as to place either side at a disadvantage.(para 242)​_The connotation of that quote becomes clear when read in the right context. And that is, the 'synchronization' was UN's responsibility. (Hence Indian plan needed to be to the satisfaction of UN.)



> "It (the Commission)repeatedly assured the Pakistan Government that this would be evident in the agreement itself, and it must be noted that the terms were to be published in full immediately upon the acceptance of the Governments. The withdrawal plan for the Indian forces [...] was consequently, to be published in advance of implementation by either side." (para 244)[/I]


Give it a rest. The highlighted part is a reference to Part II/C of the Truce agreement. It states:
Upon signature, the full text of the Truce Agreement or communiqué containing the principles thereof as agreed upon between the two Governments and the Commission, will be made public.​That you have to fall back on questioning my understanding of rudimentary English, illustrates how desperately you want to see what you want to see. In spite of knowing that it is logically impossible for an action to be dependent on something that succeeds it and is in essence dependent on it, or in spite of UN clarifying in no uncertain terms that Pakistans withdrawal was not conditional to Indian plan of demilitarization you keep insisting that it was so. Your intransigence is now reaching new heights of absurdity. 



> Peeling the layers? You mean more excuses to explain away Indian intransigence - since the Indian goal was to stall in order to withdraw from its commitment.
> 
> 
> It is easy to point fingers when the party being accused is in fact guilty.


Ignorance is indeed bliss.



> And where was the timeline for implementation of conditions, failing to meet which a party could determine that the commitment was null and void?
> 
> Barring an explicit timeline within the resolutions, your argument would theoretically allow for 'withdrawal from the commitment on the basis of non-implementation' after two days - and is therfore an invalid excuse for India's violation of her commitment to the UNSC resolutions.


An agreement becomes null and void when, among other reasons, the other party to the agreement takes a position which makes it apparent, its intention to not perform. Pakistans declared stance on several issues (e.g. deliberate misinterpretation of local authority, refusing to disband and disarm Azad force, insisting on simultaneous troop withdrawal to bring in military balance, refusal to accept its role, or the lack of it, in the process of negotiation, but more importantly, refusing to implement Part I/B & E of Cease Fire agreement etc.) made it clear that Pakistan didnt want to withdraw. India was not under any compulsion to wait till infinity when it became apparent that no withdrawal was possible in the face of Pakistan's hardened stand. 

One more time, incorporating Kashmir within the folds of Indian Constitution wasnt illegal. There is nothing in any resolution that prevents India from administering Kashmir in a way that it deemed fit.



> ...the UNSC resolutions that declare the territory disputed and the means of dispute resolution a plebiscite.


No resolution at the UN was passed declaring the territory disputed. On the contrary, the Commission had explicitly assured India that the sovereignty of J & K would never be questioned. By virtue of Instrument of Accession, a substantial part of that sovereignty rested with India.

You can give this canard a rest too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## linkinpark

Let me post the whole 1952 UNSC resolution on India-Pakistan Kashmir Issue.



> *RESOLUTION 98 (1952) ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL AT ITS 611TH MEETING ON 23 DECEMBER, 1952. (DOCUMENT NO. S/2883, DATED THE 24TH DECEMBER, 1952).
> 
> THE SECURITY COUNCIL,
> 
> Recalling its resolutions, 91 (1951) of 30 March 1951, its decision of 30 April 1951 and its resolution 96 (1951) of 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 would be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the 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;
> 
> *2. Notes with gratification that the United Nations Representative has reported that the Governments of India and Pakistan have accepted all but two of the paragraphs of his twelve-point proposals;
> 
> 3. 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;*
> 
> *4. 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 India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952;*
> 
> 5. 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;
> 
> 6. Requests the Governments of India and Pakistan to report to the Security Council not later than thirty days from the date of the adoption of this resolution;
> 
> 7. Requests the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan to keep the Security Council informed of any progress.
> 
> http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/98&#37;20(1952)&Lang=E&Area=RESOLUTION
> 
> http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc23dec52.htm



Clearly, from the above 3 highlighted paras it is clear that both India and Pakistan didn't agree for the demilitarization and the blame is put on both due to their disagreement to certain points in 12-point proposal. So, both India and Pakistan are at fault for failure of this UNSC mandated resolutions and a long time has passed since that these resolutions are no longer applicable.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

*Thursday, 07 October 2010
Shawwal 27, 1431**UN Chief Expresses Concern over Kashmir Issue*​


> UNITED NATIONS: United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, expressing concern over the killings in Indian occupied Kashmir Valley, has again called for an immediate end to violence and has urged for restraint while regretting the loss of life.
> 
> More than 110 Kashmiris have been killed in the mass unrest that broke out early June following protests over spate of killings by Indian police.
> 
> When at his press conference Wednesday, the UN chiefs attention was drawn to the deteriorating situation in Kashmir and asked whether he was prepared to offer his good-offices to resolve the decades-old dispute since bilateral efforts have failed, Ban said he could only use his good offices when both parties - India and Pakistan - agreed to such a course.
> 
> I regret the latest loss of life. I have been calling for an immediate end to violence and urge calm and restraint by all concerned, Ban however said.
> 
> That is the position of the United Nations at this time.
> 
> As far as this role of good offices is concerned, the United Nations normally takes that initiative when requested by both parties concerned, Ban told journalists during his monthly briefing.
> 
> India and Pakistan, they are neighbouring countries, important nations in that region  peace and security would have important implications, he said.
> 
> Last week, representatives of India and Pakistan had a verbal duel in the UN General Assembly after Indian External Affairs Minister SM Krishna accused Pakistan of being behind the current unrest in Kashmir.
> 
> Pakistan rejected Indias allegation, urging New Delhi to stop its state-sponsored terrorism in Kashmir and grant the Kashmiri people their UN-mandated right to self-determination.
> 
> Later both sides cancelled a scheduled meeting after the Pakistani foreign minister said the talks should be made meaningful by including the festering dispute over Kashmir on the agenda.




UN boss expresses concern over Kashmir Issue - GEO.tv


----------



## Patrician

^^ Abu does Geo TV run late or what?

The latest news is that UN Chief has refused to intervene UNLESS BOTH India AND Pakistan agree. 

The Hindu : News / National : U.N. will not intervene in Kashmir on its own: Ban Ki-moon


----------



## Camdor

may be it will entertain Pakistani Members.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

*How Nehru&#8217;s Partisans Are Subverting his Kashmir Promise​*


> Jawed Naqvi
> *When US President Barrack Obama during his visit to India kept studiously quiet about his host&#8217;s military occupation of Kashmir, he was in fact critiquing Jawaharlal Nehru in front of those who claim legitimacy from India&#8217;s first prime minister. *
> 
> Obama may have got his cue from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. He was after all a senior member of the Indian cabinet in 1994 when the parliament passed a strange resolution claiming that the entire Jammu and Kashmir state, including the area &#8220;occupied&#8221; by Pakistan, was an integral part of India.
> 
> *The resolution became the antithesis of everything that India had stood for vis a vis Kashmir under Nehru. The fact that Delhi&#8217;s most powerful politician Sonia Gandhi, and the ruling Congress party&#8217;s heir apparent Rahul Gandhi have implicitly backed the existing hard line policy can be seen as the betrayal of an ideal both claim to inherit from Nehru.*
> 
> Let&#8217;s see what Nehru said over several years about Kashmir, and how many of his views are being echoed by political activists who are being shunned by the system today as seditionists and anti-national rabble-rousers.
> 
> In his telegram to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Oct 27, 1947, Nehru said: &#8220;I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the state to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or state must be decided *in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view*.&#8221;
> 
> In another similar telegram four days later, he said: &#8220;Kashmir&#8217;s accession to India was accepted by us at the request of the Maharaja&#8217;s government and the most numerously representative popular organisation in the state which is predominantly Muslim. *Even then it was accepted on condition that as soon as law and order had been restored, the people of Kashmir would decide the question of accession. It is open to them to accede to either Dominion then*.&#8221;
> 
> In his broadcast over All India Radio on Nov 2, 1947, Nehru said: &#8220;We are anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide &#8212; And let me make it clear that it has been our policy that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that state. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir.&#8221;
> 
> *In his statement in the Indian Constituent Assembly on Nov 25, 1947, Nehru said: &#8220;In order to establish our bona fide, we have suggested that when the people are given the chance to decide their future, this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations Organisation. The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked force should decide the future or the will of the people.&#8221;*
> 
> In his statement in the Indian Constituent Assembly on March 5, 1948, he said: &#8220;Even at the moment of accession, we went out of our way to make a unilateral declaration that we would abide by the will of the people of Kashmir as declared in a plebiscite or referendum. We insisted further that the government of Kashmir must immediately become a popular government. We have adhered to that position throughout and we are prepared to have a Plebiscite with every protection of fair voting and to abide by the decision of the people of Kashmir&#8221;.
> 
> In his press conference in London on Jan 16, 1951, as reported by The Statesman on Jan 18, 1951, Nehru stated: &#8220;India has repeatedly offered to work with the United Nations reasonable safeguards to enable the people of Kashmir to express their will and is always ready to do so. We have always right from the beginning accepted the idea of the Kashmir people deciding their fate by referendum or plebiscite. In fact, this was our proposal long before the United Nations came into the picture. Ultimately the final decision of the settlement, which must come, has first of all to be made basically by the people of Kashmir and secondly, as between Pakistan and India directly. Of course it must be remembered that we (India and Pakistan) have reached a great deal of agreement already. What I mean is that many basic features have been thrashed out. We all agreed that it is the people of Kashmir who must decide for themselves about their future externally or internally. It is an obvious fact that even without our agreement no country is going to hold on to Kashmir against the will of the Kashmiris.&#8221;
> 
> ***In his report to All Indian Congress Committee on July 16, 1951, as published in The Statesman, New Delhi, on July 9, 1951, Nehru said: &#8220;Kashmir has been wrongly looked upon as a prize for India or Pakistan. People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future.***
> 
> It is here today that a struggle is bearing fruit, not in the battlefield but in the minds of men.&#8221;
> 
> In a letter dated Sept 11, 1951, to the UN representative, Pandit Nehru wrote: &#8220;The Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible.&#8221; (This is where Pakistan needs to fulfil its part of the bargain.)
> 
> As reported by Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, on Jan 2, 1952, while replying to the Bharatiya Jan Sangh&#8217;s Shyama Prasad Mookerji&#8217;s question in the Indian Legislature as to what the Congress Government was going to do about one third of territory still held by Pakistan, Nehru said: &#8220;It is not the property of either India or Pakistan. It belongs to the Kashmiri people.
> 
> When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to the leaders of the Kashmiri people that we would ultimately abide by the verdict of their Plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I would have no hesitation in quitting. We have taken the issue to United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision&#8221;.
> 
> *In his statement in the Indian Parliament on Aug 7, 1952, Nehru said: &#8220;Let me say clearly that we accept the basic proposition that the future of Kashmir is going to be decided finally by the goodwill and pleasure of her people. The goodwill and pleasure of this Parliament is of no importance in this matter, not because this Parliament does not have the strength to decide the question of Kashmir but because any kind of imposition would be against the principles that this Parliament holds.*
> 
> Kashmir is very close to our minds and hearts and if by some decree or adverse fortune, ceases to be a part of India, it will be a wrench and a pain and torment for us. *If, however, the people of Kashmir do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means. We will not keep them against their will, however painful it may be to us. I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir.*
> 
> It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir, it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but everywhere. Though these five years have meant a lot of trouble and expense and in spite of all we have done, we would willingly leave if it was made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go.
> 
> *However sad we may feel about leaving we are not going to stay against the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose ourselves on them on the point of the bayonet.&#8221;*
> 
> Today, opposing the subjugation of Kashmiris at bayonet point is called sedition. We have indeed come a long way from India&#8217;s early promise of democracy and justice to be shared equally by its people, including with those that might wish to leave the union for reasons of their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jawednaqvi@gmail.com





http://www.dawn.com/2010/11/29/how-...isans-are-subverting-his-kashmir-promise.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PlanetWarrior

In a nutshell , the UN Resolution relating to Kashmir has been abrogated by dis-use ?


----------



## Capt.Popeye

PlanetWarrior said:


> In a nutshell , the UN Resolution relating to Kashmir has been abrogated by dis-use ?



No, the UN resolutions have fallen into dis-use and dis-interest to every-body but the two parties fighting.


----------



## PlanetWarrior

Capt.Popeye said:


> No, the UN resolutions have fallen into dis-use and dis-interest to every-body but the two parties fighting.



Yeah, that is what "abrogated by disuse" means

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## OrionHunter

*The resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council under chapter VI of UN Charter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council#Resolutions*
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council#Resolutions*
*Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter* VII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter

*So why did Pakistan pass it under Chapter VI and not Chapter VII making it non binding and non enforceable??*

*End of story. You cannot enforce it, cry as much as you want! Now go have a Pepsi and relax. *


----------



## Vinod2070

PlanetWarrior said:


> Yeah, that is what "abrogated by disuse" means



Also, Pakistan did not follow the resolution by withdrawing the aggressor forces as demanded by the UN resolutions. So they are the ones responsible for it.


----------



## Capt.Popeye

OrionHunter said:


> *The resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council under chapter VI of UN Charter. *
> *Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter* VII.
> 
> 
> *So why did Pakistan pass it under Chapter VI and not Chapter VII making it non binding and non enforceable??*
> 
> *End of story. You cannot enforce it, cry as much as you want! Now go have a Pepsi and relax. *




Ummmm; now that is an "interesting" fact.


