Asaduddin Owaisi tells Pakistan to stop meddling in Kashmir

[M. Sarmad]

And the completion or lack thereof was hampered by the trained and armed tribals coming from territories held by the State of Pakistan.

No, India was never serious in holding a plebiscite in Kashmir from Day 1

To quote Sir Owen Dixon, the UN appointed official mediator:
"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Para 52 of Document S/1971)


The London Economist stated that "the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [the Kashmiri people]...has been obstructing a holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite. From this the world opinion can only conclude that India really has no confidence that the vote would go in its favour" The Economist (London), Feb 18, 1950




And here is a "confession" by your own PM :


Writing to the Chief Minister of West Bengal, B.C. Roy on 29 June 1953, Nehru confided “If there was a plebiscite, a great majority of Muslims in Kashmir would go against us.” They had “become frightened of the communal elements in Jammu and in India.” He had “this feeling of our losing grip in Kashmir.” [Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 22, pp.204-5]


In 1996 was published a Note Nehru had written to Sheikh Abdullah on 25 August 1952 from Sonamarg in Kashmir. It is a document of cardinal importance. It laid bare Nehru’s entire approach to the questions; his strategy and tactics. He revealed that “towards the end of 1948” he concluded that “there were only two possibilities open to us, continuance of the war in a limited way; (2) some kind of a settlement on the basis of the existing military situation”. He had accepted the UNCIP resolutions to get a ceasefire; not to hold a plebiscite.“We are superior to Pakistan in military and industrial power,” With the passage of time Pakistan will “accept a settlement which we consider fair, whether in Kashmir or elsewhere”.

He was not bothered about what “Pakistan did or what the United Nations might do.” But he was “worried to find that the leaders of Kashmir were not so clear in their minds about the present or the future.” He was not worried about the wishes of the people either. They were “not what are called a virile people. They are soft and addicted to easy living.” Like Indira Gandhi, he felt that they were interested in “an honest administration and cheap and adequate food. If they get this, then they are more or less content.” The State would retain its “autonomy in most respects.” The leaders must shed doubt as doubt “percolates to their followers.” His recipe was clear. “Make the people think that the association of Kashmir State with India is an accomplished and final fact, and nothing is going to undo it.” [Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 19, pp.322-330. ed. S. Gopal, Nehru Memorial Fund, OUP, Second Series.]


http://www.criterion-quarterly.com/bilateral-negotiation-on-kaskmir-unlearnt-lesson/

 

[Joe Shearer]

I wish I could speak more on this, the military aspect. But I can not. For the sake of sanity, one can only hope that the option does not gain traction.

Having said that, the level of violence in valley is hardly anything of significance and not even close to what was seen in 90s.

That is right, but....

 

[Hellfire]

That's an interesting perspective, given your earlier post that I'll post here, and also use your post quoted below as a response to the post above - merely replace Pakistan with India.

Honouring the 1972 commitment. Steps undertaken by Lahore Bus Trip and MMS with Musharraf.

IK makes an unilateral attempt to engage in dialogue, decapitation of BSF soldier occurs across 'legally recognized' International Border vide the Karachi Agreement of 1948.

I rest my case.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Honouring the 1972 commitment. Steps undertaken by Lahore Bus Trip and MMS with Musharraf.

Had India honored its commitments under the UN Resolutions or even Shimla, Kashmir dispute would have been resolved long ago.

Siachen was the first major violation of the Simla Agreement of 1972 by India

Statement of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister of India of 16 Nov 1989 at Kolkatta, caps it all. Mr. A.G. Noorani in its review article states it “tacitly acknowledged breach of Simla Agreement “when Mr.Rajiv said “We have recovered about 5000 square kilometers of area from occupied Kashmir in Siachen area”.

 

[Hellfire]

There's also a significant assumption (and hope) that in the process of 'lining up all the ducks', that the Pakistani side will remain static. Barring Pakistan regressing into a North Korean, Syrian or Palestinian style meltdown, the ducks may likely never line up.

That kind of assumption and hope remains confined to the domains of the PDF, I assure you.

It matters from an academic stand point, the Simla did not supersede the UNSC Resolutions. And certainly the question of 'the value of ones commitment' can first be posed to India - what is the value of her commitment in the UNSC, in front of the world, to implement the UNSC Resolutions to resolve the J&K dispute?

My riposte, sir, remains, how many more instances of violation of your own solemn undertakings through multiple treaties signed, right from the formation of an independent State of Jammu & Kashmir (and entering into a standstill agreement with them) as a sovereign lawful state, will you continue to record and then assume a posture of invoking treaties/resolutions/negotiations as a mechanism of conflict resolution?

Has Pakistan, in any instance since the first day of formation of J&K as an independent state under the Maharaja, accepted it's own flagrant violation and aggression against what was technically an independent country formed by the very same act that gave legal status to Pakistan?

