Candid Zardari accepts J&K militants are terrorists

[Cheetah786]

Shocking...

Not to the people that no him G.A sindh which This sn of a B.i.t.c.h is a part of was openly used by RAW to attack and almost destroy Karachi Hyderabad economy.

 

[ashfaque]

The rally was already planned it was not due to Zardari's statement.

But the intresting thing to note is the flow of anti-Pakistan statments from different quarters including Zardari.

If you have noticesd all the statements from NATO/ US commanders/Karzai/ Pentagon/ India and Zardari are all in harmoney.

When one makes a statment the other follows and the spiral goes on.

These statments are basicaly aimed at paving grounds for more harmful things that are going to be imposed on Pakistan sooner or later but before that as has been the tactic, they go for smoothening the grounds leading to preparing public for their planned in future line of action.

So beware at times their anti-Pakistan statments are aimed at confusing the Pakistani public and divert the attention from certain things.

Conspiracy theory on roll

 

[Neo]

Threads merged.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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Reference to UN has been superceded by following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.

The argument raised, that the resort to force by Pakistan (Op. Gibraltar) negated the UNSC resolutions, is incorrect.

The resort to force in fact came about due to what amounted to India's patent refusal to consider a plebiscite in Kashmir, starting with the rigged IK elections in 1951, barely 2 years after the UNSC resolutions.

This was Nehru's statement after the elections:

On October 18, 1951, Nehru said that the results showed that the people "were with the National Conference and with India".

The implications of his remarks were clear, a plebiscite was no longer necessary and teh 'People of Kashmir' had 'chosen India'. Pakistan duly protested to the UN that elections were no substitute for plebiscite, and that they amounted to an annexation of the territory in violation of the UNSC resolutions.

Nehru did the same after the rigged elections of 1957, and his remarks then, and those of officials under him, are even more revealing as to his unilateral decision to ignore the UNSC resolutions:

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."

We can therefore see from the above that Nehru had decided perhaps as early as 1951 that he wanted to keep the status quo, and solidified that stance in 1957. In essence it was India that destroyed movement on the UNSC resolutions, not Pakistan. Pakistan's resort to force was in the face of India's refusal to move on the issue based on the UNSC and IoA conditions.

A quick point about Vinod's argument that the UNSC resolutions are irrelevant - that is a unilateral Indian position. The UNSC resolutions are not enforceable, but neither are many international treaties and agreements between nations. They are only as irrelevant as one nation that may decide to violate and refuse to recognize those agreements makes them.

The UNSC resolutions are therefore even today entirely valid, and relevant - India's decision to go back on her word and refuse implementation does not indicate the contrary.

 

[Vinod2070]

AM, We can talk of this all year long and not move an inch forward.

The point is Pakistan considers it as "the unfinished agenda of partition".

We don't.

Partition was a one time occurrence, not a process.

Those who felt they can't live in a pluralist society with a Hindu majority went their way. Millions of Muslims thought otherwise and chose to stay back as also the people of all other religions in India.

Now there is no question of revisiting the partition. Nations can't go through a continuous process of breaking.

Why do you talk of only the 4 million odd valley Muslims? They are a tiny fraction of the Indian Muslim population. They are all the citizens of India and it will stay that way.

Musharraf's proposal of making the borders irrelevant without changing them is the only feasible option. That may take time but is the only real option that can satisfy all parties and bring relief to the ordinary Kashmiri.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Partition was a one time occurrence, not a process.

It was a process, in that a certain framework had to be followed in order to delineate the borders of the two nations. That framework was not followed in Kashmir, therefore the process is not complete, and India signed off on that view by agreeing to the UNSC resolutions.

It is not Pakistan alone that considered the 'process' incomplete, India did as well, until of course it realized it could get away with having more territory and control over water by reneging on its commitment to complete the 'process'.

This isn't about nations continuously breaking, its about resolving a territorial dispute between two nations based upon agreed conditions.

