Candid Zardari accepts J&K militants are terrorists

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM, the partition has been over and done with. Whether it happened as per the "principles" more than 60 years back, it was perfect or not, both the parties played fair or not, doesn't change anything.

These principles were again imposed by the colonial government and both the parties were not satisfied with what they got.

Of course, the people of the subcontinent are emotional and its difficult for them to move on and make the best of whatever deal they got.

I think things are changing for the better now. The realization is dawning that the "maximalist" position would not work and the solution needs to be found based on certain parameters different from breaking other country's territorial integrity.

Partition is not over, since the territorial issue of Kashmir was not settled, and the arguments in favor of that claim have been posted several times now. A compromise should be arrived upon, that is why Musharraf and others from Pakistan supported the 'out of the box' solutions that do move away from a 'maximalist' position.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Total Baloney , law is law and if you want it to work for you you need to work within that framework and no two ways about it. If Nehru's statement infuriated you go to UN, why else was the UN created... No, two ways about it, either completely take the UN route else forget it. UN does not work on your convenience. Where in UN it states that you can take an armed unilateral action over an issue that is supposed to settled by mediation, negotiation and based on international law.

IPF

Pakistan did in fact go to the UN after India held elections and Nehru's statement, and I mentioned that in my posts, if would have read them carefully. India's duplicity is obvious from Nehru's comments. However, every subsequent resolution adopted by the UNSC reiterating the resolution of the dispute was to be in accordance with the principles laid out in the original Kashmir UNSC resolutions was also nonenforceable, and that brought us back to the original issue, that India was willfully reneging on its commitment at the UN as well as with the implementation of the plebiscite asked for under the IoA.

India, as is clearly indicated by Nehru's comments, had unilaterally decided to go back on its commitments and agreements and usurp the territory under its control. Therefore the resort to force was entirely India's fault since it cut off any diplomatic means to resolve the issue. The facts have been posted for everyone to see.

True.. it all depends on what is the cost of violating the system and in our case the cost is none in case we violated the system in the first place.

Precisely - but that does not make a treaty or agreement invalid or irrelevant - it is obvious that India accepted the territorial dispute, accepted the Kashmiris moral and human right to self determination as a means of resolving the dispute, and then reneged on everything in order to illegally annex the territory.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is no agreeable out of box solution, If one studies history, PA and Pakistan govt need to keep Kashmir issue live and burning so that they can portray India as an enemy since Pakistan's birth , This required for their survival.

That argument doesn't quite pass muster. It is obvious from Nehru's own comments that India was the one who 'prolonged' the dispute by unilaterally rejecting the peaceful diplomatic options agreed upon, as early as 1951.

Had Nehru resolved the dispute as had been agreed, there would be no Kashmir dispute, so your retrospective argument makes no sense, unless Nehru was secretly a Pakistani setting the stage for an endless dispute and future wars so "Pakistan could portray India as an enemy to maintain its existence".

 

[Goodperson]

That argument is completely absurd, and I am surprised you even bothered to consider making it, since it is obvious from Nehru's own comments that India was the one who 'prolonged' the dispute by unilaterally rejecting the peaceful diplomatic options agreed upon, as early as 1951.

Had Nehru resolved the dispute as had been agreed, there would be no Kashmir dispute, so your retrospective argument makes no sense, unless Nehru was secretly a Pakistani setting the stage for an endless dispute and future wars so "Pakistan could portray India as an enemy to maintain its existence".

Agreed I will remove my post.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agreed to some extent I will remove my post.

No need to remove it GP. Its a different view is all.

Sorry if I came on too hard - will edit.

Nehru and I Gandhi, two leaders of India that I think were never quite in sync with Pakistan's existence, and they created a lot of bad blood between the two nations.

 

[Goodperson]

No need to remove it GP. Its a different view is all.

Sorry if I came on too hard - will edit.

The point is there is no viable solution, UN resolutions have been superseded by Simla agreement.
Separatist have their own agenda. Do you think India will ever relinquish its position on Kashmir ? Or will Pakistan be able to do ?
Pakistan did not succeed when US was on its side ,China, OIC and Islamic countries favored Pakistan.
Zardari's comment do reflect facts as it came straight out of the heart though later he retracted even then those comments did not attract expected response from India.