And what of the Indian support for unrest in Junagadh and Munavadh, setting the stage for military intervention by India and annexation of those territories?

Were the two territories acceded to and incorporated territories of Pakistan?

No, India was never serious in holding a plebiscite in Kashmir from Day 1

To quote Sir Owen Dixon, the UN appointed official mediator:
"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Para 52 of Document S/1971)


The London Economist stated that "the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [the Kashmiri people]...has been obstructing a holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite. From this the world opinion can only conclude that India really has no confidence that the vote would go in its favour" The Economist (London), Feb 18, 1950




And here is a "confession" by your own PM :


Writing to the Chief Minister of West Bengal, B.C. Roy on 29 June 1953, Nehru confided “If there was a plebiscite, a great majority of Muslims in Kashmir would go against us.” They had “become frightened of the communal elements in Jammu and in India.” He had “this feeling of our losing grip in Kashmir.” [Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 22, pp.204-5]


In 1996 was published a Note Nehru had written to Sheikh Abdullah on 25 August 1952 from Sonamarg in Kashmir. It is a document of cardinal importance. It laid bare Nehru’s entire approach to the questions; his strategy and tactics. He revealed that “towards the end of 1948” he concluded that “there were only two possibilities open to us, continuance of the war in a limited way; (2) some kind of a settlement on the basis of the existing military situation”. He had accepted the UNCIP resolutions to get a ceasefire; not to hold a plebiscite.“We are superior to Pakistan in military and industrial power,” With the passage of time Pakistan will “accept a settlement which we consider fair, whether in Kashmir or elsewhere”.

He was not bothered about what “Pakistan did or what the United Nations might do.” But he was “worried to find that the leaders of Kashmir were not so clear in their minds about the present or the future.” He was not worried about the wishes of the people either. They were “not what are called a virile people. They are soft and addicted to easy living.” Like Indira Gandhi, he felt that they were interested in “an honest administration and cheap and adequate food. If they get this, then they are more or less content.” The State would retain its “autonomy in most respects.” The leaders must shed doubt as doubt “percolates to their followers.” His recipe was clear. “Make the people think that the association of Kashmir State with India is an accomplished and final fact, and nothing is going to undo it.” [Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 19, pp.322-330. ed. S. Gopal, Nehru Memorial Fund, OUP, Second Series.]


http://www.criterion-quarterly.com/bilateral-negotiation-on-kaskmir-unlearnt-lesson/

My question to you is simple - why not look at Pakistan's own role?

Let us start with the Standstill Agreement.

Is Pakistan a legal state or not? If it is, are there obligations arising out of it's status? And if yes, why did you violate that treaty unilaterally of own accord without any reason?

 

[M. Sarmad]

My question to you is simple - why not look at Pakistan's own role?

Let us start with the Standstill Agreement.

Is Pakistan a legal state or not? If it is, are their obligations arising out of it's status? And if yes, why did you violate that treaty unilaterally of own accord without any reason?

Pakistan did not violate the Stand Still Agreement, Maharaja Hari Singh did. What are you on about?

 

[MultaniGuy]

Pakistan did not violate the Stand Still Agreement, Maharaja Hari Singh did. What are you on about?

You said something incorrect in one of your posts. Mountbatten said Kashmir's accession to India was only "provisional" until a plebiscite occurs. So how can it be valid? It would only be valid if the Plebiscite voted in India's direction.

So Kashmir's accession is not valid to India. It is only provisional.

 

[Hellfire]

That is right, but....

Sir.

The first thing that has to be done by either State is to accept the consequences of the actions undertaken by them.

For the esteemed Pakistani members here, pontifications over the UN resolutions and failure to adhere to them by India, by itself, underlines the very nature of the problem till date - blame the other and ignore your own actions.


Actions belie the intent - always.

No true supporter will ever undermine economic, social and political harmony of the people they claim to support.

Very simple question to everyone. What would happen if Pakistan adapts a hands off approach, blocks movement of militants in Kashmir and simply tells Kashmiris to use the Laws of India for their objectives?

Hasn't the Supreme Court put paid to question over Article 370 by ruling that it can not be abrogated in April 2018? And will the reasoned order in the judgement not serve to put the issue of Article 35A to rest permanently, thereby ensuring the undertakings given by GoI to the State of J&K at the time of accession, are upheld by law?

 

[Well.wisher]

Qutub din to chala gya par ye chotay chotay dinay chorh gya

 

[Hellfire]

Had India honored its commitments under the UN Resolutions or even Shimla, Kashmir dispute would have been resolved long ago.

Siachen was the first major violation of the Simla Agreement of 1972 by India

Statement of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister of India of 16 Nov 1989 at Kolkatta, caps it all. Mr. A.G. Noorani in its review article states it “tacitly acknowledged breach of Simla Agreement “when Mr.Rajiv said “We have recovered about 5000 square kilometers of area from occupied Kashmir in Siachen area”.

