Candid Zardari accepts J&K militants are terrorists

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What do you think, Indians see your claim on Kashmir as? Based on the highest principles of humanity?

It is just territorial grab that you want. You give a ---- for what the people of Kashmir or anywhere want. That is only a factor if it helps you in your position.

I do not expect Indians to view Pakistan's position on Kashmir as being altruistic, but I would expect that they realize that Pakistan's demands of a plebiscite (even if done on a smaller section of territory, as has been proposed by some) are based on valid, legal grounds, that India herself agreed to.

Not me or India. It is Afghanistan. I was just comparing the situations on your Eastern and Western borders.

I don't really care whether that border is a 100 miles (or 500 miles) this side or that as long as India is not targeted by the terror brewing on that border.

You did counter my point that Afghanistan had no legal claim by referring to the '100 year and ratification' clause, both of which as I mentioned are nowhere to be seen in the agreement itself. But thats fine, I believe you when you say that you were pointing out the other side of the argument.

However, I hope I have illustrated clearly how both those arguments from the Afghan side are invalid, based on international legal precedent and the agreement itself (its pretty short, you can read it in 5 minutes if you want to peruse it).

 

[Kasrkin]

It is just territorial grab that you want. You give a ---- for what the people of Kashmir or anywhere want.

Wow, what a fool proof way to justify not giving a sh-t about the Kashmiri people yourself. The Kashmiri people are our people, they have strong cultural and historic links to Punjab and NWFP. It would be a good idea if you could educate yourself in that regard. If land was something we wanted then we would never have handed back to you all that land we won in the Rann of Kutch war, also not have risked losing all that land in other wars with a larger rival over Kashmir. Its the people that matter to us, but that is something you are unlikely to understand.

 

[Goodperson]

Preconditions were also on India.

Pakistan wasn't supposed to withdraw troops unilaterally. And the withdrawal was only minimize troops. Pakistan and India even signed on the number of max troops they would keep.

Again lets be candid. If India knows that the Kashmiris would choose them then India would've done this plebiscite long long ago. But India knows Kashmiris would outright reject everything Indian.

How can Plebiscite be held w/o preconditions? They were set create the environment for Plebiscite.

Let me ask you the other way If Pakistan was so sure of win it would have adhered to preconditions.

 

[DarkStar]

Lets repeat what Asim just said. How do you expect Pakistan to remove its troops unilaterally, with the threat of indian troops still being there?

As for a plebiscite, Indians have recanted from it, and nowhere in their official mantra is there any acceptance of any possibilty of a plebiscite.

As usual, they have flagrantly violated International law, and forsaken the resolutions which they themselves pushed for and signed.

Talk about "thook kar chatna"

 

[Goodperson]

Lets repeat what Asim just said. How do you expect Pakistan to remove its troops unilaterally, with the threat of indian troops still being there?

As for a plebiscite, Indians have recanted from it, and nowhere in their official mantra is there any acceptance of any possibilty of a plebiscite.

As usual, they have flagrantly violated International law, and forsaken the resolutions which they themselves pushed for and signed.

Talk about "thook kar chatna"

That was Precondition right? Necessary for conducting Plebiscite. Rather than accusing of going back, Since when did Pakistan offer troop withdrawal form its part of territory?

General Pakistanis are of the opinion that only Indian part of Kashmir is disputed and Plebiscite should be conducted only their that is not true.

That is called "thook kar chatna".

 

[DarkStar]

What gave you that idea?

Trust me, if you think that you will get any votes from Azad Kashmir, or the Northern AReas, Baltistan, etc. you are in for a rude surprise.

Wherever you hold the plebiscite, Indian Occupied, or Azad Kashmir the answer will be the same. They don't want to be part of India.

We could reach for a compromise, and let them decide to become independant from the both of us. Pakistan has no objection to that either.

 

[IceCold]

How can Plebiscite be held w/o preconditions? They were set create the environment for Plebiscite.

Let me ask you the other way If Pakistan was so sure of win it would have adhered to preconditions.

