Candid Zardari accepts J&K militants are terrorists

[DarkStar]

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.

The point was about us disagreeing with our elected President. Yes, benazir bhutto was killed while she was in opposition, but not while she was our pm. If we criticise our leaders, you make an issue of it, and you kill your leaders while in power, and we shouldn't point it out?

As for the number of leaders assasinated, I think India is a bit ahead of Pakistan in that regard. And secondly, all the leaders that Pakistan lost are still a mistery...LIaquat Ali Khan, Benazir, Zia...no one still knows who killed them (Fingers have been pointed at indian intelligence agencies), while it is well known WHO killed rajiv gandhi, indira gandhi and bapu gandhi and WHY.

Althought Pakistan may inch ahead of India in this regard, as the Indians have stepped up their campaign against pakistan, by sponsoring cross border terrorism from afghanistan.

 

[Vinod2070]

Wo Qatal bhi karate hain to charcha nahi hoti.

Hum Aah bhi bharate hain to ho jaate hain Badnaam.

Sorry could not resist.

 

[DarkStar]

Wo Qatal bhi karate hain to charcha nahi hoti.

Hum Aah bhi bharate hain to ho jaate hain Badnaam.

These are my sentiments exactly.

 

[Vinod2070]

These are my sentiments exactly.

I wrote it for you only, dear friend.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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

As I pointed out in this post http://www.defence.pk/forums/203353-post64.html Nehru had unilaterally determined that India would accept the status quo, and not implement the UN resolutions as early as 1951.

The use of force came about once the Indian decision to not implement was clear.

 

[Vinod2070]

The use of force actually came even before the UN resolutions. That is what caused them in the first place.

But the latter wars took out any wind from their sails. It does seem a bit disingenuous to now try to fall back on them after trying all else.

But why are we even discussing that. I don't see even Pakistani governments mention them anymore. So they seem to have realized that they are not worth the paper they were written on.

They were not for a long time. They are not now.

 

[DarkStar]

It does seem a bit disingenuous to now try to fall back on them after trying all else.

But why are we even discussing that. I don't see even Pakistani governments mention them anymore. So they seem to have realized that they are not worth the paper they were written on.

They were not for a long time. They are not now.

Pakistan has not "fallen back" on anything. The UN resolutions are there, and Pakistan has always maintained that the kashmir problem should be solved "According to the wishes and aspirations of the people of Kashmir", which is the letter and spirit of the original resolutions.

As for the UN resulutions worth in your eyes, that is no surprise. Indians do not have respect for authority, then what world authority?

However, do I need to remind you that India pushed for this resulution in 48, not Pakistan. And India signed it, making it legally binding upon herself.

The only thing disingenuous and rather hypocritical about this affair, is India's claim to be a democracy while trampling upon the democratic aspirations of the people of Kashmir.

DigVijaya

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The use of force actually came even before the UN resolutions. That is what caused them in the first place.

But the latter wars took out any wind from their sails. It does seem a bit disingenuous to now try to fall back on them after trying all else.

But why are we even discussing that. I don't see even Pakistani governments mention them anymore. So they seem to have realized that they are not worth the paper they were written on.

They were not for a long time. They are not now.

The use of force in Kashmir by both sides (i.e. a territorial dispute) was what led to the UNSC resolutions being issued, I am not sure what your point is with regards to the first Indo-Pak war in the context of the UNSC resolutions being made irrelevant.

In terms of an initiation of 'force', one could argue that it was the Maharajah who first resorted to 'force', by committing atrocities against the Kashmiris when a rebellion (without any Pakistani backing) was initiated in the State. The response from the tribes, the subsequent Pakistani support for them and the eventual war were all a consequence of the Maharajah's actions.

You are being disingenuous by repeatedly ignoring the comments of Nehru that make clear that India had decided to not implement the UNSC resolutions as early as 1951 - the move away from the resolutions was initiated by India, not Pakistan.

In 1965 Pakistan's intention was not to start a war - Op. Gibraltar was intended to start a rebellion in Kashmir and force India move away from its refusal to resolve the dispute - full fledged war however was India's call.

The same with the insurgency supported in the eighties onwards - the goal was to again force India to resolve the dispute. Note that the central cause here has been India's unilateral refusal to implement the UNSC resolutions, starting from 1951, barely 2 years after the she agreed to the resolutions.

India's guilt here and its immoral and illegal position (by virtue of violating the conditions of the IoA and UNSC) is clear from Nehru's comments, and she alone bears responsibility for the resort to force in later years. Your nation unilaterally chose to refuse to honor its pledge in the UNSC, and your nation unilaterally chose to refuse to acknowledge even the presence of a territorial dispute - your nation in essence cut off all and any peaceful/diplomatic avenues towards resolving the dispute, and then compounded the distrust and hate by its unprovoked actions in 1971.

The resolutions are still valid, in that they offer a universally true and fair principle for resolving the dispute - that of letting the people of the disputed territory. Even in the 'out of the box' solutions that have been discussed in the media, Pakistani policy makers, and recently in the Indian media, after the massive protests indicating popular dislike of India in Kashmir, have incorporated the idea of separating AK and Ik from the NA's, Jammu and Laddakh and holding a referendum in that small region.