----------



## Viper0011.

unbiasedopinion said:


> THere is a difference. India never said they want kashmir solution on the religious lines but its always pakistan who is desparate to solve Kashmir on religious lines only. Their main agenda is to cleanse Kashmir of non-muslims thats why there was late 1980s kashmir insurgency of killing non-muslims including sikhs as well.
> 
> *They are not even allowing to build Pandits colony in kashmir who were original occupants of kashmir and due to spleen less attitude of then J&K and Indian government had forced Kashmiris pandits to flee their birth place*.



You know, I am not sure if you know the breathe of my knowledge on this subject. So PLEASE, try not to take me as a fool. I've studied your region for 3 decades, I know stuff like you don't know your India's history. I am actually meaning every word I say.

They are not allowing to built a "Pandits" Colony? India didn't allow 91% POPULATION's RIGHT TO VOTE when India overtook Kashmir. Do you think you have have a 1% comparison here to your "not letting them build a Pandits colony" case???? 

How do you overwrite 91% of a state's population's voting right and call yourself a "democratic India"???? The Kashmir is an issue, and it is where it is today due to India not respecting the 91% populations voting right in the elections before the occupation.

How does ONE King (a Hindu Maharaja), overwrite 91% of his population's right to chose their government, and calls his Hindu affiliated state to take over his state and kill all voting and democracy rights and its been the case since 1948?????? Had you people let the REAL Kashmiri's vote, today, Kashmir would be a bridge between Pakistan and India to establish peace. One of the gorgeous places for both the countries tourists to visit and enjoy, meet each other and have great people to people relationships. And, there wouldn't be these so many wars, terrorism and all the drama going on for 70 years. ALL because the rights of the people weren't respected!!!!


----------



## Saahil84

Viper0011. said:


> You know, I am not sure if you know the breathe of my knowledge on this subject. So PLEASE, try not to take me as a fool. I've studied your region for 3 decades, I know stuff like you don't know your India's history. I am actually meaning every word I say.
> 
> They are not allowing to built a "Pandits" Colony? India didn't allow 91% POPULATION's RIGHT TO VOTE when India overtook Kashmir. Do you think you have have a 1% comparison here to your "not letting them build a Pandits colony" case????
> 
> How do you overwrite 91% of a state's population's voting right and call yourself a "democratic India"???? The Kashmir is an issue, and it is where it is today due to India not respecting the 91% populations voting right in the elections before the occupation.
> 
> How does ONE King (a Hindu Maharaja), overwrite 91% of his population's right to chose their government, and calls his Hindu affiliated state to take over his state and kill all voting and democracy rights and its been the case since 1948?????? Had you people let the REAL Kashmiri's vote, today, Kashmir would be a bridge between Pakistan and India to establish peace. One of the gorgeous places for both the countries tourists to visit and enjoy, meet each other and have great people to people relationships. And, there wouldn't be these so many wars, terrorism and all the drama going on for 70 years. ALL because the rights of the people weren't respected!!!!



There were no referendums in any princely state in either India or Pakistan except in Junagarh. By that logic Bahawalpur should also be disputed territory - it was a princely state and the process of integration was not democratic?

Also, what happened in Balochistan? Can you enlighten us please, oh fountain of all knowledge about our region? 

Yes, you can count this as having accepted your challenge. Let us discuss *DEMOCRACY*.


----------



## Areesh

Saahil84 said:


> There were no referendums in any princely state in either India or Pakistan except in Junagarh. By that logic Bahawalpur should also be disputed territory - it was a princely state and the process of integration was not democratic?
> 
> Also, what happened in Balochistan? Can you enlighten us please, oh fountain of all knowledge about our region?
> 
> Yes, you can count this as having accepted your challenge. Let us discuss *DEMOCRACY*.



Looks like not only you skipped your history classes you also never bothered to read history on internet. That is the reason that I can think of this garbage post.


----------



## Saahil84

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> Lets see, lessons ... Make sure you have well established logistical lines of support to the front lines and that the opposing side should not be given an excuse to escalate a localized conflict into full war. In India and Pakistan's situation, the trigger would almost always be occupation of territory that is currently administered by the other.
> 
> So check, check and check in terms of 'lessons learned'.
> 
> 
> Because we were anticipating your whiny tantrums and media hysteria about 'PAKISTAN USING 120MM MORTARS FOR THE FIRST TIME BLAH BLAH BLAH WA WA WA!'
> 
> 
> Under Modi 'winning' is represented by the ability to issue, and amount of, jingoistic statements and threats to double, nay triple, nay quadruple kinetic responses from the Indian military, for Modi fans at least.
> 
> So long as Modi or some BJP minister issues random statements, in a thundering, confident and aggressive voice about how 'Pakistan has been taught a lesson it will never forget', the BJP fan-base will be content.
> 
> They ignore the obvious issue that this is the umpteenth 'lesson that Pakistan will never forget' statement issued by various BJP ministers since they came into power. I mean, was it meant to be a whole lecture series that is still going on?
> 
> 
> 
> What happened in Bahawalpur? The ruler was favorably disposed towards Pakistan and acceded to Pakistan. Kalat's ruler took some more convincing but eventually he officially acceded to Pakistan as well, despite Afghanistan's involvement in stoking terrorism/insurgency in Kalat around that time.
> 
> Also, the Indian government has made repeated international commitments to hold a referendum in J&K, several as part of her commitment to implement the UNSC Resolutions on J&K, so attempting analogies between Bahawalpur/Kalat and J&K is a flawed exercise from the outset.



Yes, the ruler of Bahawalpur was favourably disposed towards Pak, just as Hari Singh became after he realized what Pak Army regulars dressed as tribesman were doing to his state. So if favourable disposition is the yardstick then let it be so.

What did India agree to in '48? In Part III of the UN resolution it says that the future of J&K will be decided according to the will of the people. But the very next part of the sentence says that it is rests upon the *acceptance of the truce agreement*. Part IIA1 clearly states that since *the presence of Pakistani troops in J&K constitutes a material change in the situation, Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops*. Part IIA2 further states that Pakistan will try its best to ensure that tribesmen and Pak nationals withdraw from Kashmir. Pakistan has, to date, done neither of the two. The UN resolution cannot be enforced till Pakistan does what it is obligated to do under the resolution. The ball was always in our court. It is just that we never chose to see it that way.

The chronology of the resolution clearly depicts that our own obligations, which we never fulfilled, came first. Everything else was contingent upon that. Our best case scenario is agreeing that after all these years it doesn't matter and accept the LOC as the final resolution. 

By the way, the resolution also implicitly shows that the Pakistani government had lied about the role of the Pak army in the entire episode. Why do we hold others to a yardstick which we ourselves are not bound by?



Areesh said:


> Looks like not only you skipped your history classes you also never bothered to read history on internet. That is the reason that I can think of this garbage post.



Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish...there, I said it thrice. Surely I win!!!

India's history books say otherwise, and so do most neutral accounts, you should read more.


----------



## Areesh

Saahil84 said:


> Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish...there, I said it thrice. Surely I win!!!
> 
> India's history books say otherwise, and so do most neutral accounts, you should read more.



I have read history and unlike you I have read it from neutral sources. What you have said above is nothing but garbage and is flawed since you like bharatis have presented a half poorly cropped version of history.

Your comparison of Bahawalpur and Khan of Kalat is bogus since both of them weren't committing a genocide of their own people when they signed accession to Pakistan. As for your bullsh!t claim that Pakistan needs to withdraw troops from AJK to fulfill requirement of UN resolutions since it was India itself that allowed Pakistan to keep troops in AJK as per Karachi agreement.

So if you *really are not a bharati hiding behind Pakistani and Chinese flags* and want to talk about history then start your history with events that happened before tribal invasion of Kashmir since without that history would be incomplete and your comparisons with Bahawalpur and Baluchistan would be illogical and nonsense since state sponsored genocides didn't happen in those states.

Keep this in mind in case in you think you are some expert on history. What you are presenting are famous bharati lies and we have comprehensive counters for all of them. And also change your flags. We already have had enough of you bharati false flaggers.


----------



## Saahil84

Areesh said:


> I have read history and unlike you I have read it from neutral sources. What you have said above is nothing but garbage and is flawed since you like bharatis have presented a half poorly cropped version of history.
> 
> Your comparison of Bahawalpur and Khan of Kalat is bogus since both of them weren't committing a genocide of their own people when they signed accession to Pakistan. As for your bullsh!t claim that Pakistan needs to withdraw troops from AJK to fulfill requirement of UN resolutions since it was India itself that allowed Pakistan to keep troops in AJK as per Karachi agreement.
> 
> So if you *really are not a bharati hiding behind Pakistani and Chinese flags* and want to talk about history then start your history with events that happened before tribal invasion of Kashmir since without that history would be incomplete and your comparisons with Bahawalpur and Baluchistan would be illogical and nonsense since state sponsored genocides didn't happen in those states.
> 
> Keep this in mind in case in you think you are some expert on history. What you are presenting are famous bharati lies and we have comprehensive counters for all of them. And also change your flags. We already have had enough of you bharati false flaggers.



A3 and B1 of Karachi Agreement clearly state that it applies to Part I of the UN resolution, and not Part II; in fact Part III, which we base all our claims upon, is not even mentioned in the Agreement. You are selectively mentioning parts to suit your purpose. I don't make silly claims like being an expert - it is much easier to refute distortions with facts.



Saahil84 said:


> A3 and B1 of Karachi Agreement clearly state that it applies to Part I of the UN resolution, and not Part II; in fact Part III, which we base all our claims upon, is not even mentioned in the Agreement. You are selectively mentioning parts to suit your purpose. I don't make silly claims like being an expert - it is much easier to refute distortions with facts.



As for genocide, who is to decide that? Many people consider Baluchistan to be a classic example thereof. I don't think our decades long fake moral high ground fools or convinces anyone in the world any longer, except the same fanatics who are vilified in this very forum when they attack Pakistan in their violent frenzy.

Fact of the matter is that both Kashmir and Baluchistan has been militarily occupied, they cannot exist as independent entities, and the people there don't really have much of a worldview to understand their own significance. Both places have been reduced to economic oblivion by violence and isolation, and the central government in both countries is now forced to subsidize their existence, despite the enormous economic potential. If anyone can point out any major reason as to why we keep silent on the Baloch issue and jump up and down on a daily basis about Kashmir, I will stand corrected.

It is not that the contributors in this forum are fools, One can easily observe that there are several intelligent, well-read and well-meaning people who post here. Most of them are fully conversant with what our Army has done in Balochistan. But I guess too many of us have been co-opted into this culture of lies and deceit, maybe unwittingly. This has gone on for far too long.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Saahil84 said:


> Yes, the ruler of Bahawalpur was favourably disposed towards Pak, just as Hari Singh became after he realized what Pak Army regulars dressed as tribesman were doing to his state. So if favourable disposition is the yardstick then let it be so.


Sure, and the rulers of Bahawalpur and Kalat offically acceded to Pakistan, but unlike India and J&K, there was no international commitment to conduct a plebiscite as part of UNSC Resolutions recognizing J&K as an international territorial dispute between 2 parties. So again, there is no analogy to be made between Kalat/Bahawalpur and J&K.


> What did India agree to in '48? In Part III of the UN resolution it says that the future of J&K will be decided according to the will of the people. But the very next part of the sentence says that it is rests upon the *acceptance of the truce agreement*. Part IIA1 clearly states that since *the presence of Pakistani troops in J&K constitutes a material change in the situation, Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops*. Part IIA2 further states that Pakistan will try its best to ensure that tribesmen and Pak nationals withdraw from Kashmir. Pakistan has, to date, done neither of the two. The UN resolution cannot be enforced till Pakistan does what it is obligated to do under the resolution. The ball was always in our court. It is just that we never chose to see it that way.


The only unilateral requirement placed upon Pakistan is that of ensuring the withdrawal of Pakistani tribesmen. Section _2(A) of UNSC Resolution 47_ then places a simultaneous condition upon India (once the process of withdrawal of tribesmen has been confirmed):

_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 39 (1948) 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 the civil power in the maintenance of law and order;_​
Pakistan has fulfilled the unilateral requirements placed upon it by UNSC Resolution 47 - the tribesmen have been withdrawn - the requirement of 'withdrawal of Pakistani Nationals not resident in the State' does not have to be fulfilled until the requirement placed upon India of developing a plan of withdrawal of her forces with the UN commission is fulfilled. 

What has not occurred, despite subsequent resolutions and multiple UNSC Commissions and Rapporteurs appointed to negotiate between India and Pakistan, is that 'Indian plan for withdrawing their own forces from J&K'. That plan had to be agreed upon and put in place once the process of withdrawal of tribesmen had been confirmed (not completed). The process of withdrawal of tribesmen was completed decades ago, and India has constantly played the role of an obstructionist and refused to agree to any feasible withdrawal plan proposed by Pakistan or the UN Commissions and Rapporteurs appointed by the UNSC.

The ball is in India's court, in terms of taking the next steps to fulfill the requirements of the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir.


----------



## Saahil84

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> Sure, and the rulers of Bahawalpur and Kalat offically acceded to Pakistan, but unlike India and J&K, there was no international commitment to conduct a plebiscite as part of UNSC Resolutions recognizing J&K as an international territorial dispute between 2 parties. So again, there is no analogy to be made between Kalat/Bahawalpur and J&K.
> 
> The only unilateral requirement placed upon Pakistan is that of ensuring the withdrawal of Pakistani tribesmen. Section _2(A) of UNSC Resolution 47_ then places a simultaneous condition upon India (once the process of withdrawal of tribesmen has been confirmed):
> 
> _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 39 (1948) 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 the civil power in the maintenance of law and order;_​
> Pakistan has fulfilled the unilateral requirements placed upon it by UNSC Resolution 47 - the tribesmen have been withdrawn - the requirement of 'withdrawal of Pakistani Nationals not resident in the State' does not have to be fulfilled until the requirement placed upon India of developing a plan of withdrawal of her forces with the UN commission is fulfilled.
> 
> What has not occurred, despite subsequent resolutions and multiple UNSC Commissions and Rapporteurs appointed to negotiate between India and Pakistan, is that 'Indian plan for withdrawing their own forces from J&K'. That plan had to be agreed upon and put in place once the process of withdrawal of tribesmen had been confirmed (not completed). The process of withdrawal of tribesmen was completed decades ago, and India has constantly played the role of an obstructionist and refused to agree to any feasible withdrawal plan proposed by Pakistan or the UN Commissions and Rapporteurs appointed by the UNSC.
> 
> The ball is in India's court, in terms of taking the next steps to fulfill the requirements of the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir.