Dude dont let commonsense get low on your argument. The thing is that when and if a plebiscite is conducted, it will be for the status quo of both Kashmirs and not just India's or for that matter Pakistans.
The question is, Is India ready to conduct one, if it is we are too and what ever the conclusion of that plebiscite will be, will be accepted to both parties, but dont come out with absolute rubbish that why doesnt Pakistan adhered to preconditions. Preconditions were placed so that both parties will follow it at the same time, why should we do it first afterall Pakistan unlike India has never ever said that Kashmir is their integral part and nor does Pakistan decline to conduct one or perhaps the reduction of troops in the area, It is India that is persistent into calling it as an integral part of India and not a disputed territory and hence does not adhered itself to preconditions.

 

[Goodperson]

GP:

The instrument of accession was itself conditional to a plebiscite being held, and I have posted relevant excerpts from Owen Bennet Jones's book and other sources on that several times in the other Kashmir threads. The plebiscite was therefore part of both the IoA and the UNSC resolutions.

What you have offered is an Indian interpretation of the issue, and of course we can see that whether it is the UNSC resolutions or the conditions of the IoA, the GoI does not care for legalities when it comes to Kashmir. Again, there would have been no need for the UN to instruct a plebiscite had India's claim through the IoA been clear without the condition of plebiscite.

On the withdrawal of forces, the UNSC resolutions thread is a sticky in the strategic affairs section, where the argument I believe has been successful made, using the letters of the UN officials in charge, that it was India that did not fulfill its obligations under the resolutions.

Here is the excerpt from OBJ's book:


"Later in October 1947, when India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru was deploying troops in Kashmir. Mountbatten insisted that any decision by the maharajah to accede to India would be only be temporary prior to a referendum, plebiscite, or at the very least representative public meetings. When Mountbatten accepted the maharajah's decision to accede to India he told him:

... my government have decide to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. Consistently 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 invaders, the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people."

AM you are showing excerpts from Owen Bennet Jones's book ? When did write that book. When did he write the book ? What was his age then ? I believe he still writes for BBC.

Accession was between Ruler of Kashmir and Govt of India. Nowhere pakistan was in picture.

 

[IceCold]

I don't have much time to do research on this.May be some other time.

But tell me, if everything is settled on your Western border, why does Afghanistan not recognize it? Even Taliban refused to accept that border!

This UN thing is just a hogwash. Who cares for UN anyway. Don't tell me you do. Has the UN taken up this issue in the last so many decades?

The only issue is Pakistan refuses to accept Kashmir as a part of India, same as Afghanistan refuses to accept the Durand line. There is no difference at all between the two.

It is not adjusting to what you have and craving for what you don't.

Please Vindo. Dont try to bring each and every thing and start comparing it with the Kashmir issue. Now tell me who exactly is durand line comparable to what we are discussing?
Also UN might be a Hogwash, frankly i might agree on this one, however there are still resolutions that the UN passed and something that India took it there at the first place. Why do you keep forgeting that. India is the one that took Kashmir to UN, if it was such a hogwash for you guys, why took it there at the first place?
Isnt it obvious that if anyone thats being a hypocrite its India which at one point took the issue to the UN itself and now completely rejects everything at all and has started calling the area as an internal matter of India.
Ok lets say UN does not matter, ok agreed, but tell me since when did it become an internal matter for India and if it was then why all the resolutions on it even bilateral resolutions such as the shimla declaration, the more recent one Lahore declaration etc.
Why was India accepting it as something that needs to be discussed with Pakistan, my point is that if its an integral part, why not tell Pakistan to just **** off, we are not going to talk if Kashmir is ever brought into the dialouge again.
Since that did not happen, it is evident that no matter what India calls it, some part of it still faces the reality that its not an internal part of India, its a disputed territory and needs a solution, something acceptable to the Kashmiri people themself and that can only be found out if a free and fair plebiscite is conducted there under the UN watch.