 

[Vinod2070]

Pakistan has not "fallen back" on anything. The UN resolutions are there, and Pakistan has always maintained that the kashmir problem should be solved "According to the wishes and aspirations of the people of Kashmir", which is the letter and spirit of the original resolutions.

As for the UN resulutions worth in your eyes, that is no surprise. Indians do not have respect for authority, then what world authority?

However, do I need to remind you that India pushed for this resulution in 48, not Pakistan. And India signed it, making it legally binding upon herself.

The only thing disingenuous and rather hypocritical about this affair, is India's claim to be a democracy while trampling upon the democratic aspirations of the people of Kashmir.

DigVijaya

The use of force in Kashmir by both sides (i.e. a territorial dispute) was what led to the UNSC resolutions being issued, I am not sure what your point is with regards to the first Indo-Pak war in the context of the UNSC resolutions being made irrelevant.

In terms of an initiation of 'force', one could argue that it was the Maharajah who first resorted to 'force', by committing atrocities against the Kashmiris when a rebellion (without any Pakistani backing) was initiated in the State. The response from the tribes, the subsequent Pakistani support for them and the eventual war were all a consequence of the Maharajah's actions.

You are being disingenuous by repeatedly ignoring the comments of Nehru that make clear that India had decided to not implement the UNSC resolutions as early as 1951 - the move away from the resolutions was initiated by India, not Pakistan.

In 1965 Pakistan's intention was not to start a war - Op. Gibraltar was intended to start a rebellion in Kashmir and force India move away from its refusal to resolve the dispute - full fledged war however was India's call.

The same with the insurgency supported in the eighties onwards - the goal was to again force India to resolve the dispute. Note that the central cause here has been India's unilateral refusal to implement the UNSC resolutions, starting from 1951, barely 2 years after the she agreed to the resolutions.

India's guilt here and its immoral and illegal position (by virtue of violating the conditions of the IoA and UNSC) is clear from Nehru's comments, and she alone bears responsibility for the resort to force in later years. Your nation unilaterally chose to refuse to honor its pledge in the UNSC, and your nation unilaterally chose to refuse to acknowledge even the presence of a territorial dispute - your nation in essence cut off all and any peaceful/diplomatic avenues towards resolving the dispute, and then compounded the distrust and hate by its unprovoked actions in 1971.

The resolutions are still valid, in that they offer a universally true and fair principle for resolving the dispute - that of letting the people of the disputed territory. Even in the 'out of the box' solutions that have been discussed in the media, Pakistani policy makers, and recently in the Indian media, after the massive protests indicating popular dislike of India in Kashmir, have incorporated the idea of separating AK and Ik from the NA's, Jammu and Laddakh and holding a referendum in that small region.

DS and AM. One thing that we need to understand is that both our respective views are heavily colored by our respective national positions.

You will be hard put to find a single Pakistani who does not agree with his government's position and vice-versa for Indians. It is something we have been brought up with and just instinctively feel that we are right, morally and legally.

Personally I am not much into the legalese of this matter. I see the crux of this matter as Pakistan thinking that Kashmir being a Muslim majority state belongs to them.

I don't see the point. India has almost as many Muslims. They are increasing in number and %. Its just not a matter of the aspirations of the 4 million valley Muslims (and not all of them want to separate) but of 1 billion Indians. Democracy is about the majority taking the decisions. The vast majority of Indians want Kashmir to be part of India.

Look at the American civil war. The southern states wanted to secede, the Union did not allow it and went to war. I don't think that was unjust.

As I mentioned, the UN and people's wishes are only used by you guys because you feel they support you in this instance. If they don't, you won't take a moment to forsake them.

If people's wishes were supreme for instance, would you consider applying that to Balochistan? No, because the territorial integrity of nations is important and the dissatisfied lot needs to be brought around. You may not consider the comparison to be apt, but just put a thought to the people's wishes part only here.

I am sure anyone here may not be aware of a single other UN resolution and what happened to it. The UN, unless reformed majorly to be much more representative, does not carry any moral authority and is fast losing even any legal authority. Its custodians (P5) don't care much for it except when it suits them. The Iraq war happened despite the UN.

The UN resolutions were non-binding. They have been taken over by events and subsequent agreements between the two countries. Even the UN has not looked back at them for decades AFAIK.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

DS and AM. One thing that we need to understand is that both our respective views are heavily colored by our respective national positions.

You will be hard put to find a single Pakistani who does not agree with his government's position and vice-versa for Indians. It is something we have been brought up with and just instinctively feel that we are right, morally and legally.

Personally I am not much into the legalese of this matter. I see the crux of this matter as Pakistan thinking that Kashmir being a Muslim majority state belongs to them.

I don't see the point. India has almost as many Muslims. They are increasing in number and %. Its just not a matter of the aspirations of the 4 million valley Muslims (and not all of them want to separate) but of 1 billion Indians. Democracy is about the majority taking the decisions. The vast majority of Indians want Kashmir to be part of India.

