British MP explains why Kashmir needs to be resolved

[Jackdaws]

Pakistan needs to have strong reactions to resolve the dispute,Like..
-Demilitarizing its side of the border and allowing the 1948 UN mandate to be held in kahmir

I concur. It would put tremendous moral pressure on India. But they won't do it.

As far as I know ,The UN mandated plebiscite of 1948 had two primary constituents ,
Withdrawal of troops from both sides and Plebiscite to be held..
If we withdraw from Kashmir then India doesn't have the balls to occupy our lands ...Because International backing will be enough ,Just like it was enough for our withdrawal in 1999 kargil..
More to add @Kaptaan We need to have international backing inorder to resolve this dispute..
Even if india occupies our lands then it will turn the global opinion on itself ,Like we foolishly did in 1971

No, from what I understand India has to maintain a force in all of Kashmir AFTER the withdrawal of Pakistani/tribal forces. But the plebiscite is to be conducted under U.N. auspices, not just by India.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

As far as I know

Please take the time to read it. I have. Your going to be shocked. The bas*tard Pakistan leaders gave away Kashmir on a plate to India. Did you know that Pakistan almost faced it's first military coup in late 1949 because annoyed was the army. They could nlot believe how Kashmir was given away to India. That is what led to Major Akbar Khan being disgruntled about the support he got from Liaquat Khan which he regarded as insufficient and felt had the Kashmir cause got 100% support Kashmir could have been all in Pakistan's hands.

It was during this period that he first became dissatisfied with the moral and material support being given to the Pakistani fighters by Liaquat Ali Khan's government. He also had a grudge against General Douglas David Gracey, then Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army, who had put a brake on the deeper involvement of the Pakistani army on the Kashmir front. Akbar Khan was of the opinion – rightly or wrongly – that acceptance of the ceasefire in Kashmir when he was only four hours away from capturing Srinagar was a mistake, and the armed operation against the Indian Army should have been continued.


The constraints under which Akbar Khan had to conduct the battle in Kashmir made him a very frustrated and dissatisfied man. By nature he was extremely brave and, in fact, rather rash. He was also very ambitious. All these qualities and tendencies combined to propel him towards conjuring up a plan to remove the Liaquat government by means of a coup d'état.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_Khan_(Pakistani_general)#Indo-Pakistan_War_1947-1948


All this has been covered up in Pakistani history books and Liaquat made a Shaheed i Millet. He deserved that bullet he got. Think of the generations of Kashmiri's suffering and all the men we have lost in wars.

Maj. Gen. Akbar Khan disgruntled was involved later in the Rawalpindi Conspiracy to to overthrow the government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rawalpindi_conspiracy

No, from what I understand India has to maintain a force in all of Kashmir AFTER the withdrawal of Pakistani/tribal forces. But the plebiscite is to be conducted under U.N. auspices, not just by India.

Indeed. I posted it above. Quote it again.

In the second step, India was asked to "progressively reduce" Indian forces to the minimum level required for keeping law and order. It laid down principles that India should follow in administering law and order in consultation with the Commission, using local personnel as far as possible.

Who decides what exactly is minimum? India of course. Ahh 600,000 Indian soldiers reduced to 'minimum of 400,000'. Sorted.

Now Pakistan you take everybody out including even civilians Pak citizens leading to a big ZERO.

 

[Jackdaws]

Please take the time to read it. I have. Your going to be shocked. The bas*tard Pakistan leaders gave away Kashmir on a plate to India. Did you know that Pakistan almost faced it's first military coup in late 1949 because annoyed was the army. They could nlot believe how Kashmir was given away to India. That is what led to Major Akbar Khan being disgruntled about the support he got from Liaquat Khan which he regarded as insufficient and felt had the Kashmir cause got 100% support Kashmir could have been all in Pakistan's hands.

It was during this period that he first became dissatisfied with the moral and material support being given to the Pakistani fighters by Liaquat Ali Khan's government. He also had a grudge against General Douglas David Gracey, then Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army, who had put a brake on the deeper involvement of the Pakistani army on the Kashmir front. Akbar Khan was of the opinion – rightly or wrongly – that acceptance of the ceasefire in Kashmir when he was only four hours away from capturing Srinagar was a mistake, and the armed operation against the Indian Army should have been continued.