I think while you are arguing in good faith, you are missing the woods for the trees.

What you have quoted is but a small part of the conditions for resolution, not the _sine qua non_. Why I say so? Because it has been Pakistan's position that regardless of the fulfillment of other terms, India must implement the terms that we wish.

I will divide my response into three parts: in the first part I will address the UN Resolution that Pakistanis cite: Resolution 47. In the second part, I will address the resolution dated 13th Aug 1948 of the UN Commission appointed to resolve the Kashmir issue: which Indians keeps citing. In the third part, I will deal with the Karachi Agreement of 1949, which was randomly mentioned by a non-professor in BS in a recent post here. 

R47 was intended to be the basis for the dialogue between the two countries, and not the sum of it, as we in Pakistan seem to believe. About the part that you have quoted, yes, it says that once Pakistan removes its nationals and tribesmen, India should proceed with the plebiscite. Now two things happened, Pakistan did not withdraw, and India hardened its stance and said that Pakistani withdrawal is a pre-condition. That part you highlighted, you have understood it wrongly. It did not mean that the non-regulars fighting on the Indian side needed to withdraw. It meant that *all Pakistanis withdraw from entire J&K*. Of course, our government argued along the same lines as you, which was rejected by the Indians. They said that Pakistan had not complied, so no plebiscite. This confusion became the basis for the second resolution that I will talk about in the next part.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Saahil84 said:


> I think while you are arguing in good faith, you are missing the woods for the trees.
> 
> What you have quoted is but a small part of the conditions for resolution, not the _sine qua non_. Why I say so? Because it has been Pakistan's position that regardless of the fulfillment of other terms, India must implement the terms that we wish.
> 
> I will divide my response into three parts: in the first part I will address the UN Resolution that Pakistanis cite: Resolution 47. In the second part, I will address the resolution dated 13th Aug 1948 of the UN Commission appointed to resolve the Kashmir issue: which Indians keeps citing. In the third part, I will deal with the Karachi Agreement of 1949, which was randomly mentioned by a non-professor in BS in a recent post here.
> 
> R47 was intended to be the basis for the dialogue between the two countries, and not the sum of it, as we in Pakistan seem to believe. About the part that you have quoted, yes, it says that once Pakistan removes its nationals and tribesmen, India should proceed with the plebiscite. Now two things happened, Pakistan did not withdraw, and India hardened its stance and said that Pakistani withdrawal is a pre-condition. That part you highlighted, you have understood it wrongly. It did not mean that the non-regulars fighting on the Indian side needed to withdraw. It meant that *all Pakistanis withdraw from entire J&K*. Of course, our government argued along the same lines as you, which was rejected by the Indians. They said that Pakistan had not complied, so no plebiscite. This confusion became the basis for the second resolution that I will talk about in the next part.


I understand that you are composing the second part of your response, but I need to point out a couple of critical mistakes in your first part before you build upon them in the second and third.

First, I have not claimed that UNSCR 47 is the 'end all' of the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir. In fact, in prior debates I have referenced UNSCR's passed after 47 far more, since they strengthen the Pakistani position further.

Second, the text of the UNSCR 47 that I highlighted is clear - it references ONLY verification of start of the withdrawal of the tribesmen as a fulfilment of the unilateral requirements placed upon Pakistan, at which point the requirement for India to agree to a plan of withdrawal with the appointed UN Commission has to take place. If the requirement was to 'verify the start of the withdrawal of both tribesmen AND Pakistani Nationals', the language would have mirrored the first paragraph. In addition, the initial reference to 'Pakistan agrees to withdraw its forces' is an acceptance of the principle taht, it is not a time-bound requirement from the UNSC nor is it a time-bound commitment from Pakistan.

Pakistan started and finished the withdrawal of tribesmen, but India never agreed to the various UN Commission and UN rappeurteur proposals on establishing a plan of withdrawal of Indian forces in J&K. The obstructionism and failure to proceed with implementation of the remaining requirements is therefore the responsibility of India.


----------



## Saahil84

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> I understand that you are composing the second part of your response, but I need to point out a couple of critical mistakes in your first part before you build upon them in the second and third.
> 
> First, I have not claimed that UNSCR 47 is the 'end all' of the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir. In fact, in prior debates I have referenced UNSCR's passed after 47 far more, since they strengthen the Pakistani position further.
> 
> Second, the text of the UNSCR 47 that I highlighted is clear - it references ONLY verification of start of the withdrawal of the tribesmen as a fulfilment of the unilateral requirements placed upon Pakistan, at which point the requirement for India to agree to a plan of withdrawal with the appointed UN Commission has to take place. If the requirement was to 'verify the start of the withdrawal of both tribesmen AND Pakistani Nationals', the language would have mirrored the first paragraph. In addition, the initial reference to 'Pakistan agrees to withdraw its forces' is an acceptance of the principle taht, it is not a time-bound requirement from the UNSC nor is it a time-bound commitment from Pakistan.
> 
> Pakistan started and finished the withdrawal of tribesmen, but India never agreed to the various UN Commission and UN rappeurteur proposals on establishing a plan of withdrawal of Indian forces in J&K. The obstructionism and failure to proceed with implementation of the remaining requirements is therefore the responsibility of India.



You are right about the dissonance between 1A and 2A insofar that the words Pakistani Nationals is present in the former but not the latter.

Which brings us to the second part: the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolution dated 13 August 1948. Let me point out that there are several other UN resolutions in this regard, as well as the UN proposals that you have rightly mentioned. The reason I am dealing with this particular resolution is that a) India claims it is the most important resolution as it circumscribes what was vaguely stated in R47 in actual terms, and b) I am yet to find anything in the other resolutions that are responsible for the schism in positions that exist today.

I will deal with the UN Commission resolution dated 13 August 1948 in chronological order. I hope you are able to appreciate my point. The chronological order is important because *we cannot simply pick whatever part we feel like to suit our convenience. Each part is conditional upon the implementation of the part preceding it.* I guess the UNSC understood us quite well, which is why it mentioned even this basic norm of interpretation within the resolution itself.

Part I is the ceasefire order. Without that, none of the subsequent parts would apply. Both parties implemented that.

Part II deals with the framework within which a valid truce agreement was to be worked out. This is the most important part of the resolution, by the way. IIA1 states that, and I quote "_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._" Notice, it does not say Pakistan is supposed to withdraw its troops from wherever it wants while maintaining positions in whichever part of Kashmir it fancies as its own. *It calls for withdrawal from all of J&K*.

Secondly, the words Pakistani Nationals that you rightly said were omitted in 2A is now back in. IIA2 states, and I quote “_The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour 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 purpose of fighting._” It is obvious that the UN had stopped buying our version by then.

Now the important part: IIB1 states, I quote “*When the commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani 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 Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir*, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission_.” The game had totally changed. There is now an unambiguous requirement on Pakistan’s part to totally withdraw militarily from J&K as a condition precedent for India to act. *Pakistan has not withdrawn to this date*.

Part III is a watered down re-iteration from R47: "_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 be assured_." Once again, it is all contingent upon Pakistan withdrawing. Also, note the change in tone - this is a consistent feature throughout. Upon realizing that Pakistan is not going to withdraw and India is not going to act on the plebiscite, the UN is trying to get out of the situation by obfuscating an earlier, clearer position.

I must add here, though, that the resolutions themselves are very poorly drafted. No self-respecting lawyer would allow such inconsistencies, revisions and open-ended language to subsist, especially when the stakes are so high. But then how would they know at that time how high the stakes would eventually become?


----------



## Saahil84

Now coming to the Karachi Agreement of 1949. I don’t understand how and why *Areesh* from LaLa Land had his Eureka moment that this is the clincher. And yes, you may go ahead and accuse me of generalizing, but this sort of immature cock talk is typical of our South Asian culture.

The purpose of this agreement was simply to establish a ceasefire line under the on-going dialogue, and nothing else. It is clearly stated in A2: “_That the United Nationals Commission for India and Pakistan in its letter stated that "*The meeting will be for military purposes; political issues will not be considered*," and that "*They will be conducted without prejudice to negotiations concerning the truce agreement*_". Furthermore, A3 states:... "*The cease-fire line* is a complement of the suspension of hostilities, which *falls within the provisions of Part I of the resolution of 13 August 1948* and can be *considered separately from the questions relating to Part II of the same resolution*".

This means, dear *Areesh*, wild accuser from nowhere, *that the demarcation had nothing to do with the conditions stated in Part II of the prior resolution*. Please try to wrap your childish conspiratorial head around that one (Agnostic please ignore my ramblings about Areesh, it is not directed at you. I mean only as much harm and malice as he does).

Finally, there is the small matter of binding nature. Now this is an open question actually. Kofi Annan rather casually stated that R47 is not binding as it was under Chapter VI and not Chapter VII of the UN Charter. But in the _Namibia Advisory Opinion_ (1971), the ICJ did opine that all UN resolutions are binding. There is also the reverse case to consider – that all resolutions are non-binding until the US decides otherwise!!!

PS: It is not my case that India has a watertight case and we have none. There is ample evidence that both sides made goof-ups along the way. One can always argue that Pakistan’s official position that the issue should be resolved in terms of all resolutions it deems favourable to itself. The Indians have a similar case. Will the Pakistani Army withdraw from _Azaad_ Kashmir (how is it _Azaad_ in any case?)? If not, then how do we keep a straight face when we say that the Indians should de-escalate, given their historic experience of what we do if there is an insufficient buildup?

We should ask questions of ourselves, instead of pointing fingers all the time.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Saahil84 said:


> Which brings us to the second part: the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolution dated 13 August 1948. Let me point out that there are several other UN resolutions in this regard, as well as the UN proposals that you have rightly mentioned. The reason I am dealing with this particular resolution is that a) India claims it is the most important resolution as it circumscribes what was vaguely stated in R47 in actual terms, and b) I am yet to find anything in the other resolutions that are responsible for the schism in positions that exist today.


I'm curious as to why one single resolution should be arbitrarily picked and flagged as 'the most important resolution'. As with any dispute, it takes time to investigate and understand the complexities and dynamics involved. Inter-State disputes can be exceedingly complex to understand, so the issuance of multiple UNSC Resolutions and reports is understandable. While I am not outright opposing this choice of the UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948, I would like to understand why subsequent and past resolutions and reports cannot be used as references for clarification of the ambiguities see within?


> I will deal with the UN Commission resolution dated 13 August 1948 in chronological order. I hope you are able to appreciate my point. The chronological order is important because *we cannot simply pick whatever part we feel like to suit our convenience. Each part is conditional upon the implementation of the part preceding it.* I guess the UNSC understood us quite well, which is why it mentioned even this basic norm of interpretation within the resolution itself.


I have no major issue with looking at these issues in chronological order, however, you can't compartmentalize blindly because various sections of the resolution (or prior/subsequent resolutions and reports) can offer clarity and context for contentious sections that can be (and have been) interpreted differently by India and Pakistan.



> Part I is the ceasefire order. Without that, none of the subsequent parts would apply. Both parties implemented that.
> 
> Part II deals with the framework within which a valid truce agreement was to be worked out. This is the most important part of the resolution, by the way.


Before we get into a debate over language of the resolution in Part and differing interpretations, I'd like to point out that the text of UNCIP Resolution on 08/13/48 makes clear that Ceasefire and Truce Agreement steps outlined in Part I and II are proposals - any commitment on the part of India and Pakistan would be part of an actual truce agreement that the 2 countries would negotiate with representatives of the UN. See excerpts below:
_
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 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 be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.*_​
So this particular resolution is nothing more than a set of proposals that the UNCIP put forward for India and Pakistan to consider as part of broader negotiations on an actual agreement on demilitarization of J&K. There was no unilateral requirement for withdrawal of Pakistani military forces placed upon Pakistan here.

I'll respond next to the point that these proposals 'created basic requirements for Pakistan that had to be part of any subsequent Truce Agreement' next.


----------



## Saahil84

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> I'm curious as to why one single resolution should be arbitrarily picked and flagged as 'the most important resolution'. As with any dispute, it takes time to investigate and understand the complexities and dynamics involved. Inter-State disputes can be exceedingly complex to understand, so the issuance of multiple UNSC Resolutions and reports is understandable. While I am not outright opposing this choice of the UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948, I would like to understand why subsequent and past resolutions and reports cannot be used as references for clarification of the ambiguities see within?
> 
> I have no major issue with looking at these issues in chronological order, however, you can't compartmentalize blindly because various sections of the resolution (or prior/subsequent resolutions and reports) can offer clarity and context for contentious sections that can be (and have been) interpreted differently by India and Pakistan.
> 
> 
> Before we get into a debate over language of the resolution in Part and differing interpretations, I'd like to point out that the text of UNCIP Resolution on 08/13/48 makes clear that Ceasefire and Truce Agreement steps outlined in Part I and II are proposals - any commitment on the part of India and Pakistan would be part of an actual truce agreement that the 2 countries would negotiate with representatives of the UN. See excerpts below:
> _
> 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 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 be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.*_​
> So this particular resolution is nothing more than a set of proposals that the UNCIP put forward for India and Pakistan to consider as part of broader negotiations on an actual agreement on demilitarization of J&K. There was no unilateral requirement for withdrawal of Pakistani military forces placed upon Pakistan here.
> 
> I'll respond next to the point that these proposals 'created basic requirements for Pakistan that had to be part of any subsequent Truce Agreement' next.