Incorrect. Occupation of Lunda (Machchil) and Durmat (Gurez) ridges (1973 when BSF vacated the post on the Southern faces, Pakistan occupied the ridge proper itself, which was the demarcation along watershed for the LC), technical violations that remain till date, were the starting points.

Please refer the delineation as per the original CFL (vide The Karachi Agreement. Incidentally you signed the International Border along Jammu region, now trying desperately to call that into question, another instance wherein Pakistan fails to act as a responsible lawful State), you will be able to understand this one.

Secondly, the moment PA lost 34 of 86 posts in the Shyok region in 1971 war to 102 Infantry Brigade of Indian Army, the CFL was changed. Technically, and here I agree with you, we took a larger area in that region. What stopped Pakistan from negotiating over the return of the posts in 1972? That clearly exhibits either your brass was not aware of the facts or that you are unaware of this tidbit.

Pakistan did not violate the Stand Still Agreement, Maharaja Hari Singh did. What are you on about?

Pray, do tell me how. Was invasion in spirit of the standstill agreement?

@Joe Shearer

I prefer the bush.

regards to all

later

 

[M. Sarmad]

Incorrect. Occupation of Lunda (Machchil) and Durmat (Gurez) ridges (1973 when BSF vacated the post on the Southern faces, Pakistan occupied the ridge proper itself, which was the demarcation along watershed for the LC), technical violations that remain till date, were the starting points.

Allegations and counter-allegations only?
I quoted what your own PM had said

Pray, do tell me how. Was invasion in spirit of the standstill agreement?

Pakistan Army entered Kashmir only after the Indian invasion of Oct 27th. Get your facts straight, mate

regards to all

later

Regards

 

[saiyan0321]

I wish I could speak more on this, the military aspect. But I can not. For the sake of sanity, one can only hope that the option does not gain traction.

Having said that, the level of violence in valley is hardly anything of significance and not even close to what was seen in 90s.

Ofcourse.. As a military man you must not divulge anything sensitive..

Indeed. Off topic but how Do you see the idea of laser fences for LOC. Do you think its a good idea and how effective will it be?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Incorrect. Occupation of Lunda (Machchil) and Durmat (Gurez) ridges (1973 when BSF vacated the post on the Southern faces, Pakistan occupied the ridge proper itself, which was the demarcation along watershed for the LC), technical violations that remain till date, were the starting points.

Please refer the delineation as per the original CFL (vide The Karachi Agreement. Incidentally you signed the International Border along Jammu region, now trying desperately to call that into question, another instance wherein Pakistan fails to act as a responsible lawful State), you will be able to understand this one.

Secondly, the moment PA lost 34 of 86 posts in the Shyok region in 1971 war to 102 Infantry Brigade of Indian Army, the CFL was changed. Technically, and here I agree with you, we took a larger area in that region. What stopped Pakistan from negotiating over the return of the posts in 1972? That clearly exhibits either your brass was not aware of the facts or that you are unaware of this tidbit.

Pray, do tell me how. Was invasion in spirit of the standstill agreement?

That was not his strongest moment. He believes that the Stand Still Agreement was a permanent treaty of some sort, and that resisting the invasion was a breach of that agreement. Not allowing Pakistani officers in mufti to massacre the people of Baramula and take over the Valley was a breach of that agreement.

But that should not discourage an appreciation of the stout defence put up by Sarmad Sahib, and his very intelligent reading of history and re-interpretation to favour the Pakistani case.

@Joe Shearer

I prefer the bush.

regards to all

later

Too soon! Call asap.

 

[VCheng]

Let's really hope that the military option does not gain traction. History, here, again needs to be taken into consideration.

Unlike the popular narrative being pushed along that India supported Mukti Bahini thereby setting up a precedence of supporting secessionist activities in the subcontinent, the support by Pakistan to the Mizo insurgent groups, predating the same, was the precedence. It was only a matter of time till a decision was reached wherein India decided to reciprocate the actions.

Similarly, Kashmir has been boiling for a long time. I wonder how long before the implied threat in Modi's Aug 2015 declaration over Baluchistan is actually put forth into action?

Where do we head then?

I would suggest that India is already doing whatever it can to encourage the Baluchistan issue reach a boil. Where we are heading next will become clear once the US position in Afghanistan is finalized. It won't be long.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Pray, do tell me how. Was invasion in spirit of the standstill agreement?

That was not his strongest moment. He believes that the Stand Still Agreement was a permanent treaty of some sort, and that resisting the invasion was a breach of that agreement. Not allowing Pakistani officers in mufti to massacre the people of Baramula and take over the Valley was a breach of that agreement.

Sir, you are trying to create a straw man now