 

[Goodperson]

The Jammu and Kashmir Issue

Recent events have once again generated some curiosity and interest in the issue of Jammu & Kashmir. Basic facts pertaining to this issue are well established. However, there has been a concerted dis-information campaign that presents a distorted historical account of the developments that led to the irrevocable accession of the state of Jammu & Kashmir to India; the subsequent wars inflicted by Pakistan on India and the current situation in the once tranquil and beautiful Kashmir Valley. The involvement of Pakistan in fomenting insurgency and terrorism in the border states of India, especially Jammu & Kashmir, has been well documented and accepted by all impartial observers. While the current violence and disturbances instigated and abetted by Pakistan in the Kashmir Valley are there for all to see, the historical perspective needs to be put in the correct, factual light. The following pages give the factual background of the issue of Jammu & Kashmir.

THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR ISSUE

Accession to India

1. The Accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India, signed by the Maharaja (erstwhile ruler of the State) on 26th October, 1947, was completely valid in terms of the Government of India Act (1935), Indian Independence Act (1947) and international law and was total and irrevocable. The Accession was also supported by the largest political party in the state, the National Conference. In the Indian Independence Act, there was no provision for any conditional accession. The Instrument of Accession executed by the Maharaja was the same as the ones executed by over 500 princely states in India. There has been no complication in any of the other cases. There would have been none in this case either, except for Pakistan's action in sending in tribal invaders first (in October 1947) and its own regular troops later (May 1948).

2. Lord Mountbatten's acceptance of the Instrument of Accession was unconditional. He said: "I do hereby accept this Instrument of Accession". The Instrument of Accession was complete with the offer and acceptance.

3. There can, therefore, be no question of negotiating on the question of accession of the State of Jammu & Kashmir to India.


Reference to UN

4. India made a reference to the United Nations on 1st January 1948 under Article 35 of the Charter, which permits any member state to bring any situation, whose continuance is likely to endanger international peace and security, to the attention of the Security Council. The intention behind this reference was to prevent a war between the two newly independent countries, which would have become increasingly likely if the tribal invaders assisted first indirectly and then actively by the Pakistan army had persisted with their actions against India in Kashmir. The Government of India requested the Security Council "to put an end immediately to the giving of such assistance which was an act of aggression against India”.

5. Pakistan consistently misled the world regarding its involvement in Kashmir: (a) It claimed initially in 1947 that it was not in any way assisting the tribal invaders and was only not actively opposing their passage out of fear that they may turn against the local Pakistani population. It was, however, clearly established that these invaders were being looked after in Pakistan territory, fed, clothed, armed and otherwise equipped and transported to J&K with the help, direct and indirect, of Pakistani officials, both military & civil. The first Governor General of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah claimed in a meeting with the then Governor General of India Lord Mountbatten that he was in a position "to call the whole thing off" subject to some of his demands being met. (b) Pakistan later claimed that its own forces were not involved directly in operations in Kashmir. But the UN Commission that visited India in July 1948 found Pakistani forces operating in Pakistan occupied Kashmir. The UNCIP Resolution of August 1948 documented the Pakistani aggression when it stated: “The presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the state of Jammu and Kashmir constitute a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council”. The UN sponsored mediator, Owen Dixon, was also constrained to record in his report of 15.9.1950 that "I was prepared to adopt the view that when the frontier of the State of J&K was crossed, on I believe 20 October 1947, by hostile elements, it was contrary to international law, and that when, in May 1948 as I believe, units of the regular Pakistan forces moved into the territory of the state that too was inconsistent with international law".

Non-implementation of UN Resolutions by Pakistan

6. Despite India's completely legal and valid position on Jammu & Kashmir, in order to find a solution to the situation created by Pakistan's aggression, India had accepted the option of holding a plebiscite in J&K. It had, however, been made clear by the Indian leaders that holding of such a plebiscite would be conditional upon Pakistan fulfilling Parts (I) & (II) of the UNCIP resolutions of 13 August, 1948, which inter alia, required that all forces regular and irregular under the control of both sides shall cease fire; Pakistan would withdraw its troops, it would endeavour to secure withdrawal of tribesmen and Pak nationals and India will withdraw bulk of its forces once the UNCIP confirms that the tribesmen and Pak nationals have withdrawn and Pak troops are being withdrawn. India was also to ensure that the state government takes various measures to preserve peace, law and order. Indian acceptance of these UNCIP resolutions was also subject to several conditions and assurances given by UNCIP including that Pakistan would be excluded from all affairs of Jammu & Kashmir, "Azad J & K Government" would not be recognised, sovereignty of J & K government over the entire territory of the state shall not be brought into question, territory occupied by Pakistan shall not be consolidated, and Pakistani troops would be withdrawn completely. Pakistan never fulfilled these assurances.