I think I will wait for your complete reply before addressing it. I would just like to point out one thing: It is not my contention that R47 or UNCIP 13/08/1948 are the only relevant documents. It just happens that the conflict in position draws from these two - Pakistanis cite the former and Indians cite the latter. If you can find another resolution or proposal or even observations from UN rapporteurs that add to our understanding please mention it as well.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Saahil84 said:


> I think I will wait for your complete reply before addressing it. I would just like to point out one thing: It is not my contention that R47 or UNCIP 13/08/1948 are the only relevant documents. It just happens that the conflict in position draws from these two - Pakistanis cite the former and Indians cite the latter.


I disagree - Pakistan's position is in fact bolstered by reference to the entire gamut of UNSC Resolutions, UNCIP and UN Rapporteur reports. It is the Indian's who have the most to gain by arbitrarily selecting and focusing on one part of one UNCIP Resolution.


> If you can find another resolution or proposal or even observations from UN rapporteurs that add to our understanding please mention it as well.


The UNCIP Resolution of 13 August itself has clear language that negates the Indian assertion of an 'unconditional unilateral withdrawal required of Pakistan'.

Part II-A (1) and Part II-A (2) of the UNCIP Resolution make a distinction between _'Pakistani Troops'_ and _'Tribesmen and Pakistani nationals'_ and the language uses _'Troops'_ specifically with the intent of representing Pakistani government forces and the term _'Forces'_ as representing all combatants, whether under the direct control of either government or not.

This deliberate distinction between _'Troops'_ and _'tribesmen_ and _Pakistani nationals'_ is clear from how UNCIP expects the GoP to handle the withdrawals of each. In the case of _'troops'_ the UNCIP Resolution states that _'the government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops'_, which is a clear commitment. This makes sense since these are government troops under government control, 'there is no try, just do' (to paraphrase Yoda). In the case of '_tribesmen_ and _Pakistan nationals_', however, UNCIP states that '_the GoP will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal_'. This also makes sense since the reference is to 'fighting forces' that are not part of the military and possibly composed of independent volunteers, mercenaries etc that the government cannot be expected to completely control.

Second, if UNCIP considered '_Pakistani nationals_' and '_troops_' to be the same entity, it would not have mentioned them separately in 2 paragraphs committing the exact same 'withdrawal', nor would it have in one case expected a clear commitment of the GoP withdrawing 'troops' and in the other expecting the GoP to 'try its best to withdraw Pakistani nationals'. This distinction, and the addition of a fourth type of combatant, the Azad Kashmir Forces, is further established by the Indian government as part of the proposals she made to Frank Graham which can be seen in his Second Report to the UNSC:

_(a) The Indian Government is ready to withdraw the bulk of its army when 
(i) the tribesmen, Pakistan nationals not normally resident in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the Pakistan troops have been withdrawn from the State; 
(ii) large-scale disbandment and disarmament of the Azad Kashmir forces have taken place._​
I have hopefully clearly explained how and why the terms 'troops' and 'Pakistan nationals' and 'tribesmen' used in the UNCIP Resolution are not the same. The underlined sections of the UNCIP Resolution supporting my argument are quoted below:

_A. (1) 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. 

(2) 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. 

(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission._​
Now we can proceed to Part II-B - please keep in mind the distinctions between 'troops, Pakistan nationals and tribesmen' that I pointed out above and note the syntax and grammar used in the following excerpt that Indians and their Western apologists, such as that lying hack Christine Fair, like to distort and dissemble in arguing for an unconditional Pakistani withdrawal:

_B. (1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A2 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 the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission._​
I've explained how the terms 'tribesmen and Pakistani nationals' are used to represent entities distinct from 'Pakistani troops' in this specific UNCIP resolutions. The section above highlighted in red therefore refers only to _'tribesmen and Pakistani nationals'_ and not to _'Pakistani troops'_ or _'government forces'_.

The section highlighted in green is the section that refers to Pakistani troops/government forces withdrawal, and it describes said withdrawal in the 'present continuous tense' (being withdrawn) - an event that is _'ongoing and not complete'_. And while the process of Pakistani troop/forces being withdrawn is _'ongoing and not complete'_, UNCIP requires India to _'begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces'_ (section in blue).

Now, I would expect you to argue that this still means that Pakistan is required to start withdrawing her troops first so India has no responsibilities placed upon her until Pakistan fulfills her commitment of 'starting the withdrawal'. The reason this argument is wrong is because of the last part of the blue highlighted text, "*in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission*". This is where the introductory paragraph of Part II is significant, and reinforced by Part II-C (1) - see highlighted sections below:

_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 be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission*._​
_C. (1) Upon signature, the full text of the Truce Agreement or communique containing the principles thereof as agreed upon between the two Governments and the Commission, will be made public._​
So the critical 'principle that was to be the basis for the formulation of a truce agreement' for India and Pakistan boils down to one line in Part II - B (1), which states that:

_"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 the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission."_​
India. Pakistan and UNCIP had to come to an agreement on the details of a Truce Agreement that defined the withdrawal plans of both Pakistan *AND* India, and it isn't as simple as you would think - the phrase 'Pakistani forces are being withdrawn' doesn't detail what percentage of Pakistani forces need to be withdrawn, and the withdrawal verified, before Indian forces started withdrawing. Technically, Pakistan could withdraw a single soldier, or merely load up a truck full of soldiers ready to drive away and be in compliance with the condition of _'Pakistani forces are being withdrawn'_, which would then require Indian forces to start their withdrawal.

So the withdrawal timelines, numbers and details had to be negotiated in detail, which is where the process fell apart, primarily because of unreasonable demands from the Indian side. Pakistan was willing to pursue almost every reasonable proposal put forward by UN mediators and representatives, even when Pakistan troops would be at a military disadvantage due to significantly lower troop levels compared to the Indians.

Pakistan's position on the UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948 is borne out by the McNaughton Report, which was one of the proposals for a truce Agreement based on Part II of the subject UNCIP Resolution:

_DEMILITARISATION PREPARATORY TO THE PLEBISCITE 2. There should be an agreed programme of *progressive demilitarisation*, the basic principle of which should be the reduction of armed forces *on either side* of the Cease-Fire Line by withdrawal, disbandment and disarmament in such stages as not to cause fear at any point of time to the people on either side of the Cease-Fire Line. The aim should be to reduce the armed personnel in the State of Jammu and Kashmir* on both side* of the Cease-Fire Line to the minimum compatible with the maintenance of security and of local law and order, and to a level sufficiently low and with the forces so disposed that they will not constitute a restriction on the free expression of opinion for the purposes of the plebiscite. The programme of demilitarisation should include the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of the regular forces of Pakistan;* and the withdrawal of the regular forces of India* not required for purposes of security or for the maintenance of local law and order on the Indian side of the Cease-Fire Line; also the reduction, by disbanding and disarming, of local forces, including on the one side the Armed Forces and Militia of the State of Kashmir and on the other, the Azad Forces._​_And:_
_(c) Agreement should be reached on the basic principles of demilitarisation outlined in paragraph 2 above. 
(d) Agreement should be reached on the minimum forces required for the maintenance of security and of local law and order, and on their general disposition._​
The McNaughton report was accepted and endorsed by the UNSC in Resolution 80, 1950:

_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 proposal7 or of such modifications of those principles as may be mutually agreed;_​
In conclusion, the simple documented fact that the Indian government participated in every single UNCIP and UNSC appointed rapporteur's mission of negotiating a truce agreement over the process and details of a military withdrawal from J&K is an acceptance of the Pakistani position that the UNSC and UNCIP Resolutions do not require a unilateral and unconditional withdrawal by Pakistani military forces before a plebiscite can be conducted, because if that had even remotely been the case, the Indian Government would have refused to engage in a single UNCIP or UNSC Representatives process of negotiations over the details of a withdrawal.

@Horus @Irfan Baloch @Oscar @Developereo @fatman17 @MastanKhan @Syed.Ali.Haider @MilSpec @Jango@Areesh@genmirajborgza786 @Atanz @Solomon2 @RiazHaq

Please see above and, if you feel like it, offer corrections and/or suggestions to improve and make as complete as possible.


----------



## Saahil84

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> I disagree - Pakistan's position is in fact bolstered by reference to the entire gamut of UNSC Resolutions, UNCIP and UN Rapporteur reports. It is the Indian's who have the most to gain by arbitrarily selecting and focusing on one part of one UNCIP Resolution.
> 
> The UNCIP Resolution of 13 August itself has clear language that negates the Indian assertion of an 'unconditional unilateral withdrawal required of Pakistan'.
> 
> Part II-A (1) and Part II-A (2) of the UNCIP Resolution make a distinction between _'Pakistani Troops'_ and _'Tribesmen and Pakistani nationals'_ and the language uses _'Troops'_ specifically with the intent of representing Pakistani government forces and the term _'Forces'_ as representing all combatants, whether under the direct control of either government or not.
> 
> This deliberate distinction between _'Troops'_ and _'tribesmen_ and _Pakistani nationals'_ is clear from how UNCIP expects the GoP to handle the withdrawals of each. In the case of _'troops'_ the UNCIP Resolution states that _'the government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops'_, which is a clear commitment. This makes sense since these are government troops under government control, 'there is no try, just do' (to paraphrase Yoda). In the case of '_tribesmen_ and _Pakistan nationals_', however, UNCIP states that '_the GoP will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal_'. This also makes sense since the reference is to 'fighting forces' that are not part of the military and possibly composed of independent volunteers, mercenaries etc that the government cannot be expected to completely control.
> 
> Second, if UNCIP considered '_Pakistani nationals_' and '_troops_' to be the same entity, it would not have mentioned them separately in 2 paragraphs committing the exact same 'withdrawal', nor would it have in one case expected a clear commitment of the GoP withdrawing 'troops' and in the other expecting the GoP to 'try its best to withdraw Pakistani nationals'. This distinction, and the addition of a fourth type of combatant, the Azad Kashmir Forces, is further established by the Indian government as part of the proposals she made to Frank Graham which can be seen in his Second Report to the UNSC:
> 
> _(a) The Indian Government is ready to withdraw the bulk of its army when
> (i) the tribesmen, Pakistan nationals not normally resident in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the Pakistan troops have been withdrawn from the State;
> (ii) large-scale disbandment and disarmament of the Azad Kashmir forces have taken place._​
> I have hopefully clearly explained how and why the terms 'troops' and 'Pakistan nationals' and 'tribesmen' used in the UNCIP Resolution are not the same. The underlined sections of the UNCIP Resolution supporting my argument are quoted below:
> 
> _A. (1) 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.
> 
> (2) 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.
> 
> (3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission._​
> Now we can proceed to Part II-B - please keep in mind the distinctions between 'troops, Pakistan nationals and tribesmen' that I pointed out above and note the syntax and grammar used in the following excerpt that Indians and their Western apologists, such as that lying hack Christine Fair, like to distort and dissemble in arguing for an unconditional Pakistani withdrawal:
> 
> _B. (1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A2 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 the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission._​
> I've explained how the terms 'tribesmen and Pakistani nationals' are used to represent entities distinct from 'Pakistani troops' in this specific UNCIP resolutions. The section above highlighted in red therefore refers only to _'tribesmen and Pakistani nationals'_ and not to _'Pakistani troops'_ or _'government forces'_.
> 
> The section highlighted in green is the section that refers to Pakistani troops/government forces withdrawal, and it describes said withdrawal in the 'present continuous tense' (being withdrawn) - an event that is _'ongoing and not complete'_. And while the process of Pakistani troop/forces being withdrawn is _'ongoing and not complete'_, UNCIP requires India to _'begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces'_ (section in blue).
> 
> Now, I would expect you to argue that this still means that Pakistan is required to start withdrawing her troops first so India has no responsibilities placed upon her until Pakistan fulfills her commitment of 'starting the withdrawal'. The reason this argument is wrong is because of the last part of the blue highlighted text, "*in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission*". This is where the introductory paragraph of Part II is significant, and reinforced by Part II-C (1) - see highlighted sections below:
> 
> _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 be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission*._​
> _C. (1) Upon signature, the full text of the Truce Agreement or communique containing the principles thereof as agreed upon between the two Governments and the Commission, will be made public._​
> So the critical 'principle that was to be the basis for the formulation of a truce agreement' for India and Pakistan boils down to one line in Part II - B (1), which states that:
> 
> _"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 the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission."_​
> India. Pakistan and UNCIP had to come to an agreement on the details of a Truce Agreement that defined the withdrawal plans of both Pakistan *AND* India, and it isn't as simple as you would think - the phrase 'Pakistani forces are being withdrawn' doesn't detail what percentage of Pakistani forces need to be withdrawn, and the withdrawal verified, before Indian forces started withdrawing. Technically, Pakistan could withdraw a single soldier, or merely load up a truck full of soldiers ready to drive away and be in compliance with the condition of _'Pakistani forces are being withdrawn'_, which would then require Indian forces to start their withdrawal.
> 
> So the withdrawal timelines, numbers and details had to be negotiated in detail, which is where the process fell apart, primarily because of unreasonable demands from the Indian side. Pakistan was willing to pursue almost every reasonable proposal put forward by UN mediators and representatives, even when Pakistan troops would be at a military disadvantage due to significantly lower troop levels compared to the Indians.
> 
> Pakistan's position on the UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948 is borne out by the McNaughton Report, which was one of the proposals for a truce Agreement based on Part II of the subject UNCIP Resolution:
> 
> _DEMILITARISATION PREPARATORY TO THE PLEBISCITE 2. There should be an agreed programme of *progressive demilitarisation*, the basic principle of which should be the reduction of armed forces *on either side* of the Cease-Fire Line by withdrawal, disbandment and disarmament in such stages as not to cause fear at any point of time to the people on either side of the Cease-Fire Line. The aim should be to reduce the armed personnel in the State of Jammu and Kashmir* on both side* of the Cease-Fire Line to the minimum compatible with the maintenance of security and of local law and order, and to a level sufficiently low and with the forces so disposed that they will not constitute a restriction on the free expression of opinion for the purposes of the plebiscite. The programme of demilitarisation should include the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of the regular forces of Pakistan;* and the withdrawal of the regular forces of India* not required for purposes of security or for the maintenance of local law and order on the Indian side of the Cease-Fire Line; also the reduction, by disbanding and disarming, of local forces, including on the one side the Armed Forces and Militia of the State of Kashmir and on the other, the Azad Forces._​_And:_
> _(c) Agreement should be reached on the basic principles of demilitarisation outlined in paragraph 2 above.
> (d) Agreement should be reached on the minimum forces required for the maintenance of security and of local law and order, and on their general disposition._​
> The McNaughton report was accepted and endorsed by the UNSC in Resolution 80, 1950:
> 
> _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 proposal7 or of such modifications of those principles as may be mutually agreed;_​
> In conclusion, the simple documented fact that the Indian government participated in every single UNCIP and UNSC appointed rapporteur's mission of negotiating a truce agreement over the process and details of a military withdrawal from J&K is an acceptance of the Pakistani position that the UNSC and UNCIP Resolutions do not require a unilateral and unconditional withdrawal by Pakistani military forces before a plebiscite can be conducted, because if that had even remotely been the case, the Indian Government would have refused to engage in a single UNCIP or UNSC Representatives process of negotiations over the details of a withdrawal.
> 
> @Horus @Irfan Baloch @Oscar @Developereo @fatman17 @MastanKhan @Syed.Ali.Haider @MilSpec @Jango@Areesh@genmirajborgza786 @Atanz @Solomon2 @RiazHaq
> 
> Please see above and, if you feel like it, offer corrections and/or suggestions to improve and make as complete as possible.