 

[Kasrkin]

The point is there is no viable solution, UN resolutions have been superseded by Simla agreement.

I'm a afraid this is simply not true, this is only implied as an excuse by India to try and negate a UN Resolution which it thinks is not in its favor. Nowhere in the Simla Agreement does it says that the UN or its resolutions should be superseded/negated/over-looked/ignored/rendered irrelevant or any such thing. They still stand otherwise any two countries can get together and declare any UN Resolution irrelevant.

 

[Goodperson]

I'm a afraid this is simply not true, this is only implied as an excuse by India to try and negate a UN Resolution which it thinks is not in its favor. Nowhere in the Simla Agreement does it says that the UN or its resolutions should be superseded/negated/over-looked/ignored/rendered irrelevant or any such thing. They still stand otherwise any two countries can get together and declare any UN Resolution irrelevant.

Please refer to text of Simla agreement signed by Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar ali Bhutto then head of state. That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations they will refrain from the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other.

1(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the and both shall prevent the organization, assistance of encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations;

4(i) Indian and Pakistani forces shall be withdrawn to their side of the international border. - Pakistan ignored this in Kargil.

http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/SimlaAgreement.html

 

[Kasrkin]

That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.

Yes I have read this thank you, where does it say ONLY through bilateral means? Unless India wants to commence a boycott of the UN nations and is willing to admit its irrelevance and inability by suggesting it has no mandate in important issues like Kashmir. I see no reason why, now that bilateral efforts have yielded no results (other than war-like situations), turning to the United Nation and its institutions and its protocols is so damn out of bounds and illegal.
I ask again why is India so averse to accepting impartial, international, third party mediation from the UN? That’s what we did in the Rann of Kutch despite winning that war, that’s what we did with the Indus Water Treaty, and that’s what countries are supposed to do around the world.

both shall prevent the organization, assistance of encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations;

And India broke it in Siachen too by trying to invade through a loop hole in the technical document, hardly the attitude the agreement talked about.

 

[Goodperson]

Yes I have read this thank you, where does it say ONLY through bilateral means? Unless India wants to commence a boycott of the UN nations and is willing to admit its irrelevance and inability by suggesting it has no mandate in important issues like Kashmir. I see no reason why, now that bilateral efforts have yielded no results (other than war-like situations), turning to the United Nation and its institutions and its protocols is so damn out of bounds and illegal.
I ask again why is India so averse to accepting impartial, international, third party mediation from the UN? That’s what we did in the Rann of Kutch despite winning that war, that’s what we did with the Indus Water Treaty, and that’s what countries are supposed to do around the world.



And India broke it in Siachen too by trying to invade through a loop hole in the technical document, hardly the attitude the agreement talked about.

The issue was pending with UN and it was not getting resolved
then two nations decided to resolve issue bilateraly, I paste the text again for your convinience.

That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them

 

[Kasrkin]

All India needs to do is to resolve itself to following UN RESOLUTIONS and nothing will be 'pending' anymore. And as I have already made clear, no one can claim the Simla Agreement has rendered the UN or its Resolutions irrelevant or unapplicable. Thank you.

 

[Goodperson]

All India needs to do is to resolve itself to following UN RESOLUTIONS and nothing will be 'pending' anymore. And as I have already made clear, no one can claim the Simla Agreement has rendered the UN or its Resolutions irrelevant or unapplicable. Thank you.

Thanks for your advice, But do not forget the conditionalities refered in post # 19
and it is the official stand of India.

 

[Kasrkin]

The issue was pending with UN and it was not getting resolved
then two nations decided to resolve issue bilateraly.

Also, if you don’t mind, I would like to point out that the only reason Pakistan (namely Bhutto) accepted that the two nations might consider resolving the issue 'bilaterally' was because India, in blatant disregard for the Geneva Conventions and International Law, was holding 90,000 Pakistani PoWs illegally* in the hopes of using them as blackmail and a bartering chip, to get Pakistan to internalize and legitimize the status quo. But you know what, it didn't work. Pakistan can still expect a firm and fair conclusion to this dispute, in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people, through the good offices of the UN if need be. India will have a hard time explaining why some kind of mediation by a third party like the UN is so completely unacceptable to it despite there being clear scope for it in the words of the Simla Agreement if Pakistan and others ever chose to pursue this affair properly.