Preconditions for Plebiscite Never Fulfilled by Pakistan

7. The Government of Pakistan wrecked any possibility of plebiscite being conducted by not implementing part II of the resolution, perhaps because it was fully aware of what the result of such an exercise would be. The Pakistani troops, which were to withdraw from the state, did not do so. As a result normal conditions under which a plebiscite could be held were never created.

8. India had accepted these resolutions, subject to assurances, (mentioned in para 6) and in the hope of having the matter resolved quickly. Pakistan, however, wrecked the implementation of the resolutions at that time by not fulfilling the preconditions. As V.K. Menon stated in the Security Council (763 Meeting, 23 January, 1957): "if an offer is made and it is not accepted at the time it is made, it cannot be held for generations over the heads of those who made it". With Pakistan's intransigence, and passage of time, the offer lapsed and was overtaken by events. In fact, the representative of India (M.C. Chagla) had stated in the Security Council as far back as 1964 (1088 meeting, 5 February 1964): "I wish to make it clear on behalf of my Government that under no circumstances can we agree to the holding of a plebiscite in Kashmir".

9. The then Prime Minister of India, had in a statement in New York, stated on March 31, 1966 that: "any plebiscite today would by definition amount to questioning the integrity of India. It would raise the issue of secession - an issue on which even the United States fought a civil war not so very long ago. We cannot and will not tolerate a second partition of India on religious grounds. It would destroy the very basis of the Indian State." Today, thirty-six years later, the Pakistani position is even more untenable.

Solution Proposed by Resolutions: Time and Context Specific

10. Since 1957 there have been no UN resolutions on the substantive aspects of the Jammu and Kashmir issue. Time and circumstances have not stood still. More than four and a half decades have lapsed since the original proposals were made as a possible solution. They can no longer be considered valid. In fact, in his report (dated 29th April, 1957), the UN Representative, who was then President of the Security Council, Gunnar Jarring, after completing his mission to India and Pakistan in 1957, took note of larger realities of the sub-continent including in Jammu and Kashmir and stated: "The Council will, furthermore, be aware of the fact that the implementation of international agreements of an ad hoc character, which has not been achieved fairly speedily, may become progressively difficult because the situation with which they were to cope has tended to change".

11. Dr. Frank Graham, the UNCIP representative stated in March 1958: “…the execution of the provisions of the resolution of 1948 might create more serious difficulties than were foreseen at the time the parties agreed to that. Whether the UN representative would be able to reconstitute the status quo which it had obtained ten years ago would seem to be doubtful….”.

12. Over fifty years after Partition, the ground situation in the state to which the resolutions referred to has considerably changed. Pakistan unilaterally ceded a part of the state to China in 1963. There has been a demographic change on the Pakistani side with generations of non-Kashmiris allowed to take residence in the parts of J&K occupied by Pakistan. If the resolutions had begun to lose relevance in 1957, they have far less relevance now.

13. The above position is increasingly being acknowledged by the world today. Highlighting the fact that the UNCIP resolutions did not come under Chapter VII, and were therefore not self enforcing, the UN Secretary General stated at a press conference in Islamabad in March 2001, that “the two parties discussing these issues and finding a peaceful way out, is the route I recommend”.

14. It is now widely acknowledged that bilateral dialogue, in accordance with the Simla Agreement, reiterated in the Lahore Declaration, is the only way to address all bilateral issues between India and Pakistan, including the issue of J&K. UK’s Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, stated in the British Parliament on 10th June 2002, that “if United Nations resolutions could have solved the matter, it would have been solved more than 50 years ago”. Speaking for the British Government, he said, “we think that there is not a huge amount of point in getting in a historiographical exercise about which position is correct. We have to deal with the here and now”, adding that a solution to this issue could be found only “by looking forward and by a direct dialogue between those two sovereign nations, India and Pakistan”.