I would like to start with certain preliminary observations:

- Our discussion on this subject is academic as for now, for the reason that ever since Kashmir was removed from the list of disputed territories under UN observation, Pakistan’s claims that it continues to be a disputed territory are based *outside the UN framework*. Of course, if and when the UN puts Kashmir back on the list, the UN resolutions would come back into the picture.

- You are right in stating that the 13 Aug 1948 resolution was a mere *proposal*, to be taken forward by both parties. At the same time, Parts A and B of Resolution 47 are also just *recommendations*, as clearly mentioned in the resolution.

- In any form of negotiated settlement, the mere fact that a party agreed to sit for discussions cannot be held against them. Of course, if the parties have mutually agreed to a framework within which a final settlement is binding on both, then no doubt it is so. In all these negotiations, the fact that India has been a willing party cannot lead to an inference that they must be implicitly agreeable to Pakistan’s position. That is why, before each round of negotiations, it is made clear that the discussions are *without prejudice* to any other related issue. So, for instance, the fact that both parties agreed to a ceasefire line in 1949 is binding unless they totally abandon the framework, but cannot be held against either to say that means they have implicitly conceded anything to the other side.

- Finally, there is the issue of moral behaviour to be considered. It is an unfortunate precedence established by the US in the _Nicaragua Case_ (ICJ, 1986), that international law is nothing but “might is right.” A country can simply ignore international law if it can afford to do so. Pakistan reserves the right to simply abandon the UN framework altogether if it sees nothing fruitful emerging from the process. Like every sovereign country, it has the right to do what it deems to be in its own self interest. But if it places so much emphasis on the UNSC resolutions, then it cannot place any less emphasis on the emerging UN consensus on the subject. Things have moved on from 1950. Today, Pakistan does not find much support when it raises the Kashmir issue at the UN. There is no realistic chance that it will be able to pressure India on the subject through the UN. Yet, Pakistan is claiming Kashmir is a disputed territory. So basically, Pakistan is pulling a US – *harping on prior UNSC resolutions when it is convenient and ignoring the change in the UN position on the issue.*

You write:

_This deliberate distinction between'Troops'and'tribesmenandPakistani nationals'is clear from how UNCIP expects the GoP to handle the withdrawals of each. In the case of'troops'the UNCIP Resolution states that'the government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops', which is a clear commitment. This makes sense since these are government troops under government control, 'there is no try, just do' (to paraphrase Yoda). In the case of 'tribesmenandPakistan nationals', however, UNCIP states that 'the GoP will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal'. This also makes sense since the reference is to 'fighting forces' that are not part of the military and possibly composed of independent volunteers, mercenaries etc that the government cannot be expected to completely control._

Let us look at why the situation came about. In the initial stages of the conflict, the UN was not privy to accurate information. When India initially took the matter to the UN, India itself was not aware of the extent of involvement of Pakistani troops. Reference India’s original complain dated 01.01.1948:

Indian Complaint to the Security Council, lst January 1948

As a response, our government dutifully lied to the whole world, as it often does, by denying any involvement in the matter. Reference UN Report Chapter VIII pg 344:

http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/46-51/Chapter 8/46-51_08-16-The India-Pakistan question.pdf

This lie was challenged by India, and later exposed due to the very first UNCIP mission in July. Until then, the UN was not sure about the presence of Pakistani troops, just that tribesmen had entered. UN Report Chapter VIII pg 348:

http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/46-51/Chapter 8/46-51_08-16-The India-Pakistan question.pdf

This explains the discrepancy between Resolution 47 and Resolution of Aug 13.

By the way, the distinction you drew about how the UN construed the difference between Pakistani troops and irregulars may be valid, but yet, what are its practical ramifications? You have gotten yourself into a logical bind. I will elaborate on that in the second point.

Pakistan has repeated several times that it has no control over what these irregulars do. In fact, that is the basis for the deadlock. *That is the reason why regardless of what conclusion we ever arrive at, India will not de-militarize the Valley.* I will come back to that point later.

However, this interesting aside only explains why the UN chose to stop believing anything we had to say, it does not go to the core of the matter. I only mentioned that to explain the discrepancy that you had initially pointed out between the two resolutions. Unfortunately, it’s a blind alley that I also entered despite the fact it has no relevance to the larger issue we are discussing. The dispute derives from the *second point* of your argument, so let us focus on that.

You write:

_I've explained how the terms *'tribesmen and Pakistani nationals' are used to represent entities distinct from 'Pakistani troops'* in this specific UNCIP resolutions. The section above highlighted in red therefore refers only to'tribesmen and Pakistani nationals'and not to'Pakistani troops'or'government forces'.

The section highlighted in green is the section that refers to Pakistani troops/government forces withdrawal, and it *describes said withdrawal in the 'present continuous tense'* (being withdrawn) - an event that is'ongoing and not complete'. And while the process of *Pakistani troop/forces being withdrawn is'ongoing and not complete', UNCIP requires India to'begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces'*(section in blue)._

I am not quoting the rest of the text. Instead, let me paraphrase your contention. What you are trying to say is that the text shows that there was only an obligation to withdraw irregulars, whereas the withdrawal of troops was supposed to be ongoing. You are also contending that the entire process of de-escalation was to be decided as per the details of the Truce agreement that was yet to be drawn up. What you are also contending is that without the said agreement, the quantum of Pakistani/Indian withdrawal could not be ascertained in the first place, therefore, as per the text, it was for India to agree to initiation of withdrawal, thereby paving the way for plebiscite.

About the part that this was only to be the principle on the basis of which the truce agreement was to be formulated, I have no reason to disagree. You are obviously stating this because you know the flimsy nature of your argument that there was no binding obligation on Pakistan to withdraw troops, both on principles of Statutory interpretation and the interpretation of Treaties. There is this rule called _nosciter a sociss_ in interpretation, which basically means that the meaning of a word is known from the accompanying words. Actually, since the issue is whether there is a unilateral pre-condition on Pakistan to withdraw, what we need to see is whether there are other words around which show otherwise. The words you chose to show the same are that the process be ongoing, etc. etc.

Now let me quote that text the way a lawyer would quote it:

_B. (1) *When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India*that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in PartII A2 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 withdrawnfrom the State of Jammu and Kashmir,*the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission._

The question is, when is the Indian government supposed to act? The answer is, *When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India*_ ......._Now as for your claim that it is to be read separately from the part about troop withdrawal, there is the use of the words *and further,that the Pakistan forces.....* that creates havoc with your reasoning. Just trust me, documents are not interpreted that way. Also, 2A1 clearly states that:

_A. (1) *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._

What does that mean? That means that since the Pakistani troops were there, they needed to leave. Their presence was a *material change* that upset the premise of Resolution 47. Here again, *Pakistan agrees to withdraw troops*. Legal drafting does not follow the haphazard lines that you are suggesting. There is a further rule of interpretation that words cannot be interpreted so as to lead to an absurdity. If the security council had not intended the (ongoing) withdrawal of Pakistani troops, it would have not mentioned it to begin with, especially where the literal meaning includes it as part of what is to be notified by the Commission to India. To mention it in the manner I pointed out, only for it to be interpreted in the manner that you suggest, would be a *legal absurdity*.

Now coming to the logical bind that I mentioned earlier. Suppose, I accept your contention about _Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops_ vis-a-vis _the GoP will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal (of irregulars)_. The first mention troops in Pakistan’s control and the second those that are not. *So according to you, the resolution says that after it has reported the withdrawal of those irregulars that are not actually in Pakistan’s control, it may or may not do something about the Troops that are actually in its control, depending upon the outcome of the negotiations?* How does such a truce agreement work in the real world, can you elaborate?

As far as requirement for a plebiscite is concerned, demilitarization was a must. That can be understood from the fact that the second, third and fourth UNCIP reports focussed heavily on that. At the 570th Meeting dated 17 January 1952, the UN representative opined:

_“The United Nations Representative deems it necessary to emphasize that, from his experience, he believes that *any negotiations* that could be undertaken by the United Nations *to obtain the demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir .... would find almost unsurmountable obstacles* ..... unless in one way or another agreed solutions are found for the following: (1) *a definite period for demilitarization; (2) the scope of demilitarization and quantum of forces that will remain at the end of the period of demilitarization;* (3) the day for the formal induction into office of the Plebiscite Administrator.”_

It can also be ascertained from the text that you quoted from the McNaughton Report. Mind you, *I am not saying that there was any requirement of a complete Pakistani troop withdrawal*. Nor was there any requirement for a unilateral Pakistani troop withdrawal. That can be understood from the above-quoted text, as well as the fact that the negotiations after UNSC Resolution 98 dated 23 December 1952 were deadlocked due to a disagreement on the question of the level of withdrawal (paragraph 7 of the 12-point proposals). India wanted to maintain more troops than was suggested. Again, UNCIP could have done one of two things – a) come up with a number acceptable to both parties, or, b) reported to the UNSC that India was messing around, so please force India’s hands and ensure demilitarization, which will serve the pre-condition for plebiscite. Now what did it do? It did neither. The talks were called off, and that was the end of that. *Why did UNSC not move a resolution in favour of Pakistan at that point? And why did Pakistan not agree to the additional 5,000 troops, if it was so confident of its victory in the plebiscite?*

As for the complexity you quoted, that since neither quantum nor methodology for Pakistani withdrawal was quoted, so it could be fulfilled by a token gesture, completely misses the point. In fact it only adds to the certainty that any truce agreement would mitigate against such a mischief. Just as you stated with regard to the irregulars (since they are not under direct control), the subject of Pakistani troop withdrawal was left open to the satisfaction of the Commission. *You have accepted a convenient ambiguity while rejecting an inconvenient one as showing that the requirement for notifying India means nothing*.

I will address the point you made about the McNaughton report. As we noted above, negotiations got stalled on the issue of demilitarization. Now the Pakistani government does contend that it wants resumption of dialogue. Look, there is no reason to believe that dialogue can resume under the UNSC resolutions; none whatsoever. Even if we assume that dialogue under the UNSC framework could resume, apart from Pakistan’s willingness to initiate dialogue, is there any concrete evidence that the Pakistani government was/is willing to commit to troop withdrawal from Azad Kashmir? Sure, Pakistan says that it wants a resolution, but has any official Pakistani spokesperson ever gone on record stating that Pakistan will withdraw troops from Azad Kashmir?

Assuming that Pakistan was even willing to do so, what is Pakistan’s track record? In ’48 we sent irregulars and troops dressed as tribals while denying the fact until caught. In ‘65 again we did the same. In ’99 we again denied that it was our Army men on the Kargil heights, till our lie was exposed. In the interim we have been funding, training and arming trouble-makers who do exactly the same things that UNSC resolution are meant to safeguard Kashmiris from. So even if, by some miracle, Pakistan were willing to withdraw troops, who would believe that Pakistan wouldn’t destabilize the Valley by using its age-old tactics? Because we won’t change our ways, the Indians can keep stating that conditions are not right for a plebiscite until the cows come home.

When UNCIP was dissolved in 1951, giving way to UNMOGIP, that was the last time the UN made a mention of the “will of the people” in its resolution. The Dixon Report was the last serious attempt at a plebiscite, but by then the wheels were already coming off. I assume you are aware of the “doubtful” region formula suggested by Dixon. Pakistan had a narrow window of opportunity in 1948-49, where it could have removed its military when the UNCIP was fully involved and forced India’s hand. By 1951, we had missed the boat.

