Beautiful Post : Kashmir - SarthakGanguly's Logical Comment

[halupridol]

To be fair, it is important to note that neither India nor Pakistan can change the LoC by force.

PA wud stronkly disagree

 

[VCheng]

PA wud stronkly disagree

No, PA is wise enough to know the reality. It is just that it would prefer to convey to its own people a suitably strong image, that is all.

 

[toxic_pus]

1- You have quoted in your post # 182 the Letter of Sir Zafar Ullah Khan (S/735) dated 30 April 1948:

For which I replied:



further I have shown you the the Indian objections as under:

But UN Security Council rejected the objections & concerns of both of the governments of India & Pakistan under the resolution of 3 June 1948

View attachment 111523

I posted a different letter of Sir Zaffar Ullah in a different context replying to your another point, read it again that might clear you up a little bit.


Indian delusion.

Nonsense. If a party doesn't accept a resolution under Chapter VI, then it is not binding on her. And UN can never reject 'objections & concerns' of the parties. Thats basic law 101. The 3 June 1948 communique is about UNCIP, which both India and Pakistan had agreed to.

Anyway, whatever the reason for rejection, the fact stands that Pakistan rejected Resolution 21, April 1948. It is absurd to argue otherwise.

Are any of the Tribesmen present in Azad Kashmir .... ???

how conveniently you ignored my question raised previously .....

Who cares as long as there are still Pak citizens and PA in P0K.

I am seriously unable to grasp the logic of your argument that India & Pakistan only agreed to '2 resolutions' adopted by UN commission for India & Pakistan, which was formed under the resolutions of UN security council (21 April 1948 in among one of those resolutions), but not with the resolution of 21 April 1948; in short it is a behaviour similar to:

'BAAP SE NAFRAT, OLAAYAD SE PYAR'

Whats there not to understand? UN passed a resolution on 21 April, 1948 - based purely on the complaint of India and Pakistan's response to the complaint - that set out responsibilities for both the parties. Both the parties found that they are not in a position to carry out their responsibilities and so they refused to accept it, except for the part that establishes UNCIP. UNCIP was then formed and they visited the subcontinent on a fact finding mission, talked to the parties, came back and submitted their 1st Interim Report, drafted a resolution that got adopted on 13 Aug, 1948 and after much clarification both the parties accepted the resolution, finally agreeing to carry out their responsibilities as set out in the resolution

Accordingly, both the parties negotiated a cease-fire and agreed on a Cease Fire Line (CFL)

Resolution of 21 April, 1948 is not the 'father' of resolution of 13 August, 1948. However, Resolution of 21 April, 1948 is the 'father' of UNCIP, who drafted the resolution of 13 August, 1948.

I have already shown in this post that UN security council had rejected the concerns and objection of both Governments in one of its resolution of 3 Jun 1948

No you haven't. As I have mentioned, the communique was about the UNCIP, which both the parties had accepted.

Agreed now concentrate on dates

1- Truce Agreement 13 Aug 1948

2- Karachi Agreement 27 Jul 1949

So?

Both were facilitated by UN Commission for India & Pakistan, in Truce agreement It was decided that Pakistan will withdraw its forces along with Tribesmen & other Pakistani National who were not the resident there.

Pakistan agreed to that and facilitate the withdrawal of Tribesmen and Pakistan National; but as highlighted earlier in this post In respond to Sir Zafar Ullah Letter dated 6 Sep 1948 Commission Clarify that

"The resolution does not Contemplate the DISARMENT or DISBANDING' of AZAD KASHMIRFORCES'.

Under the Karachi agreement dated 27 July 1949, India agreed with Pakistan's right of Troops deployment at Ceasefire Line for Defensive purpose

I have mention its number of time previously and in this thread as well, once again check the Karachi Agreement.

View attachment 112050

View attachment 112109

As per the clause 3 presence of Pakistani troops at the Ceasefire line is a separate issue not related to Part-II of the 13 Aug 1948 resolution known as Truce Agreement.

[-snip-]

Pakistan is in agreement to this on principle grounds, but as stated earlier presence of Pakistani troops at Cease fire line / LOC is not the violation of Truce agreement, other than this Tribals had withdrawn from Kashmir after the Truce Agreement.

Indian could not used the presence of Pakistani troops at the Cease Fire Line / LOC (as per Karachi agreement ) as the base of their refusal of Plebiscite.

You just proved my point. Part I is Cease Fire, pursuant to which Karachi Agreement, 1949 was signed - to cease hostilities and only that. Part II is Truce Agreement. Truce Agreement requires Pakistan to withdraw completely and hand over administration to local authority, among other things - to conduct plebiscite.

Karachi Agreement, therefore, has nothing to do with plebiscite. If Pakistan wants India to conduct Plebiscite, they will have to withdraw, par Truce Agreement, and Karachi Agreement, as you have established, wouldn't come in the way. Means Karachi Agreement and Truce Agreement are mutually exclusive. Means, you can either stay or demand plebiscite, but can't do both

So, either by being in P0K you are in constant violation of Part II(A & B)

Or stop stop demanding plebiscite.