Choice Made by the People of J&K and Elections in Kashmir

15. The people of Jammu and Kashmir could not wait indefinitely to decide their future. In any case the UN resolutions did not recognise or grant any role to Pakistan in the conduct of the plebiscite. "If Pakistan, therefore, has no part in the plebiscite, it really became a domestic matter for India". (V.K. Krishna Menon, UNSC, 800th meeting, 11 November, 1957). India waited several years for Pakistan to fulfil the preconditions. When that did not happen, the people of Jammu and Kashmir then convened a Constituent Assembly in 1951, which once again reaffirmed the Accession of the State to India in 1956 and finalised the Constitution for the State. The Jammu and Kashmir Constitution reaffirms that "the State is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India."

16. The people, therefore, were consulted. "We did not consult them privately; we did not consult them by selecting the people who were to be consulted. We consulted them by a normal process of democratic election - not even for a Parliament which we established, or the existing Government of Kashmir established, but for a Constituent Assembly". (V.K. Krishna Menon, UNSC, 800 Meeting, 11 November, 1957). In several subsequent local, State and national elections the people of Jammu and Kashmir have repeatedly exercised their democratic choice.

India Pakistan Discussions on J&K

17. India has always been willing to discuss all issues, including the issue of Jammu & Kashmir, with Pakistan. In fact, in the decades of the ‘50s and ‘60s, several rounds of bilateral discussions took place between India and Pakistan over 1950-51, 1953-54, 1956-57 and 1962-63, to resolve the differences over Kashmir. J&K is also one of the eight subjects identified for dialogue under the Composite Dialogue set up at India's initiative in 1998. A perusal of the records of these meetings makes it clear that they failed in their endeavour only because of Pakistan's intransigent, unrealistic, and on occasions, unifocal approach, which did not take into account either the moral and juridical aspects of the issue or the existing realities.

18. As in the UNSC, during these bilateral discussions, Pakistan has sought parity with India in terms of locus standi in Kashmir. This is untenable since the erstwhile ruler of J&K had duly acceded to India, the largest popular party had endorsed the Accession, and the people had subsequently ratified the earlier decisions. Pakistan, as the aggressor could not have parity with India, with which the accession of Jammu and Kashmir was complete and final.

1965 War: Its Implications

19. Pakistan tried to impose a military solution on J&K yet again in 1965, by instigating a war against India. The people of J&K resisted this new invasion. Pakistan's failure to impose this military solution and the efforts of the people of J&K to thwart the aims and designs of the Pakistani invaders are well documented.

20. By imposing a war, Pakistan negated the very reason for which a reference had been made to the UN in 1948. All the arrangements that were arrived at with Pakistan through the instrumentality of the Security Council were based on the integrity and inviolability of the cease-fire line established after the 1947-48 skirmishes. By violating this line in 1965, Pakistan rendered obsolete and dead the resolutions of 1948 and 1949, in the context of which the Cease-Fire Line had been established through the Karachi Agreement of 1949.
Simla Agreement - Its Implications

21. Pakistan imposed yet another war on India in 1971. After this conflict, bilateral talks were held in June-July 1972 and the 'Simla Agreement' signed on 2 July 1972. In terms of this Agreement, which was duly ratified by the two Governments in 1972 itself, the two countries undertook to resolve all differences bilaterally and peacefully. Pakistan, through its commitments enshrined in this Agreement, accepted the need to shift the J&K issue from the UN to the bilateral plane.

22. India’s stand has been clearly enunciated. Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. While India is prepared to resolve all differences with Pakistan through bilateral talks as envisaged in the Simla Agreement, there can be no compromise on India’s unity and sovereignty. The issue that remains to be resolved is the vacation by Pakistan of territory illegally occupied by it.

23. For meaningful bilateral negotiations, Pakistan must create the right climate by stopping its support to terrorism. There must be tangible and credible evidence of this on the ground. The Simla Agreement reiterated in the Lahore Declaration expressly forbids hostile propaganda, interference in internal Affairs and encouragement of any acts detrimental to maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations. It also enjoins respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Pakistan is violating all these provisions.