To recap:

1) The distinction drawn between irregulars and Pakistani troops and discrepancy between the two positions in Resolution 47 and Aug 13 1948 is due to the Pakistani government’s deceit about the presence of its Army. Hence they are to be treated _pari materia_, and not a subject matter of clever revisions. No law allows anyone to cheat and then take advantage of the same.

2) The interpretation that irregulars were required to be withdrawn but not troops leads to a logical absurdity and violates all known canons of interpretation.

3) The resolutions were just the principles along which final resolution was to take place. A series of events was to take place, which was stalled initially by Pakistan, and then seized upon by India. It may always have been India’s devious plan to not conduct a plebiscite, but Pakistan misconstrued its own obligations under the resolutions.

4) Pakistan always had the option of accepting India’s contention on the 12-point proposals and force India’s hand on the subject – it chose not to, made demands of its own. Basically, Pakistan rejected the plebiscite on the issue of 5,000 additional troops. The fact that the UNSC allowed the talks to collapse instead of moving a resolution against India shows that the UNSC treated Pakistani withdrawal as a condition precedent.

5) Because India has not accepted ICJ jurisdiction on the issue, the UNSC is its own judge in the matter. The UN has now dropped Kashmir from the list of disputed territories, and has repeatedly asserted that Kashmir is a bilateral issue. So the UN has basically overturned its prior position and laid down a new one. We can no longer seek recourse to Resolution 47, unless the UN changes its position.

6) Since we are being overly legalistic about it and not realizing that ground realities have changed so much in the past six decades that a plebiscite today will have no meaning, we should also know that legal claims have a limitation. After which these claims expire. Or the changes in circumstances make the last position meaningless, necessitating a completely new framework. Even if we were to be able to achieve the impossible task of convincing the UN to intervene, rest assured that it will not be upon our terms where things will be picked up from the collapse of the 12-point proposal.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Saahil84 said:


> I would like to start with certain preliminary observations:
> 
> - Our discussion on this subject is academic as for now, for the reason that ever since Kashmir was removed from the list of disputed territories under UN observation,


That is false - please provide a link to the 2014/2015 'list of disputed territories' to validate your assertion.


> Pakistan’s claims that it continues to be a disputed territory are based *outside the UN framework*.


Not unless you substantiate your claim above.


----------



## Saahil84

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> That is false - please provide a link to the 2014/2015 'list of disputed territories' to validate your assertion.
> 
> Not unless you substantiate your claim above.



Kashmir issue left unmentioned in United Nations - The Express Tribune

Jammu and Kashmir removed from list of 'disputes' under UN

Jammu and Kashmir out of U.N. list of disputes - The Hindu

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=YNMQNnW_QRgC&pg=PT23&lpg=PT23&dq=united nations list of unresolved disputes kashmir 2010&source=bl&ots=xU1VGjV4Yl&sig=EyylxH8L3MT0Ia6GCK8MqP-u7RQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBGoVChMIkYC54Ju_xwIV0EyOCh1MUAKA#v=onepage&q=list &f=false

Deletion of Kashmir from UN list resented

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2010/11/16/national/kashmir-no-more-unresolved-on-un-list/

And beyond that, if you still persist to question the veracity, then you should come back with proof that after the Pakistani government protested it was added back in later years.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Saahil84 said:


> - You are right in stating that the 13 Aug 1948 resolution was a mere *proposal*, to be taken forward by both parties. At the same time, Parts A and B of Resolution 47 are also just *recommendations*, as clearly mentioned in the resolution.


Correct, they are recommendations and principles that India and Pakistan committed to, pending agreement on the details of both demilitarization and plebiscite. India has reneged on he international commitments made multiple times, and refuses to even engage in negotiations over those principles any longer, whereas Pakistan continues to adhere to her international commitments.


> - In any form of negotiated settlement, the mere fact that a party agreed to sit for discussions cannot be held against them.


Multiple UNSC Resolutions made clear what the framework of these discussions was to be - primarily, negotiations towards an agreement on the details of a demilitarization plan. The Indian government's participation in such negotiations would only occur if they recognized that the UNSC Resolutions required a UN mediated agreement on demilitirization, acceptable to all sides, prior to any withdrawal. The argument here is over the claim that the UN Resolutions require Pakistan to withdraw all 'combatants' unconditionally. If that was the case, the UNSC had no reason to set up UN Commissions and send UN representatives to negotiate the details with India AND Pakistan, and India had no reason to accept or participate in UNSC sanctioned discussions that undermined the claim that 'Pakistan was required to withdraw unconditionally'.


> Of course, if the parties have mutually agreed to a framework within which a final settlement is binding on both, then no doubt it is so. In all these negotiations, the fact that India has been a willing party cannot lead to an inference that they must be implicitly agreeable to Pakistan’s position. That is why, before each round of negotiations, it is made clear that the discussions are *without prejudice* to any other related issue. So, for instance, the fact that both parties agreed to a ceasefire line in 1949 is binding unless they totally abandon the framework, but cannot be held against either to say that means they have implicitly conceded anything to the other side.


You misunderstood my point completely - as I explained in the paragraph above, I'm arguing that the UNSC resolutions do not place any requirement of an unconditional and unilateral withdrawal upon Pakistan. The UNSC Resolutions and UNCIP Resolutions and Reports make clear that any withdrawal is subject to the details of withdrawal being agreed upon between India, Pakistan and UN Representatives. India's participation in the multiple negotiations established by the UNSC validate Pakistan's position (of not being under any requirement of withdrawing unilaterally and unconditionally) by virtue of explicitly accepting the principle (at the time) of 'agreeing to a framework withing which a final settlement is binding on both', as you said in your first sentence. If India hadn't agreed to the 'framework', it would not have participated in the multiple negotiations established by the framework, and it is the 'framework within which a final settlement is binding on both' that debunks the argument that the UNSC Resolutions require Pakistan to withdraw unilaterally and unconditionally.

In fact, even if India did not agree with the framework, the fact that the UNSC set up multiple rounds of UN Commissions and UN Representative led missions to develop agreement over the general principles of demilitirization and plebiscite, clearly establishes that the intent behind the UNSC Resolutions from the beginning was to 'establish a framework within which agreement over the details of demilitirization and plebiscite could be reached' - again, a vindication of the Pakistani position that no unconditional and unilateral withdrawal is required of her.


> *harping on prior UNSC resolutions when it is convenient and ignoring the change in the UN position on the issue.*


This passage of yours is irrelevant to the specific point being discussed, of whether the UNSC Resolutions require Pakistan to withdraw unconditionally and unilaterally.


> Let us look at why the situation came about. In the initial stages of the conflict, the UN was not privy to accurate information. When India initially took the matter to the UN, India itself was not aware of the extent of involvement of Pakistani troops. Reference India’s original complain dated 01.01.1948:
> 
> Indian Complaint to the Security Council, lst January 1948
> 
> As a response, our government dutifully lied to the whole world, as it often does, by denying any involvement in the matter. Reference UN Report Chapter VIII pg 344:
> 
> http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/46-51/Chapter 8/46-51_08-16-The India-Pakistan question.pdf
> 
> This lie was challenged by India, and later exposed due to the very first UNCIP mission in July. Until then, the UN was not sure about the presence of Pakistani troops, just that tribesmen had entered. UN Report Chapter VIII pg 348:
> 
> http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/46-51/Chapter 8/46-51_08-16-The India-Pakistan question.pdf
> 
> This explains the discrepancy between Resolution 47 and Resolution of Aug 13.


Lie or 'tactical omission', if the misrepresentation by Pakistan was indeed so grievous, the UNSC was free to strengthen the language in her subsequent resolutions against Pakistan, yet the subsequent resolutions only further establish and detail a framework within which agreement on the details of demilitarization and plebiscite need to be reached.

You can tarnish Pakistan's actions as much as you want, but the facts are that the UNSC did not see things the way you do, as is clear from the language of the UNSC Resolutions and UNCIP reports subsequent to the first UNSCR on J&K.


> Pakistan has repeated several times that it has no control over what these irregulars do. In fact, that is the basis for the deadlock. *That is the reason why regardless of what conclusion we ever arrive at, India will not de-militarize the Valley.*


Pakistan did not contest the need for a full withdrawal of irregular forces to be validated prior to an Indian demilitarization, so this argument is a straw man. Pakistan's disagreements with some proposals were over the massive superiority in conventional government controlled forces that India would be allowed to keep deployed in the valley compared to Pakistan's.


> You write:
> 
> _I've explained how the terms *'tribesmen and Pakistani nationals' are used to represent entities distinct from 'Pakistani troops'* in this specific UNCIP resolutions. The section above highlighted in red therefore refers only to'tribesmen and Pakistani nationals'and not to'Pakistani troops'or'government forces'.
> 
> The section highlighted in green is the section that refers to Pakistani troops/government forces withdrawal, and it *describes said withdrawal in the 'present continuous tense'* (being withdrawn) - an event that is'ongoing and not complete'. And while the process of *Pakistani troop/forces being withdrawn is'ongoing and not complete', UNCIP requires India to'begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces'*(section in blue)._
> 
> I am not quoting the rest of the text. Instead, let me paraphrase your contention. What you are trying to say is that the text shows that there was only an obligation to withdraw irregulars, whereas the withdrawal of troops was supposed to be ongoing. You are also contending that the entire process of de-escalation was to be decided as per the details of the Truce agreement that was yet to be drawn up. What you are also contending is that without the said agreement, the quantum of Pakistani/Indian withdrawal could not be ascertained in the first place, therefore, as per the text, it was for India to agree to initiation of withdrawal, thereby paving the way for plebiscite.
> 
> About the part that this was only to be the principle on the basis of which the truce agreement was to be formulated, I have no reason to disagree. You are obviously stating this because you know the flimsy nature of your argument that there was no binding obligation on Pakistan to withdraw troops, both on principles of Statutory interpretation and the interpretation of Treaties. There is this rule called _nosciter a sociss_ in interpretation, which basically means that the meaning of a word is known from the accompanying words. Actually, since the issue is whether there is a unilateral pre-condition on Pakistan to withdraw, what we need to see is whether there are other words around which show otherwise. The words you chose to show the same are that the process be ongoing, etc. etc.
> 
> Now let me quote that text the way a lawyer would quote it:
> 
> _B. (1) *When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India*that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in PartII A2 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 withdrawnfrom the State of Jammu and Kashmir,*the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission._
> 
> The question is, when is the Indian government supposed to act? The answer is, *When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India*_ ......._Now as for your claim that it is to be read separately from the part about troop withdrawal, there is the use of the words *and further,that the Pakistan forces.....* that creates havoc with your reasoning. Just trust me, documents are not interpreted that way.


I'm not going to trust you - you did an excellent job of restating my arguments, but you've offered nothing in the way of a rebuttal of those arguments other than saying 'this is how a lawyer would quote it' - I see no 'havoc' being created here by my reasoning, certainly none that you've pointed out so far.


> Also, 2A1 clearly states that:
> 
> _A. (1) *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._
> 
> What does that mean? That means that since the Pakistani troops were there, they needed to leave. Their presence was a *material change* that upset the premise of Resolution 47. Here again, *Pakistan agrees to withdraw troops*. Legal drafting does not follow the haphazard lines that you are suggesting. There is a further rule of interpretation that words cannot be interpreted so as to lead to an absurdity. If the security council had not intended the (ongoing) withdrawal of Pakistani troops, it would have not mentioned it to begin with, especially where the literal meaning includes it as part of what is to be notified by the Commission to India. To mention it in the manner I pointed out, only for it to be interpreted in the manner that you suggest, would be a *legal absurdity*.


There is no 'legal absurdity' here, just a desire on your part to read the text out of context, chopped up into pieces that support the Indian point of view on your part. The statement in 2.A(1) was the acceptance in principle of Pakistan withdrawing her troops - it did not specify when or how that withdrawal were to take place, and the context and conditions applicable to the statement in 2.A(1) was very clearly established in the opening lines of Part II, _"both the Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their representatives and the Commission."_

The introduction to Part II set up the framework for negotiations, and provided clear context that everything stated in Part II of the UNCIPR was subject to a final agreement on the details, and therefore my interpretation of Part II.B(1) clearly flows within the context established by the opening lines of Part II. What would be absurd would be to cling solely to the language of 2.A.(1), ignoring what came before and after.


> Now coming to the logical bind that I mentioned earlier. Suppose, I accept your contention about _Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops_ vis-a-vis _the GoP will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal (of irregulars)_. The first mention troops in Pakistan’s control and the second those that are not. *So according to you, the resolution says that after it has reported the withdrawal of those irregulars that are not actually in Pakistan’s control, it may or may not do something about the Troops that are actually in its control, depending upon the outcome of the negotiations?* How does such a truce agreement work in the real world, can you elaborate?


What exactly about the above do you not understand? Pakistan confirms that it has managed (by force, dialog or both) to secure the withdrawal of irregular forces, which the UN Commission would confirm (and was free to introduce proposals on how best to confirm the withdrawal prior to reporting it to India), after which the withdrawal of regular forces, on both sides, begins in accordance with the details of the Truce Agreement settled upon by all sides.


> As far as requirement for a plebiscite is concerned, demilitarization was a must.


I never questioned that.


> It can also be ascertained from the text that you quoted from the McNaughton Report. Mind you, *I am not saying that there was any requirement of a complete Pakistani troop withdrawal*. Nor was there any requirement for a unilateral Pakistani troop withdrawal. That can be understood from the above-quoted text, as well as the fact that the negotiations after UNSC Resolution 98 dated 23 December 1952 were deadlocked due to a disagreement on the question of the level of withdrawal (paragraph 7 of the 12-point proposals).