*In accordance with the Geneva Convention, all PoWs taken at times of war MUST be returned to their respective countries AS SOON as the ceasing of hostilities takes place WITHOUT preconditions or legal ado. They are certainly NOT supposed to be held for years on end.

 

[Goodperson]

Also, if you don’t mind, I would like to point out that the only reason Pakistan (namely Bhutto) accepted that the two nations might consider resolving the issue 'bilaterally' was because India, in blatant disregard for the Geneva Conventions and International Law, was holding 90,000 Pakistani PoWs illegally* in the hopes of using them as blackmail and a bartering chip, to get Pakistan to internalize and legitimize the status quo. But you know what, it didn't work. Pakistan can still expect a firm and fair conclusion to this dispute, in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people, through the good offices of the UN if need be. India will have a hard time explaining why some kind of mediation by a third party like the UN is so completely unacceptable to it despite there being clear scope for it in the words of the Simla Agreement if Pakistan and others ever chose to pursue this affair properly.

*In accordance with the Geneva Convention, all PoWs taken at times of war MUST be returned to their respective countries AS SOON as the ceasing of hostilities takes place WITHOUT preconditions or legal ado. They are certainly NOT supposed to be held for years on end.

First of all I am glad you accepted part of history.

The 90,000 POW were in Bangladesh its not illegally held ofcourse they cannot be asked to roam freely in those time or they would have had good time in dealing Bangla public anger.

The Simla agreement was with respect to Kashmir, hope you are aware of text it was not signed by arm twisting.

 

[dr.umer]

Pakistan 'clarifies' Kashmir view ​

7 October 2008

Pakistan's top diplomat in London says Pakistan is opposed to outside militants engaging in "cross-border terrorism" in Kashmir.

But High Commissioner Wajid Shamsul Hasan says that Kashmiris themselves are justified in using force to drive India out of Kashmir.

He was seeking to clarify a Wall Street Journal report at the weekend.

The newspaper quoted President Asif Zardari as calling Islamic militants in Kashmir "terrorists".

The report caused outrage among Kashmiri Muslims opposed to Indian rule, many of whom who regard militant groups fighting Indian rule as freedom fighters.

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, and burnt an effigy of Mr Zardari.

Leading Kashmiri separatists denounced him for being "afraid of India".

'Damaged the cause'

High Commissioner Hasan said that Mr Zardari was not seeking to undermine "the indigenous struggle by the Kashmiri people for the right of self-determination" in his Wall Street Journal interview.

Mr Hasan made his comments in an e-mail sent to various media including the BBC. He said that Mr Zardari had repeated that "Pakistan is opposed to external militants indulging in cross-border terrorism and subverting a genuine indigenous freedom movement".

Correspondents say the phrase "cross-border terrorism" is one that has been used consistently by India, which has accused Pakistan of arming and helping Pakistani-based militants fighting in Kashmir.

The e-mail also said that Mr Hasan believed that "such foreign militants as a matter of fact have damaged the Kashmiri cause rather than helping their just struggle for freedom".

The first armed groups fighting Indian rule in Kashmir sprang up in the 1980s and were made up of Kashmiris. Later Pakistani militants came to play the dominant role there.

The BBC News website asked Mr Hasan if Pakistan's position was that indigenous militants were justified in using force against Indian forces in Kashmir, to which he replied, "Yes".

Pakistan has fought two wars with India over Kashmir and both countries claim the territory as its own.

'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 gross human rights abuses.

On Monday Pakistan 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.

The Wall Street Journal also quoted Mr Zardari as making a series of conciliatory comments about nuclear rival India. "India has never been a threat to Pakistan," he said and "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."

High Commissioner Hasan said such comments did not prejudice in any way UN resolutions on Kashmir which call for a plebiscite in Kashmir to determine its future.