The Lahore visit of the Prime Minister of India

24. Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee took a historic initiative and visited Lahore from February 20-21, 1999. The visit was aimed at conveying India’s deep desire to establish peaceful, co-operative and friendly ties with Pakistan. Prime Minister Vajpayee proclaimed from the Minar-e-Pakistan that a stable, secure and prosperous Pakistan was in India’s interest. The Lahore Declaration, which committed the two countries to build trust and confidence and develop mutually beneficial co-operation to resolve outstanding issues including J&K through bilateral negotiations, provided a blue print for India-Pakistan relations into the 21st Century.

Kargil

25. However, the ink had barely dried on the Lahore Declaration that the Pakistani Army manifested its compulsive hostility towards India by launching a military operation in May 1999 across LoC in an attempt to occupy dominating heights along a 140 Km long stretch of Srinagar-Leh Highway. Its aim was to create a situation by which Pakistan would dominate the strategically important Kargil heights. India’s firm response forced Pakistani troops to retreat to their side of LoC. India’s policy of maintaining the sanctity of the LoC and the tremendous restraint shown by India in its firm action against the intruders without crossing the LoC found wide international support and endorsement.

Agra Summit

26. Notwithstanding, the continued sponsorship of cross border terrorism, on May 23, 2001 India again took the initiative to establish a high level political dialogue with Pakistan by inviting General Musharraf to visit India. The Pakistani President General Musharraf visited India from July 14-16, 2001 and had talks with Prime Minister Vajpayee in Agra. However, during the Summit, Pakistan demonstrated a unifocal approach, fixated entirely on one question and sought to make any improvement in relations conditional on prior resolution of the Kashmir issue. Pakistan was also reluctant to address India’s concerns relating to cross border terrorism. The hopes of forward movement in bilateral relations thus remained largely unattained.

Pakistan’s Interference and Support to Terrorism

27. The present situation in Kashmir has been created by Pakistan’s support to terrorism. This support to cross border terrorism is not only an attempt to unilaterally alter the status quo on the ground but also to undermine India’s secular fabric.

28. Pakistan’s support to cross border terrorism against India is now openly acknowledged by the international community. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the UK Government stated in the British Parliament on 10th June 2002, “A number of terrorist organisations-including Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, each of which I proscribed when I was Home Secretary-have been at the forefront of violent activity in the region. India has long charged that such terrorism has had the covert support of successive Pakistani Governments and, in particular, of the main intelligence agency in Pakistan, the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate-ISID. Her Majesty’s Government accept that there is a clear link between the ISID and those groups”.

29. US Secretary of State, Colin Powell stated on 10th June 2002, "Two weeks ago, we got assurances from President Musharraf that he would cease infiltration activity across the line of control… And then Deputy Secretary Armitage over this past week end got further assurances that cessation of activity would be visible and would be permanent and would be followed by other activities that had to do with the dismantling of the camps that led to the capacity to conduct these kinds of operation”.

30. The section on Pakistan in the Annual Report on Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000 stated, “Pakistan’s military government, headed by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, continued previous Pakistani Government support of the Kashmir insurgency, and Kashmiri militant groups continued to operate in Pakistan, raising funds and recruiting new cadre”. The report further said that HUM, a State Department designated Foreign Terrorist Organisation, continued to be “active in Pakistan without discouragement by the Government of Pakistan”.

31. Through his January 12 and May 27 addresses President Musharraf made two promises. Firstly, that Pakistan will not allow its territory to be used to promote terrorism anywhere in the world. Secondly, that no organisation will be allowed to indulge in terrorism in the name of Kashmir.

Non-Applicability of ‘Self-determination’ to Integral Parts of States

32. Under the UN Charter, the principles of self-determination are meant to apply to colonial territories and not to integral parts of countries. Pakistan’s harping on “self-determination” today, against the principles advocated by the founders of Pakistan, are only a cover for territorial ambitions. The principles being espoused by Pakistan pose severe dangers to several countries in the world where multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies co-exist.