Then what exactly are you arguing with me for - you yourself claimed earlier that, "_Actually, since the issue is whether there is a unilateral pre-condition on Pakistan to withdraw, what we need to see is whether there are other words around which show otherwise_", and now you've essentially accepted my position.


> India wanted to maintain more troops than was suggested. Again, UNCIP could have done one of two things – a) come up with a number acceptable to both parties, or, b) reported to the UNSC that India was messing around, so please force India’s hands and ensure demilitarization, which will serve the pre-condition for plebiscite. Now what did it do? It did neither. The talks were called off, and that was the end of that. *Why did UNSC not move a resolution in favour of Pakistan at that point?*


Because the framework the UNSC had set up required agreement by both parties - it did not consider the possibility of one party's obstructionism as a means of delaying resolution until such time as the status quo could be argued to be the most feasible option, and it probably didn't have the votes to push through a resolution censuring India.
*



And why did Pakistan not agree to the additional 5,000 troops, if it was so confident of its victory in the plebiscite?

Click to expand...

*Pakistan's disagreement over troop levels that gave India more than a significant advantage were based on military rationale, and Indian tactics of illegally sparking communal violence, invasion and occupation of the territory of sovereign States such as the Pakistani territory of Junagadh and the State of Hyderabad. India's demands during negotiations that she be recognized as solely having the legal ability to deploy forces throughout disputed J&K in case of violence and threats of instability.To any rationale individual this was clearly a setup to replicate the events of Junagadh and Hyderabad and have Indian forces step into the Vacuum left by withdrawing Pakistani forces, hence the need to maintain, at least, a defensible posture with limited Indian military troop superiority.


> As for the complexity you quoted, that since neither quantum nor methodology for Pakistani withdrawal was quoted, so it could be fulfilled by a token gesture, completely misses the point. In fact it only adds to the certainty that any truce agreement would mitigate against such a mischief.


I didn't miss anything - I I clearly stated in my earlier post that without a truce agreement interpretations of 'ongoing withdrawal' could be interpreted to mean anything, and the examples I gave were to further establish the fact that the withdrawal was subject to an agreement on the details. You're attributing arguments to me that I did not make.


> Just as you stated with regard to the irregulars (since they are not under direct control), the subject of Pakistani troop withdrawal was left open to the satisfaction of the Commission. *You have accepted a convenient ambiguity while rejecting an inconvenient one as showing that the requirement for notifying India means nothing*.


I have accepted no ambiguity and you have established no such thing.


> I will address the point you made about the McNaughton report. As we noted above, negotiations got stalled on the issue of demilitarization. Now the Pakistani government does contend that it wants resumption of dialogue. Look, there is no reason to believe that dialogue can resume under the UNSC resolutions; none whatsoever. Even if we assume that dialogue under the UNSC framework could resume, apart from Pakistan’s willingness to initiate dialogue, is there any concrete evidence that the Pakistani government was/is willing to commit to troop withdrawal from Azad Kashmir? Sure, Pakistan says that it wants a resolution, but has any official Pakistani spokesperson ever gone on record stating that Pakistan will withdraw troops from Azad Kashmir?


The Pakistani government is on record committing to a withdrawal in the UNSC, in accordance with the UNSC framework that calls for an agreement on the details of the withdrawal negotiated under said UNSC framework - it doesn't get any more 'officially on record' than that.


> To recap:
> 
> 1) The distinction drawn between irregulars and Pakistani troops and discrepancy between the two positions in Resolution 47 and Aug 13 1948 is due to the Pakistani government’s deceit about the presence of its Army. Hence they are to be treated _pari materia_, and not a subject matter of clever revisions. No law allows anyone to cheat and then take advantage of the same.


As explained earlier, the UNSC, if it considered Pakistan's 'misrepresentation' regarding the presence of her troops in J&K to be unacceptable, have addressed the issue in subsequent UNSC Resolutions in a manner that outright demanded an unconditional and unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan, period. Instead, it chose to create a framework under which India, Pakistan and the UN were to negotiate a agreement on the details of a verifiable demilitirization leading to a plebiscite, a framework that was accepted by all sides at the time.


> 2) The interpretation that irregulars were required to be withdrawn but not troops leads to a logical absurdity and violates all known canons of interpretation.


It does not, as explained earlier. Again, since a government cannot be expected to have control over all irregulars, it stands to reason that the State may have to resort to both non-violent and violent means to ensure compliance. The use of violence by the State to ensure that irregulars comply with the requirement to withdraw requires the use of government armed forces. Therefore the logical absurdity is to argue that a government 'use its best endeavors to ensure withdrawal of an irregular force', when the government does not have a military that would give it's 'best endeavors' the teeth to ensure said compliance by irregulars. The UNSC and UNCIP knew exactly what it was proposing because a staged withdrawal, with government troops the last to leave, would be the only way to ensure that the GoP had the ability to influence irregulars.


> 3) The resolutions were just the principles along which final resolution was to take place. A series of events was to take place, which was stalled initially by Pakistan, and then seized upon by India. It may always have been India’s devious plan to not conduct a plebiscite, but Pakistan misconstrued its own obligations under the resolutions.


The series of events were negotiations and agreement on the details of demilitirization, that India sabotaged and obstructed by placing unreasonable demands, as detailed earlier.


> 4) Pakistan always had the option of accepting India’s contention on the 12-point proposals and force India’s hand on the subject – it chose not to, made demands of its own. Basically, Pakistan rejected the plebiscite on the issue of 5,000 additional troops. The fact that the UNSC allowed the talks to collapse instead of moving a resolution against India shows that the UNSC treated Pakistani withdrawal as a condition precedent.


Actually, Indian rejected the earlier proposal of 5000 fewer troops on her side, even though that would have still left her with a significant numerical advantage over Pakistan. Pakistan compromised on several occasions, with the troop discrepancy continuing to increase in favor of India each time India rejected a proposal and a new one was presented. At some point Pakistan had to draw the line and it justifiable did so. The obstructionism was on the Indian side - why did India reject the earlier proposal with 5000 fewer troops on the Indian side, even though India would have still had a significant numerical advantage?


> 6) Since we are being overly legalistic about it and not realizing that ground realities have changed so much in the past six decades that a plebiscite today will have no meaning, we should also know that legal claims have a limitation. After which these claims expire. Or the changes in circumstances make the last position meaningless, necessitating a completely new framework. Even if we were to be able to achieve the impossible task of convincing the UN to intervene, rest assured that it will not be upon our terms where things will be picked up from the collapse of the 12-point proposal.


Irrelevant to the point being argued, on whether Pakistan was required to unilaterally and unconditionally withdraw from J&K by the UNSC Resolutions, which I have clearly explained to not be the case, as Pakistan has argued.



Saahil84 said:


> Kashmir issue left unmentioned in United Nations - The Express Tribune
> 
> Jammu and Kashmir removed from list of 'disputes' under UN
> 
> Jammu and Kashmir out of U.N. list of disputes - The Hindu
> 
> https://books.google.co.in/books?id=YNMQNnW_QRgC&pg=PT23&lpg=PT23&dq=united nations list of unresolved disputes kashmir 2010&source=bl&ots=xU1VGjV4Yl&sig=EyylxH8L3MT0Ia6GCK8MqP-u7RQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBGoVChMIkYC54Ju_xwIV0EyOCh1MUAKA#v=onepage&q=list &f=false
> 
> Deletion of Kashmir from UN list resented
> 
> http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2010/11/16/national/kashmir-no-more-unresolved-on-un-list/
> 
> And beyond that, if you still persist to question the veracity, then you should come back with proof that after the Pakistani government protested it was added back in later years.


I see a bunch of articles and a reference in some books to this alleged 'removal from the list of the UN disputes', but there is absolutely no reference to a UN published list of disputes that Kashmir was allegedly 'removed from'. One can't 'remove a dispute from a list' if said list doesn't even exist to begin with.

Please provide a reference to a UN site/source that provides a list of disputed territories, as recognized by the UN.


----------



## Stephen Cohen

@AgNoStiC MuSliM

You are taking a LOT of time and effort for debating the LEGAL aspects of Kashmir dispute

But all these points have lost their relevance due to the 
TIME that has lapsed

@AgNoStiC MuSliM 

The UN resolutions on Kashmir are under CHAPTER SIX 

They are NOT enforceable unlike Chapter SEVEN resolutions 

Basically they are just advisories which we have rejected


----------



## Saahil84

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> Correct, they are recommendations and principles that India and Pakistan committed to, pending agreement on the details of both demilitarization and plebiscite. India has reneged on he international commitments made multiple times, and refuses to even engage in negotiations over those principles any longer, whereas Pakistan continues to adhere to her international commitments.
> 
> Multiple UNSC Resolutions made clear what the framework of these discussions was to be - primarily, negotiations towards an agreement on the details of a demilitarization plan. The Indian government's participation in such negotiations would only occur if they recognized that the UNSC Resolutions required a UN mediated agreement on demilitirization, acceptable to all sides, prior to any withdrawal. The argument here is over the claim that the UN Resolutions require Pakistan to withdraw all 'combatants' unconditionally. If that was the case, the UNSC had no reason to set up UN Commissions and send UN representatives to negotiate the details with India AND Pakistan, and India had no reason to accept or participate in UNSC sanctioned discussions that undermined the claim that 'Pakistan was required to withdraw unconditionally'.
> 
> You misunderstood my point completely - as I explained in the paragraph above, I'm arguing that the UNSC resolutions do not place any requirement of an unconditional and unilateral withdrawal upon Pakistan. The UNSC Resolutions and UNCIP Resolutions and Reports make clear that any withdrawal is subject to the details of withdrawal being agreed upon between India, Pakistan and UN Representatives. India's participation in the multiple negotiations established by the UNSC validate Pakistan's position (of not being under any requirement of withdrawing unilaterally and unconditionally) by virtue of explicitly accepting the principle (at the time) of 'agreeing to a framework withing which a final settlement is binding on both', as you said in your first sentence. If India hadn't agreed to the 'framework', it would not have participated in the multiple negotiations established by the framework, and it is the 'framework within which a final settlement is binding on both' that debunks the argument that the UNSC Resolutions require Pakistan to withdraw unilaterally and unconditionally.
> 
> In fact, even if India did not agree with the framework, the fact that the UNSC set up multiple rounds of UN Commissions and UN Representative led missions to develop agreement over the general principles of demilitirization and plebiscite, clearly establishes that the intent behind the UNSC Resolutions from the beginning was to 'establish a framework within which agreement over the details of demilitirization and plebiscite could be reached' - again, a vindication of the Pakistani position that no unconditional and unilateral withdrawal is required of her.
> 
> This passage of yours is irrelevant to the specific point being discussed, of whether the UNSC Resolutions require Pakistan to withdraw unconditionally and unilaterally.
> 
> Lie or 'tactical omission', if the misrepresentation by Pakistan was indeed so grievous, the UNSC was free to strengthen the language in her subsequent resolutions against Pakistan, yet the subsequent resolutions only further establish and detail a framework within which agreement on the details of demilitarization and plebiscite need to be reached.
> 
> You can tarnish Pakistan's actions as much as you want, but the facts are that the UNSC did not see things the way you do, as is clear from the language of the UNSC Resolutions and UNCIP reports subsequent to the first UNSCR on J&K.
> 
> Pakistan did not contest the need for a full withdrawal of irregular forces to be validated prior to an Indian demilitarization, so this argument is a straw man. Pakistan's disagreements with some proposals were over the massive superiority in conventional government controlled forces that India would be allowed to keep deployed in the valley compared to Pakistan's.
> 
> I'm not going to trust you - you did an excellent job of restating my arguments, but you've offered nothing in the way of a rebuttal of those arguments other than saying 'this is how a lawyer would quote it' - I see no 'havoc' being created here by my reasoning, certainly none that you've pointed out so far.
> 
> There is no 'legal absurdity' here, just a desire on your part to read the text out of context, chopped up into pieces that support the Indian point of view on your part. The statement in 2.A(1) was the acceptance in principle of Pakistan withdrawing her troops - it did not specify when or how that withdrawal were to take place, and the context and conditions applicable to the statement in 2.A(1) was very clearly established in the opening lines of Part II, _"both the Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their representatives and the Commission."_
> 
> The introduction to Part II set up the framework for negotiations, and provided clear context that everything stated in Part II of the UNCIPR was subject to a final agreement on the details, and therefore my interpretation of Part II.B(1) clearly flows within the context established by the opening lines of Part II. What would be absurd would be to cling solely to the language of 2.A.(1), ignoring what came before and after.
> 
> What exactly about the above do you not understand? Pakistan confirms that it has managed (by force, dialog or both) to secure the withdrawal of irregular forces, which the UN Commission would confirm (and was free to introduce proposals on how best to confirm the withdrawal prior to reporting it to India), after which the withdrawal of regular forces, on both sides, begins in accordance with the details of the Truce Agreement settled upon by all sides.
> 
> I never questioned that.
> 
> Then what exactly are you arguing with me for - you yourself claimed earlier that, "_Actually, since the issue is whether there is a unilateral pre-condition on Pakistan to withdraw, what we need to see is whether there are other words around which show otherwise_", and now you've essentially accepted my position.
> 
> Because the framework the UNSC had set up required agreement by both parties - it did not consider the possibility of one party's obstructionism as a means of delaying resolution until such time as the status quo could be argued to be the most feasible option, and it probably didn't have the votes to push through a resolution censuring India.
> 
> Pakistan's disagreement over troop levels that gave India more than a significant advantage were based on military rationale, and Indian tactics of illegally sparking communal violence, invasion and occupation of the territory of sovereign States such as the Pakistani territory of Junagadh and the State of Hyderabad. India's demands during negotiations that she be recognized as solely having the legal ability to deploy forces throughout disputed J&K in case of violence and threats of instability.To any rationale individual this was clearly a setup to replicate the events of Junagadh and Hyderabad and have Indian forces step into the Vacuum left by withdrawing Pakistani forces, hence the need to maintain, at least, a defensible posture with limited Indian military troop superiority.
> 
> I didn't miss anything - I I clearly stated in my earlier post that without a truce agreement interpretations of 'ongoing withdrawal' could be interpreted to mean anything, and the examples I gave were to further establish the fact that the withdrawal was subject to an agreement on the details. You're attributing arguments to me that I did not make.
> 
> I have accepted no ambiguity and you have established no such thing.
> 
> The Pakistani government is on record committing to a withdrawal in the UNSC, in accordance with the UNSC framework that calls for an agreement on the details of the withdrawal negotiated under said UNSC framework - it doesn't get any more 'officially on record' than that.
> 
> As explained earlier, the UNSC, if it considered Pakistan's 'misrepresentation' regarding the presence of her troops in J&K to be unacceptable, have addressed the issue in subsequent UNSC Resolutions in a manner that outright demanded an unconditional and unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan, period. Instead, it chose to create a framework under which India, Pakistan and the UN were to negotiate a agreement on the details of a verifiable demilitirization leading to a plebiscite, a framework that was accepted by all sides at the time.
> 
> It does not, as explained earlier. Again, since a government cannot be expected to have control over all irregulars, it stands to reason that the State may have to resort to both non-violent and violent means to ensure compliance. The use of violence by the State to ensure that irregulars comply with the requirement to withdraw requires the use of government armed forces. Therefore the logical absurdity is to argue that a government 'use its best endeavors to ensure withdrawal of an irregular force', when the government does not have a military that would give it's 'best endeavors' the teeth to ensure said compliance by irregulars. The UNSC and UNCIP knew exactly what it was proposing because a staged withdrawal, with government troops the last to leave, would be the only way to ensure that the GoP had the ability to influence irregulars.
> 
> The series of events were negotiations and agreement on the details of demilitirization, that India sabotaged and obstructed by placing unreasonable demands, as detailed earlier.
> 
> Actually, Indian rejected the earlier proposal of 5000 fewer troops on her side, even though that would have still left her with a significant numerical advantage over Pakistan. Pakistan compromised on several occasions, with the troop discrepancy continuing to increase in favor of India each time India rejected a proposal and a new one was presented. At some point Pakistan had to draw the line and it justifiable did so. The obstructionism was on the Indian side - why did India reject the earlier proposal with 5000 fewer troops on the Indian side, even though India would have still had a significant numerical advantage?
> 
> Irrelevant to the point being argued, on whether Pakistan was required to unilaterally and unconditionally withdraw from J&K by the UNSC Resolutions, which I have clearly explained to not be the case, as Pakistan has argued.
> 
> 
> I see a bunch of articles and a reference in some books to this alleged 'removal from the list of the UN disputes', but there is absolutely no reference to a UN published list of disputes that Kashmir was allegedly 'removed from'. One can't 'remove a dispute from a list' if said list doesn't even exist to begin with.
> 
> Please provide a reference to a UN site/source that provides a list of disputed territories, as recognized by the UN.