 

[Vinod2070]

It was a process, in that a certain framework had to be followed in order to delineate the borders of the two nations. That framework was not followed in Kashmir, therefore the process is not complete, and India signed off on that view by agreeing to the UNSC resolutions.

It is not Pakistan alone that considered the 'process' incomplete, India did as well, until of course it realized it could get away with having more territory and control over water by reneging on its commitment to complete the 'process'.

This isn't about nations continuously breaking, its about resolving a territorial dispute between two nations based upon agreed conditions.

I will say, it was a long drawn out event. A process is something that is followed on a continuing basis. Partition was a one time event that may have been a bit drawn out.

AFAIK, India approached the UNSC to vacate the tribal aggression. It was not to question the IOA itself or the process of the state's accession to India.

I think no one in India is ready for any more religion based partitions. One was enough, in fact more than enough. People made the choice they wanted to. In fact it is such a nice thing to have a Muslim majority province in India. It proves that secularism is not a one way street.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I will say, it was a long drawn out event. A process is something that is followed on a continuing basis. Partition was a one time event that may have been a bit drawn out.

AFAIK, India approached the UNSC to vacate the tribal aggression. It was not to question the IOA itself or the process of the state's accession to India.

I think no one in India is ready for any more religion based partitions. One was enough, in fact more than enough. People made the choice they wanted to. In fact it is such a nice thing to have a Muslim majority province in India. It proves that secularism is not a one way street.

Territorial disputes are not always easy to settle, and the road to a 'long drawn out' part was paved by Nehru, when he unilaterally determined that he wanted the status quo, rather than implement the means of dispute resolution agreed upon in the UN.

Whatever the motives of India approaching the UN, the fact its that both nations agreed to the UNSC resolutions, which lay out a mechanism, and the basic guiding principle (of letting the people of the territory decide), for resolving the territorial dispute. The IoA itself was conditional to a plebiscite, as I pointed out earlier, so even Indian claims to Kashmir on that basis are suspect.

India may not care about 'more religious based partitions', but Kashmir is the resolution of a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan, not another 'partition', and the people of Kashmir were not allowed to make that choice.

 

[opinion786]

Great points AM! As you've said it completely ... I'll save my two cents.

 

[Vinod2070]

AM, the UN resolutions precluded the use of force. That has been covered in an earlier post.

 

[DarkStar]

Thats just the point I am making.. Bush's election too was contentious, once he took the oath, his word was accepted. Some counter views are natural in a democracy but outrightly dismissing an elected President

Well, Pakistan is a democracy, and sometimes we disagree with the decisions our leaders make. Unfortunately for you, we are not sheep who are led by the latest sound bite released from teh govt.

On the other hand, we are not the coutnry whose national leader Gandhi Bapu was gunned down by one of his own, And sitting PM INdira Gandhi met much the same fate by one of her own bodyguards.

Three words for you.

Pot. Kettle. Black

 

[drosan]

gandhi was gunned down by hindu fundamentalists just like butto was gunned down islamic fundamentals. what was the point of saying this?

 

[Flintlock]

Well, Pakistan is a democracy, and sometimes we disagree with the decisions our leaders make. Unfortunately for you, we are not sheep who are led by the latest sound bite released from teh govt.

On the other hand, we are not the coutnry whose national leader Gandhi Bapu was gunned down by one of his own, And sitting PM INdira Gandhi met much the same fate by one of her own bodyguards.

Three words for you.

Pot. Kettle. Black

Guess how many US presidents have been assassinated?

The point is that it doesn't happen anywhere with the kind of clockwork regularity as it does in Pakistan.

 

[Vinod2070]

Political assassinations happens all the time.

More often than not, it is by the fellow countrymen. I don't see the point of this.

 

[drosan]

at least we hanged gandhi's do-ers. this guys however think bhutto's assassinaters are some kind of savours. the same saviours who have brought pakistan where it is today. it's mind blowing logic.