China-Pakistan economic corridor violates India’s territorial integrity: India to UN

[KAMDEV]

800 million slum dogs should self immolate themselves. CPEC will be built.

10 crore kasssis live below powerty line, kassais are dreaming to face india World's fourth economy.

1. According to India, Pakistan and India have signed treaties that make Kashmir a bilateral issue and no 3rd part can be involved.
So why is India going to the UN, when they themselves say UN can't do anything.

2. As for the original UN agreement on Kashmir, Pakistan has never agreed to withdraw forces, but India signed an agreement to hold a plebacite as part of the agreement with the Maharaja.

India's occupation of Kashmir can never be legitimate until it holds that plebacite.

Kassais go to do rand rona in UN , this is our problem.

 

[Jackdaws]

hold a plebiscite first then we will talk .

Sure - follow the agreed upon rules and we will hold a plebiscite.

1. According to India, Pakistan and India have signed treaties that make Kashmir a bilateral issue and no 3rd part can be involved.
So why is India going to the UN, when they themselves say UN can't do anything.

2. As for the original UN agreement on Kashmir, Pakistan has never agreed to withdraw forces, but India signed an agreement to hold a plebacite as part of the agreement with the Maharaja.

India's occupation of Kashmir can never be legitimate until it holds that plebacite.

It is amazing how often and how easily some of you lie or seem utterly ignorant.

https://undocs.org/S/RES/47(1948)

This is the UN Document - look at the step by step process.

 

[Dark-Destroyer]

i think they drank tea from their arse gass before attending this un session clearly evident from the gass that came out their mouths

 

[M. Sarmad]

Read the UN Resolutions.
Here download it
https://undocs.org/S/RES/47(1948)

Clearly states the step by step process which begins with complete Pakistani withdrawal.


Refer to reply above. Clearly states when the UN Resolution requires both countries to do.

I guess u havent read the UN resolution on Kashmir otherwise u wouldnt say that. Because as per the resolution Pak is required to pull back its forces from the "occupied" kashmir. After which, India will pull back its forces but can keep the number of soldiers to counter any untowards activity.
And i believe it also requires original settles i.e. kashmiri pandits to be rehabilitated in kashmir.
Only after these 3 conditions are met can a plebiscite take place.
So act on it, pull back ur forces and India will reciprocate.

Thank you for the correction. But, still, why would Pakistan withdraw their forced if India is not ready, willing or giving a gurantee that it will hold a plebiecite and also withdraw its forces to a minimum after Pakistani withdrawal.

• India, in an attempt to deceive the world, seeks to fasten on Pakistan a responsibility to withdraw troops from Jammu and Kashmir unilaterally and unconditionally, by quoting out of context a certain provision of UN Commission’s resolution of 13 August 1948, that is, Part 11, paragraph A.I.

• While doing so, India deliberately suppresses the other paragraphs of Part II. The Indians are guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.

• These subsequent paragraphs make it obvious that the obligation of Pakistan to withdraw its troops from the state of Jammu and Kashmir does not devolve until both sides conclude a truce agreement to govern the withdrawal of not only Pakistan forces but also the bulk of the Indian armed forces from the state

• The reciprocal obligations of the two sides as to the modalities of demilitarization, have been persistently sought to be confused by India over the past 70 years almost as to mislead the world into believing that the obligation of withdrawal devolves on Pakistan unilaterally. A reference to the provisions of Part II of the resolution of 13 August, 1948 and the elucidations given by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan to the Government of Pakistan, established beyond any possibility of dispute the reciprocal nature of the undertaking given by the two sides to withdraw their armed forces from the state of Jammu and Kashmir

Indians refused to accept any demilitarization plan proposed by the UN (they rejected eleven such plans) and hence Truce Agreement could not be concluded. So, the Commission never notified Pakistan to begin withdrawing its forces. Pakistan had made it clear to the UN that it was ready to withdraw its troops as soon as the Commission notified it, Pakistan went a step further and told the UN that it was ready to withdraw its troops in favor of UN troops regardless of Indian reaction to such a proposal ...


There's a reason for which the UN appointed official mediator (i.e Sir Owen Dixon) blamed India and not Pakistan for halting the process ...


Pakistan stands ready to conclude a truce agreement with India, even today ...

 

[t_for_talli]

India first act on UN resolution of Kashmir occupation before crying in UN .

Do you have any idea on UN resolution on Kashmir,
Its Pakistan who is creating bottle neck

 

[M. Sarmad]

Indian claim over Gilgit Baltistan (GB) is legally invalid.