Look, I will reply to each of your points if you so wish. But there are two basic things you should be clear on:

1) When I tell you how legal documents are interpreted, either disprove me by showing me law, or take my word for it. In law, there is something called first-principle arguments, and then there are arguments from authority (could be primary or secondary sources). I am arguing both on first principle as well as on authority, like rules of statutory interpretation. What you are doing is arguing entirely based upon first principle, and then saying "prove this, show me that, I am not convinced" etc. The point is, since you are either not consulting the secondary sources, or ignoring them altogether, how will you even know when I have been able to prove my point? 

2) And about Junagarh, man, are you real? Here we are having a discussion upon the very subject of democratic enfranchisement, and you are questioning the accession of the only princely state that even had a plebiscite? Then why are we even arguing if you don't believe in plebiscites?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stephen Cohen said:


> @AgNoStiC MuSliM
> 
> You are taking a LOT of time and effort for debating the LEGAL aspects of Kashmir dispute


I am refuting an oft repeated canard that 'the UNSC Resolutions require Pakistan to unilaterally and unconditionally withdraw'. If Indians and various Indian apologists stop making this claim, then I won't have to point out how it's wrong.


> @AgNoStiC MuSliM
> 
> The UN resolutions on Kashmir are under CHAPTER SIX
> 
> They are NOT enforceable unlike Chapter SEVEN resolutions
> 
> Basically they are just advisories which we have rejected


Very few treaties and agreements between States are 'enforceable'. There is no enforcement mechanism in the IWT is there?

The lack of an enforcement mechanism doesn't change the fact that India made repeated official commitments to settle the Kashmir Dispute in accordance with the UNSC Resolutions. Her reneging on that commitment is really no different, for all practical purposes, from any other treaty that lacks enforcement mechanisms.


----------



## Saahil84

Stephen Cohen said:


> @AgNoStiC MuSliM
> 
> You are taking a LOT of time and effort for debating the LEGAL aspects of Kashmir dispute
> 
> But all these points have lost their relevance due to the
> TIME that has lapsed
> 
> @AgNoStiC MuSliM
> 
> The UN resolutions on Kashmir are under CHAPTER SIX
> 
> They are NOT enforceable unlike Chapter SEVEN resolutions
> 
> Basically they are just advisories which we have rejected



That is one way of looking at it, but nonetheless it is an interesting exercise. I think everyone who is capable of so doing should study and make up their own mind on the issue. Ultimately, in any democracy, it is always good if people know.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Saahil84 said:


> Look, I will reply to each of your points if you so wish. But there are two basic things you should be clear on:
> 
> 1) When I tell you how legal documents are interpreted, either disprove me by showing me law, or take my word for it. In law, there is something called first-principle arguments, and then there are arguments from authority (could be primary or secondary sources). I am arguing both on first principle as well as on authority, like rules of statutory interpretation. What you are doing is arguing entirely based upon first principle, and then saying "prove this, show me that, I am not convinced" etc. The point is, since you are either not consulting the secondary sources, or ignoring them altogether, how will you even know when I have been able to prove my point?


On the contrary, I have clearly and explicitly explained to you how the the language of the resolutions supports my position, and explained to you why your criticism is invalid. What specific 'secondary sources' contradict my argument? The language of the UNSC Resolutions, the UNCIP Reports and Resolutions, all of them taken together only further substantiate my argument. So I dont really see where these 'secondary sources' of yours that contradict me are coming from.

On the subject next of 'trusting you' and 'rules of statutory interpretation', it isn't enough to just throw out Latin terms and claim that they contradict my arguments - you need to explain specifically which rule you believe is applicable and why and how that rule undermines my argument.

I reviewed the 'principles of statutory interpretation' you referenced to ensure I was recalling some of them correctly, and I don't see where they contradict my argument as you claim they do.


> 2) And about Junagarh, man, are you real? Here we are having a discussion upon the very subject of democratic enfranchisement, and you are questioning the accession of the only princely state that even had a plebiscite? Then why are we even arguing if you don't believe in plebiscites?


First, all actions undertaken by the Indian government after invading and occupying Junagadh are illegal. The point behind bringing up Junagadh is not to question the plebiscite, but to point out how India undertook an illegal and unprovoked invasion and occupation of Pakistani territory after stoking communal conflict within it.

This is an important consideration because of the Indian demands during UNCIP negotiations that India be considered the sole authority to deploy forces across J&K in case of 'unrest and instability', which was the pretext used by India to illegally invade and occupy Junagadh and Hyderabad.


----------



## M. Sarmad

toxic_pus said:


> We are just going in circles.
> 
> To the satisfaction of UN, yes. Not Pakistan.
> 
> That was the whole point of UN being there as a mediator. That was the whole point of negotiation between GoI and UN. That was the whole point of keeping Pakistan out from the negotiation. Because Pakistans obligation to withdraw was __absolute__, where withdrawal meant __complete__ evacuation of Pak nationals, Army and other fighting forces, while Indias obligation arose as and when Pakistan withdrew. Hence, timing, manner and quantum of Indian troop withdrawal needed to be determined to the satisfaction of UN. Not of Pakistan.
> 
> Again, it was UN to decide if plan of Indian withdrawal fulfilled the criteria. Not Pakistan. Pakistan was not even entitled to know about the terms and conditions, until the time of agreement. You also forgot to highlight the part that says __the arrangements could be coordinated and supervised *by the mediation party, namely, the Commission*__ which makes abundantly clear that it was not something that concerned Pakistan.
> 
> Besides, para 242 was the Commissions response to Pakistans demand that withdrawal be synchronized and that the only way to ensure such synchronization was by sharing of information.
> _The Commission's reply regarding synchronization cannot be interpreted out of the context of the Resolution which, as has been pointed out, *draws a distinction between the withdrawal of Indian and Pakistan forces*. Pakistan troops are to *begin to withdraw in advance *of the Indian troops and their withdrawal is *not conditioned on Pakistan's agreement to the plan of the Indian withdrawal*. [] *The Commission was not able to share the view of the Government of Pakistan that the only method of assuring this form of synchronization was by the full and free exchange of information between the Indian and Pakistan Governments regarding withdrawal plans.* It was feasible, in the Commission's judgment and the Commission's military adviser had had this in mind, that *the arrangements could be coordinated and supervised by the mediation party, namely, the Commission*, so as to cause the two withdrawals to represent a dual operation which would be coordinated in timing and would result in a military situation in the State which was not such as to place either side at a disadvantage.(para 242)_​The connotation of that quote becomes clear when read in the right context. And that is, the 'synchronization' was UN's responsibility. (Hence Indian plan needed to be to the satisfaction of UN.)
> 
> 
> Give it a rest. The highlighted part is a reference to Part II/C of the Truce agreement. It states:
> Upon signature, the full text of the Truce Agreement or communiqué containing the principles thereof as agreed upon between the two Governments and the Commission, will be made public.​That you have to fall back on questioning my understanding of rudimentary English, illustrates how desperately you want to see what you want to see. In spite of knowing that it is logically impossible for an action to be dependent on something that succeeds it and is in essence dependent on it, or in spite of UN clarifying in no uncertain terms that Pakistans withdrawal was not conditional to Indian plan of demilitarization you keep insisting that it was so. Your intransigence is now reaching new heights of absurdity.
> 
> 
> Ignorance is indeed bliss.
> 
> 
> An agreement becomes null and void when, among other reasons, the other party to the agreement takes a position which makes it apparent, its intention to not perform. Pakistans declared stance on several issues (e.g. deliberate misinterpretation of local authority, refusing to disband and disarm Azad force, insisting on simultaneous troop withdrawal to bring in military balance, refusal to accept its role, or the lack of it, in the process of negotiation, but more importantly, refusing to implement Part I/B & E of Cease Fire agreement etc.) made it clear that Pakistan didnt want to withdraw. India was not under any compulsion to wait till infinity when it became apparent that no withdrawal was possible in the face of Pakistan's hardened stand.
> 
> One more time, incorporating Kashmir within the folds of Indian Constitution wasnt illegal. There is nothing in any resolution that prevents India from administering Kashmir in a way that it deemed fit.
> 
> 
> No resolution at the UN was passed declaring the territory disputed. On the contrary, the Commission had explicitly assured India that the sovereignty of J & K would never be questioned. By virtue of Instrument of Accession, a substantial part of that sovereignty rested with India.
> 
> You can give this canard a rest too.



Quoting selective paras from UN Interim reports that you believe favour India won't prove you right ...

India claims that Pakistan was obligated to withdraw its forces from Kashmir unilaterally and unconditionally under the mutually agreed upon UNCIP Resolutions of 13 Aug 1948 and 5 Jan 1949. To prove their point, the Indians quote out of context a certain provision of UNCIP resolution of 13 August 1948, that is, Part 11, paragraph A.I while deliberately suppressing the other parts of the same paragraph. The Indians are guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. These subsequent paragraphs make it obvious that *the obligation of Pakistan to withdraw its troops from the state of Jammu and Kashmir does not devolve until both sides conclude a truce agreement* to govern the withdrawal of not only Pakistan forces but also the bulk of the Indian armed forces from the state, the withdrawals to be carried out in a synchronized manner.


Anyone who can read and comprehend simple English would find it hard to agree with the Indian interpretation of the UNCIP resolutions. But I would like to quote the UN interpretation of the relevant part of those resolutions here.


The UN Commission assured Pakistan:

_After Pakistan had made the beginning in the withdrawal of its forces from Kashmir* there was to be a relation between the further withdrawals of all the Pakistan forces and the beginning withdrawals of the bulk of the *_*Indian forces *_from Kashmir in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission._
(Graham Report - 25 October 1967 - Kashmir Dispute (Dr. Frank P. Graham, UN Representative) - *summary review of the Mediatory Reports of the United Nations in the Kashmir Situation*, p.9)


Only after having been given the aforementioned 'assurance' by UNCIP had Pakistan accepted the UNCIP resolutions on 25 Dec, 1948. The UNCIP had made it clear that Pakistan was under no obligation to withdraw its forces from J&K unilaterally and unconditionally. It only had to begin withdrawing its forces, and Pakistan, after having secured the withdrawal of tribesmen earlier (by Feb 1949), began withdrawing its regular troops as well (as acknowledged in UN reports) but later _withheld_ owing to the failure of the UNCIP(/successors), which had assured Pakistan on a number of occasions that the synchronization of withdrawals would be arranged between the respective High Commands and the Commission (see UNCIP Interim Reports for details), to notify Pakistan regarding the terms and conditions of the Truce.

===========

An excellent sticky thread on UN Resolutions on Kashmir..
Wonder where highly knowledgeable members like @roadrunner @UnitedPak @haviZsultan are
Only Agnostic Muslim still active

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------