Kashmir Developments – An Internal Matter for India

33. In a diverse country like India, disaffection and discontent are not uncommon. Indian democracy has the necessary resilience to accommodate genuine grievances within the framework of our sovereignty, unity and integrity. Government of India has expressed its willingness to accommodate the legitimate political demands of the people of the state of J&K. However, Pakistan sponsored terrorists have terrorised the population and hindered political dialogue by intimidating or silencing voices of moderation that wish to engage in dialogue. The human rights of the people of J&K have been systematically violated by such terror tactics and the kidnappings and killings of innocent people by terrorists.

34. Jammu & Kashmir is an integral part of India. There can be no compromise on India’s unity and integrity.

http://meaindia.nic.in/jk/kashmirissue.htm

 

[IceCold]

Pakistan President itself accepted they are militants.
Till now Pakistan never accepted this.
Now its a very good chance for India to cancel the Simla agreement.

Who cares what 10% has to say he has no mandate, shimla arrgement cannot be canceled just like that.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM you are showing excerpts from Owen Bennet Jones's book ? When did write that book. When did he write the book ? What was his age then ? I believe he still writes for BBC.

Accession was between Ruler of Kashmir and Govt of India. Nowhere pakistan was in picture.

Off hand I do not know when hw wrote the book - it was after Musharraf's coup though, since he discusses that in his book.

The references he uses in his book are immacualate however, and I believe the excerpt I posted is a direct quote from Mountbatten on Kashmir's accession, not OBJ's interpretation.

The accession was indeed between the ruler of Kashmir and GoI, but as the excerpt states, the accession was conditional to what amounts to a plebiscite where the accession was a matter of dispute (as in the case of Kashmir). Again, had the IoA not been coditional, Pakistan's case would not have had any legs in the UN, and the resolutions would have given India free and clear ownership of Kashmir.

On who was to blame for not implementing the preconditions, see this thread, it has been extensively discussed here:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...es/7904-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.html

 

[Vinod2070]

Please Vindo. Dont try to bring each and every thing and start comparing it with the Kashmir issue. Now tell me who exactly is durand line comparable to what we are discussing?
Also UN might be a Hogwash, frankly i might agree on this one, however there are still resolutions that the UN passed and something that India took it there at the first place. Why do you keep forgeting that. India is the one that took Kashmir to UN, if it was such a hogwash for you guys, why took it there at the first place?
Isnt it obvious that if anyone thats being a hypocrite its India which at one point took the issue to the UN itself and now completely rejects everything at all and has started calling the area as an internal matter of India.
Ok lets say UN does not matter, ok agreed, but tell me since when did it become an internal matter for India and if it was then why all the resolutions on it even bilateral resolutions such as the shimla declaration, the more recent one Lahore declaration etc.
Why was India accepting it as something that needs to be discussed with Pakistan, my point is that if its an integral part, why not tell Pakistan to just **** off, we are not going to talk if Kashmir is ever brought into the dialouge again.
Since that did not happen, it is evident that no matter what India calls it, some part of it still faces the reality that its not an internal part of India, its a disputed territory and needs a solution, something acceptable to the Kashmiri people themself and that can only be found out if a free and fair plebiscite is conducted there under the UN watch.

I think the leadership at the time made a mistake to take it to the UN. The resolutions were passed at a certain time for certain conditions.

Time has changed, conditions have changed. There have been wars over Kashmir. There has been a decades long terror campaign.

The point is you did not keep yourself to just the UN resolutions to get Kashmir. You tried every trick in the book while talking of UN resolutions.

But as they say: daal nahi gali!

So now fall back to the UN. The simple point is you can't get on the table what you didn't in the war.

The best way is to start thinking of the welfare of the Kashmiris. The first step would be to forsake violence on the part of the insurgents.

 

[Black Stone]

Fury over Zardari Kashmir comment SpeedSignal News

A group of Muslim protesters in Indian-administered Kashmir has defied a curfew to denounce Pakistani President Asif Zardari and burn his effigy.

Mr Zardari has provoked outrage after being reported as saying that Islamic militants fighting Indian rule in Kashmir were “terrorists”.

Leading Kashmir separatists have also denounced Mr Zardari.

Pakistan has supported anti-Indian militants and fought two wars with India over Kashmir.

First time

Many Kashmiris and Pakistanis regard militant groups fighting Indian rule in Kashmir as freedom fighters. Mr Zardari made his controversial reference to them as “terrorists” in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.