Secondly, keep in mind that Karachi agreement was signed almost after the one year of Truce agreement, which mean at time of signing of Karachi agreement under the facilitation of UN commission for India - Pakistan, Indian government didn't term or question the presence of Pakistani troops as the violation of truce agreement or any of the resolution of UN Security Council regarding Kashmir.

Karachi Agreement was meant to identify the ground positions of the troops. Eventually Pakistan had to withdraw. India, or UN, didn't agree to permanent presence of Pakistan. Quit selling snake oil.

but now Indians to score points adopt this stance which is not correct, even according to the circumstantial evidence as stated above, further note that in 1950 Indian government negotiated with Sir Owen Dixon about the different the proposals regarding the Plebiscite in Kashmir (Sir Owen Dixon Letter to UN Security Council President)

Actually it is when Pakistanis accuse India of violating UN resolutions by not holding plebiscite we do the necessary job of reminding you that plebiscite can't happen until Pakistan withdraws completely. That is all.

Unfortunately I don't know 'Sanskrit' otherwise I would have presented my opinion in that which might be understandable to Indian members, as far as english is concern i think my replies are very much clear & understandable 'to those who have rudimentary understanding of English'

You replies wouldn't make sense to even Charles Dickens if he is somehow revived.

read my reply in response of your VISA argument which was not directly related to this debate but brought it in this discussion .....

Still can't make sense of it.

 

[HRK]

Nonsense. If a party doesn't accept a resolution under Chapter VI, then it is not binding on her. And UN can never reject 'objections & concerns' of the parties. Thats basic law 101. The 3 June 1948 communique is about UNCIP, which both India and Pakistan had agreed to.

Anyway, whatever the reason for rejection, the fact stands that Pakistan rejected Resolution 21, April 1948. It is absurd to argue otherwise.



Who cares as long as there are still Pak citizens and PA in P0K.




Whats there not to understand? UN passed a resolution on 21 April, 1948 - based purely on the complaint of India and Pakistan's response to the complaint - that set out responsibilities for both the parties. Both the parties found that they are not in a position to carry out their responsibilities and so they refused to accept it, except for the part that establishes UNCIP. UNCIP was then formed and they visited the subcontinent on a fact finding mission, talked to the parties, came back and submitted their 1st Interim Report, drafted a resolution that got adopted on 13 Aug, 1948 and after much clarification both the parties accepted the resolution, finally agreeing to carry out their responsibilities as set out in the resolution

Accordingly, both the parties negotiated a cease-fire and agreed on a Cease Fire Line (CFL)

Resolution of 21 April, 1948 is not the 'father' of resolution of 13 August, 1948. However, Resolution of 21 April, 1948 is the 'father' of UNCIP, who drafted the resolution of 13 August, 1948.



No you haven't. As I have mentioned, the communique was about the UNCIP, which both the parties had accepted.



So?

You just proved my point. Part I is Cease Fire, pursuant to which Karachi Agreement, 1949 was signed - to cease hostilities and only that. Part II is Truce Agreement. Truce Agreement requires Pakistan to withdraw completely and hand over administration to local authority, among other things - to conduct plebiscite.

Karachi Agreement, therefore, has nothing to do with plebiscite. If Pakistan wants India to conduct Plebiscite, they will have to withdraw, par Truce Agreement, and Karachi Agreement, as you have established, wouldn't come in the way. Means Karachi Agreement and Truce Agreement are mutually exclusive. Means, you can either stay or demand plebiscite, but can't do both

So, either by being in P0K you are in constant violation of Part II(A & B)

Or stop stop demanding plebiscite.


Karachi Agreement was meant to identify the ground positions of the troops. Eventually Pakistan had to withdraw. India, or UN, didn't agree to permanent presence of Pakistan. Quit selling snake oil.


Actually it is when Pakistanis accuse India of violating UN resolutions by not holding plebiscite we do the necessary job of reminding you that plebiscite can't happen until Pakistan withdraws completely. That is all.


You replies wouldn't make sense to even Charles Dickens if he is somehow revived.


Still can't make sense of it.

Truth is always Bitter and Harsh .... you don't want to accept it as your attitude is consistent with the 60+ year track record of Indian Nation ...

I wish you long live of denial

Regards,

 

[toxic_pus]

Truth is always Bitter and Harsh .... you don't want to accept it as your attitude is consistent with the 60+ year track record of Indian Nation ...

I wish you long live of denial

View attachment 113031

Regards,

It is good that you have realised that it is better to weasel out than to make further @ss of yourself.

Better late than never.

My holidays are over anyway

Regards.

 

[HRK]

It is good that you have realised that it is better to weasel out than to make further @ss of yourself.

Better late than never.

My holidays are over anyway

Regards.

rather to counter my arguments with evidence or official documents, now you have come down to a level from where you have started calling names

Hey guess what you have won the idiot award congratulation ...