Look at the American civil war. The southern states wanted to secede, the Union did not allow it and went to war. I don't think that was unjust.

As I mentioned, the UN and people's wishes are only used by you guys because you feel they support you in this instance. If they don't, you won't take a moment to forsake them.

If people's wishes were supreme for instance, would you consider applying that to Balochistan? No, because the territorial integrity of nations is important and the dissatisfied lot needs to be brought around. You may not consider the comparison to be apt, but just put a thought to the people's wishes part only here.

I am sure anyone here may not be aware of a single other UN resolution and what happened to it. The UN, unless reformed majorly to be much more representative, does not carry any moral authority and is fast losing even any legal authority. Its custodians (P5) don't care much for it except when it suits them. The Iraq war happened despite the UN.

The UN resolutions were non-binding. They have been taken over by events and subsequent agreements between the two countries. Even the UN has not looked back at them for decades AFAIK.

The crux of the matter is that the instrument of partition was not followed properly in the case of Kashmir.

The instrument of partition was to govern the borders of the two nations, and the refusal to implement the condition of plebiscite in the IoA (if the IoA is even valid, given the discrepancies in the time line of its signature) and the subsequent UNSC resolutions agreed to by both sides, means that the borders are still not fully demarcated, and more importantly that a people who were to have decide which nation they wanted to join were not given that right.

Pakistan's position is based on the both moral and legal grounds, whereas the Indian position is, we occupied territory, and we will just hang on to it by hook or crook - thats not much more than thievery.

You continue to raise the canard of Baluchistan, when it has been pointed out several times that Baluchistan did indeed use a representative process to determine its future as part of the Pakistani Federation. The situation in Baluchistan or in Indian Punjab is an apt comparison to the US civil war - Kashmir is not, since the issue of Kashmir is not one of secession from India, but rather of settling a territorial dispute with Pakistan, that involves an improper application of the instrument of partition.

What the UNSC resolutions, and India's acceptance of them, indicate is that Pakistan's claim to the region of Kashmir is valid. Even before that, the fact remains that the IoA had the condition of a plebiscite as well, which also was not implemented. As I pointed out to you earlier already, the UNSC resolutions are unenforceable, not unbinding, similar to many other treaties and agreements between nations. India agreed to those resolutions, and the same leader of India who agreed to them decided to unilaterally walk away as well - Jinnah was absolutely correct in not trusting Nehru with the future of Pakistanis. Walking away from those commitments only indicates how untrustworthy India has been. Again, any agreement is only as relevant as those participating in it make it, unless there is an enforcement mechanism in place.

 

[Vinod2070]

Well I won't repeat what GoodPerson has already posted earlier regarding the UN resolutions.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...litants-terrorists-post203092.html#post203067

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...litants-terrorists-post203092.html#post203092

I think they cover this issue pretty well.

Again some amount of chicanery was there on both sides. Pakistan tried to get its hands on Junagarh, Hyderbad and Kashmir (besides inducing some small Hindu Rajasthan kingdoms) and India did the same. It was not based on the wishes of the people or the demographics in all these cases.

I have read that Mr. Jinnah was given the option of accepting Kashmir in lieu of Hyderabad and Junagarh. He did not accept that because he was confident that Kashmir can't go anywhere while he had hopes to get the remaining two too.

Of course the events turned out to be a bit different.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well I won't repeat what GoodPerson has already posted earlier regarding the UN resolutions.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...litants-terrorists-post203092.html#post203067

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...litants-terrorists-post203092.html#post203092

I think they cover this issue pretty well.

Again some amount of chicanery was there on both sides. Pakistan tried to get its hands on Junagarh, Hyderbad and Kashmir (besides inducing some small Hindu Rajasthan kingdoms) and India did the same. It was not based on the wishes of the people or the demographics in all these cases.

I have read that Mr. Jinnah was given the option of accepting Kashmir in lieu of Hyderabad and Junagarh. He did not accept that because he was confident that Kashmir can't go anywhere while he had hopes to get the remaining two too.

Of course the events turned out to be a bit different.

I agree that Jinnah made a mistake in not considering a swap, he obviously did not see the events in Kashmir spinning out of control, and the subsequent Tribal involvement. He was also possibly motivated from his view of a 'moth eaten Pakistan' and British perfidy in handing over the districts of Gurdaspur and Firozepur to India, again in violation of the principles of partition. That does not however take away from the legality of Pakistan's position on Kashmir - it remains an unfinished part of the process of demarcating the borders of India and Pakistan based on mutually agreed upon principles and rules.

Junagadh was not resolved per the rules either, but we see that in every case that the agreed upon rules were not implemented, India benefited.

I have already offered a rebuttal to the argument related to the UNSC resolutions through Nehru's own quotes - that Nehru had unilaterally decided that India would not implement the resolutions or the IoA condition of a plebiscite as early as 1951. India was responsible for the subsequent resort to force since it destroyed the legal and diplomatic process that was agreed to by both sides, barely two years after the UNSC resolutions.

 

[Vinod2070]

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.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

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.

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

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

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.

If one party violates the treaty it has to be taken to the UN and settled there.

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.

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.