At the time of the alleged accession to India, Kashmir was, in effect, divided into three distinct sectors: Azad Kashmir, "Legal" Kashmir and the Gilgit region. (Now GB)


The Maharaja did NOT exercise sovereignty over Gilgit Region, which constituted one-third of Kashmir. By the 1890s, it was the British Agent at Gilgit who wielded the real authority there. In 1935, the British leased Gilgit from Kashmir for sixty years, but surrendered their lease on the eve of partition." In theory, sovereignty reverted to Kashmir, but the Maharaja was never able to make this sovereignty effective in any way. When the Maharaja sent a governor to Gilgit, the Gilgit Scouts imprisoned him and turned the territory over to Pakistan. In light of this fact, it is clear that the Maharaja did not perform the activities of a territorial sovereign in the Gilgit region.

As such, the Maharaja had never exercised sovereignty over the region, and as per international law, could not transfer more rights than he possessed. Therefore, India did not receive the Gilgit region, now possessed by Pakistan, under the Instrument of Accession



Under International Law, A state can intentionally acquire sovereignty over any such territory that is not under the sovereignty of another state. The occupied territory must have, been terra nullius, without owner, and the occupation must have been real or "effective." ... Effective occupation occurs when there is an announced intention to acquire the territory, and actual settlement or occupation with the assertion of governmental authority has taken place.


The British surrendered their lease on the eve of partition, the Gilgit region was a terra nullius. At the time of accession, under the August 1947 Standstill Agreement, Pakistan alone was responsible for administering services in Kashmir such as the post, telegraph and railways. These services were the beginning of Pakistan's establishment of government authority over the region. This process was completed after the territory was transferred to Pakistan by the Gilgit Scouts. Since this time, Pakistan has claimed the Gilgit region, formerly a terra nullius, as part of its territory, keeping it beyond the control of the Azad Kashmir authorities and making it an integral part of Pakistan. In doing so, Pakistan has established governmental control sufficient to provide security to life and property. Thus, Pakistan effectively occupies the Gilgit region to the exclusion of India.



Pakistan's claim on GB is legally valid and justified. However, if (and when) needed, Pakistan is ready to hold a referendum in GB as well.

 

[t_for_talli]

Complete the story. The UN resolution calls for a plebiscite in whole of Kashmir under the supervision of UN and simultaneously the withdrawal of both the Pakistan and Indian army from the territory.

Why would we withdraw our forces when India isn't ready to withdraw theirs and even let a plebiscite take place.

This is what UN says
Step 1 - First Pak should vacate AJK/ GB (no forces, no Pakistanis only Kashmiris)
Step 2 - India will bring down its military presence to a level to maintain law and order in entire J&K
Step 3 - Plebiscite by UN

 

[Jackdaws]

• India, in an attempt to deceive the world, seeks to fasten on Pakistan a responsibility to withdraw troops from Jammu and Kashmir unilaterally and unconditionally, by quoting out of context a certain provision of UN Commission’s resolution of 13 August 1948, that is, Part 11, paragraph A.I.

• While doing so, India deliberately suppresses the other paragraphs of Part II. The Indians are guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.

• These subsequent paragraphs make it obvious that the obligation of Pakistan to withdraw its troops from the state of Jammu and Kashmir does not devolve until both sides conclude a truce agreement to govern the withdrawal of not only Pakistan forces but also the bulk of the Indian armed forces from the state

• The reciprocal obligations of the two sides as to the modalities of demilitarization, have been persistently sought to be confused by India over the past 70 years almost as to mislead the world into believing that the obligation of withdrawal devolves on Pakistan unilaterally. A reference to the provisions of Part II of the resolution of 13 August, 1948 and the elucidations given by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan to the Government of Pakistan, established beyond any possibility of dispute the reciprocal nature of the undertaking given by the two sides to withdraw their armed forces from the state of Jammu and Kashmir

Indians refused to accept any demilitarization plan proposed by the UN (they rejected eleven such plans) and hence Truce Agreement could not be concluded. So, the Commission never notified Pakistan to begin withdrawing its forces. Pakistan had made it clear to the UN that it was ready to withdraw its troops as soon as the Commission notified it, Pakistan went a step further and told the UN that it was ready to withdraw its troops in favor of UN troops regardless of Indian reaction to such a proposal ...


There's a reason for which the UN appointed official mediator (i.e Sir Owen Dixon) blamed India and not Pakistan for halting the process ...


Pakistan stands ready to conclude a truce agreement with India, even today ...

The UN document is a simple 6 page document. How is it out of context?

Dixon made multiple proposals. Some were even rejected by Pakistan. For example Dixon proposed that the vote should be held district-wise which would mean Jammu and Ladakh would go to India and in all likelihood rest of Kashmir would go to Pakistan but it was Pakistan which rejected this proposal.

India consistently insisted in the 1940s and 1950s that the withdrawal of Pak troops and tribesmen is a pre-requisite - it did not budge from this stance.

 

[M. Sarmad]

This is what UN says
Step 1 - First Pak should vacate AJK/ GB (no forces, no Pakistanis only Kashmiris)
Step 2 - India will bring down its military presence to a level to maintain law and order in entire J&K
Step 3 - Plebiscite by UN

A little Correction:

Step 1. A Truce Agreement is concluded
Step 2. Pakistan begins withdrawing its troops
Step 3. India too begins withdrawing its troops (to a minimum level) while Pakistani troops are being withdrawn
Step 4. Plebiscite by UN

A Truce Agreement was never reached because India rejected all demilitarization plans proposed by the UN. Pakistan accepted all.