The constraints under which Akbar Khan had to conduct the battle in Kashmir made him a very frustrated and dissatisfied man. By nature he was extremely brave and, in fact, rather rash. He was also very ambitious. All these qualities and tendencies combined to propel him towards conjuring up a plan to remove the Liaquat government by means of a coup d'état.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_Khan_(Pakistani_general)#Indo-Pakistan_War_1947-1948


All this has been covered up in Pakistani history books and Liaquat made a Shaheed i Millet. He deserved that bullet he got. Think of the generations of Kashmiri's suffering and all the men we have lost in wars.

Maj. Gen. Akbar Khan disgruntled was involved later in the Rawalpindi Conspiracy to to overthrow the government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rawalpindi_conspiracy


Indeed. I posted it above. Quote it again.

In the second step, India was asked to "progressively reduce" Indian forces to the minimum level required for keeping law and order. It laid down principles that India should follow in administering law and order in consultation with the Commission, using local personnel as far as possible.

Who decides what exactly is minimum? India of course. Ahh 600,000 Indian soldiers reduced to 'minimum of 400,000'. Sorted.

Now Pakistan you take everybody out including even civilians Pak citizens leading to a big ZERO.

I had read it; it has been a few years. I also read various books on the topic - From what I remember

1. Considering, the Pakistani forces were commanded by British officers - the head of the forces refused to send regular troops in J&K.

2. The tribal forces were sent and it was meant to be shown as a spontaneous uprising. However, the tribals themselves could not be controlled and engaged in loot and pillage. This slowed them down. Many Muslim troops of Hari Singh joined the tribals.

3. Once Kashmir acceded to India and then India took the matter to the U.N. Pakistan had no choice but to comply.

 

[livingdead]

everybody agrees it needs to be resolved.. but how? There are 3 parties, all with different goals.. and nobody is willing to compromise.

 

[TMA]

Why, are you a idiot? Do you want to give away the 1/3 of Kashmir that our unsung tribal warriors along with Kashmiri freedom fighters liberated while the incompetent Muslim League leadership worried more about their homsteads left behind in United Provinces, Hydrabad or Junagadh? It was because of ML's lack of real concern for Kashmir that cost us dear to this day.

The 1948 UN Mandate was signed by traitors who flushed the sacrifics of the brave tribals and Kashmiri fighters down the toilet. Have you ever read the UN Resolution ever? It say's Pakistan to pull it's forces out and then it's portion (AJK) be given back to J&K. Then plebicite is held in J&K with ONLY Indian Army administering it to make sure 'peace and stability' is maintained. That my friend is as good as giving it away to India. With Indian Army administering it what do you think the plebicite results are going to be?

This sale of Kashmir to India by ML leadership has been covered up in Pakistan because ML got to write the history books and thr media heavily in awe of that group has continued to sing the fraud and deception.

• In the first step, Pakistan was asked to use its "best endeavours" to secure the withdrawal of all tribesmen and Pakistani nationals, putting an end to the fighting in the state.
• In the second step, India was asked to "progressively reduce" its forces to the minimum level required for keeping law and order. It laid down principles that India should follow in administering law and order in consultation with the Commission, using local personnel as far as possible.
• In the third step, India was asked to ensure that all the major political parties were invited to participate in the state government at the ministerial level, essentially forming a coalition cabinet. India should then appoint a Plebiscite Administrator nominated by the United Nations, who would have a range of powers including powers to deal with the two countries and ensure a free and impartial plebiscite. Measures were to be taken to ensure the return of refugees, the release of all political prisoners, and for political freedom.

Notice who is trusted to keeping law and order? Indian fvcking Army. Notice Pakistan nationals are required to get the fvck out of Kashmir. Very, very clever? NO?

And this was done under the Shaheed-e-Millet as PM. God forbit had it been not the Shaheed Liaquat Khan in charge what would have happened then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_47

I did not know this. Thanks!

everybody agrees it needs to be resolved.. but how? There are 3 parties, all with different goals.. and nobody is willing to compromise.

Allow the people of the disputed lands to choose which nationality to take? Allow them to travel freely in that territory? A bit like the Northern Ireland process?

 

[livingdead]

I did not know this. Thanks!


Allow the people of the disputed lands to choose which nationality to take? Allow them to travel freely in that territory? A bit like the Northern Ireland process?

northern ireland solution is interesting and I think Musharaf had similar plan.. but UK-Ireland relation is on a different place compared to India-pak relation... we dont really trust each other.

 

[ghazi52]