Protesters took to the streets of the town of Baramullah on Monday, close to the Line of Control that separates Indian and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, despite a curfew imposed by Indian security forces in Muslim-majority areas of the Kashmir Valley.

The BBC’s Altaf Hussain in Srinagar says it is the first time that a Pakistani leader’s effigy has been burnt in Indian-administered Kashmir where anti-India protests have often been marked by pro-Pakistan slogans.

Prominent politicians fighting for an end to Indian rule in Kashmir joined in the condemnation of Mr Zardari. Syed Ali Shah Geelani told the BBC that “Zardari has made these remarks to please the Americans”.

“Zardari fears India and would do anything to please that country even at the cost of Pakistan’s dignity,” Mr Geelani said. “Kashmiri youths have been fighting for a just cause.”

India maintains a huge security presence in Kashmir and the military and police, as well as the militants, have frequently been accused of human rights abuses.

“In reality,” Mr Gilani said, “the people of Kashmir have been victims of state terrorism.”

‘Just cause’

In Pakistan itself, Information Minister Sherry Rehman of Mr Zardari’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) sought to clarify Mr Zardari’s comments.

“The president has made it very clear that the just cause of Kashmir and its struggle for self-determination has been a consistent central position of the PPP for 40 years now,” she told the BBC Urdu service.

“There is no change in that policy. He has never called the legitimate aspirations of Kashmiris an expression of terrorism, nor has he undermined the sufferings of the Kashmiri people.”

However she offered no explicit support for the use of violence to oust Indian forces from Kashmir.

Pakistan and India have fought three fully-fledged wars since independence in 1947. They came close to another war in 2002 after militants stormed the Indian parliament in Delhi in December, 2001.

The BBC’s Barbara Plett in Islamabad says Pakistan’s powerful military has long-defined India as a threat to Pakistan’s existence and in the past it has given covert backing to the militants in Kashmir.

But Mr Zardari told the Wall Street Journal that “India has never been a threat to Pakistan” and that “I, for one, and our democratic government is not scared of Indian influence abroad.”

He also said that Pakistan had to develop strong economic ties with India. “There is no other economic survival for nations like us. We have to trade with our neighbours first.”

He also appeared to acknowledge that his government had given consent to US air strikes in Pakistan.

Deep suspicions

Pakistan and India took part in a faltering peace process under the former President Pervez Musharraf.

But suspicions always ran deep, and relations have soured recently.

Our Islamabad correspondent says Mr Zardari’s comments mark a radical break with the past.

More reaction is expected in Pakistan after the country returns to normal working following the Eid festival holiday.

 

[Goodperson]

I think the leadership at the time made a mistake to take it to the UN. The resolutions were passed at a certain time for certain conditions.

Time has changed, conditions have changed. There have been wars over Kashmir. There has been a decades long terror campaign.

The point is you did not keep yourself to just the UN resolutions to get Kashmir. You tried every trick in the book while talking of UN resolutions.

But as they say: daal nahi gali!

So now fall back to the UN. The simple point is you can't get on the table what you didn't in the war.

The best way is to start thinking of the welfare of the Kashmiris. The first step would be to forsake violence on the part of the insurgents.

Read post 46

Reference to UN has been superceded by following

20. By imposing a war, Pakistan negated the very reason for which a reference had been made to the UN in 1948. All the arrangements that were arrived at with Pakistan through the instrumentality of the Security Council were based on the integrity and inviolability of the cease-fire line established after the 1947-48 skirmishes. By violating this line in 1965, Pakistan rendered obsolete and dead the resolutions of 1948 and 1949, in the context of which the Cease-Fire Line had been established through the Karachi Agreement of 1949.

Simla Agreement

21. Pakistan imposed yet another war on India in 1971. After this conflict, bilateral talks were held in June-July 1972 and the 'Simla Agreement' signed on 2 July 1972. In terms of this Agreement, which was duly ratified by the two Governments in 1972 itself, the two countries undertook to resolve all differences bilaterally and peacefully. Pakistan, through its commitments enshrined in this Agreement, accepted the need to shift the J&K issue from the UN to the bilateral plane.