As Truce Agreement could not be concluded, the Commission never notified Pakistan to begin withdrawing its forces.

Pakistan had made it clear to the UN that it was ready to withdraw its troops as soon as the Commission notified it,

Pakistan went a step further and told the UN that it was ready to withdraw its troops in favor of UN troops regardless of Indian reaction to such a proposal ...


There's a reason for which the UN appointed official mediator (i.e Sir Owen Dixon) blamed India and not Pakistan for halting the process ...


Pakistan stands ready to conclude a truce agreement with India, even today ...

The UN document is a simple 6 page document. How is it out of context?

Already explained

Dixon made multiple proposals. Some were even rejected by Pakistan. For example Dixon proposed that the vote should be held district-wise which would mean Jammu and Ladakh would go to India and in all likelihood rest of Kashmir would go to Pakistan but it was Pakistan which rejected this proposal.

The UN official mediator Sir Owen Dixon did hold India responsible for halting the process. He reported to the Security Council that:

"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Para 52 of Document S/1971)

 

[Jackdaws]

A little Correction:

Step 1. A Truce Agreement is concluded
Step 2. Pakistan begins withdrawing its troops
Step 3. India too begins withdrawing its troops (to a minimum level) while Pakistani troops are being withdrawn
Step 4. Plebiscite by UN

A Truce Agreement was never reached because India rejected all demilitarization plans proposed by the UN. Pakistan accepted all.

As Truce Agreement could not be concluded, the Commission never notified Pakistan to begin withdrawing its forces.

Pakistan had made it clear to the UN that it was ready to withdraw its troops as soon as the Commission notified it,

Pakistan went a step further and told the UN that it was ready to withdraw its troops in favor of UN troops regardless of Indian reaction to such a proposal ...


There's a reason for which the UN appointed official mediator (i.e Sir Owen Dixon) blamed India and not Pakistan for halting the process ...


Pakistan stands ready to conclude a truce agreement with India, even today ...



Already explained



The UN official mediator Sir Owen Dixon did hold India responsible for halting the process. He reported to the Security Council that:

"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Para 52 of Document S/1971)

Can you please point to the the exact place in the UN document which says that "Truce Agreement" is the first step?

 

[CIS-TRANS]

Indians have always rejected all demilitarization plans despite of Pakistan willing to accept and withdrawal of her troops in favour of UN resolution. but as indians rejected further to proceed for the proposed plan UN commission morally cannot force Pakistan alone to implement the plan. But how indians are using the UN resolution despite hiding and denying the fact that india rejected to implement while Pakistan agreed. As the proposed plan is associated with both parties of dispute. A single party cannot be enforced for implementation unless the second party don't agree. As simple as that. What's the point of indian propaganda and false statements?

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Bharat mata should be used to now for all the violations being done on her.

 

[HttpError]

Bitching and moaning ? Is that all the SupaPuwa has come down to ? If there is anything you can do then go ahead or else keep moaning.

 

[LASER1]

Can you please point to the the exact place in the UN document which says that "Truce Agreement" is the first step?

There isn't any, this @M. Sarmad made it up or read from some Pakistani source. The resolution only had the first pre-requisites, like withdrawal of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals from AJK and GB, then after UN verified these, India will reduce the troops to a minimum level and so on.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Can you please point to the the exact place in the UN document which says that "Truce Agreement" is the first step?

PART II
TRUCE AGREEMENT

Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as
outlined in Part I, both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.

A.

(1) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir
constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of
Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its
troops from that State.

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the
State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein
who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered
by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.

B.

(1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and
Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the
situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having
occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that
the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the
Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in
stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

(2) Pending the acceptance of the conditions for a final settlement of the situation in the State
of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the
moment of cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the
Commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and
order. The Commission will have observers stationed where it deems necessary.

(3) The Government of India will undertake to ensure that the Government of the State of
Jammu and Kashmir will take all measures within their power to make it publicly known that
peace, law and order will be safeguarded and that all human and political rights will be
guaranteed.

C.

(1) Upon signature, the full text of the Truce Agreement or communique containing the principles thereof as agreed upon between the two Governments and the Commission, will be made public.


PART III

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/uncom1.htm


The Indian representatives did not accept any demilitarization plans proposed by the Commission, therefore no Truce Agreement could be concluded.

Pakistani representatives on the other hand had not only accepted those plans but also made it clear to the Commission that they were ready to begin withdrawing their troops as soon as the Commission notified them.

But the Commission never notified Pakistan as India didn't accept any plan proposed by the UN

The obligation of Pakistan to withdraw its troops from the state of Jammu and Kashmir does not devolve until both sides conclude a truce agreement

Hope that helps