How Kashmir was stolen from Pakistan by Mountbatten

[Ticker]

What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities.” (para 243)

The Indians were not ready to provide such an assurance to the UN commission also. Because they did not want the plebiscite to be held, they refused to provide this assurance to the commission and therefore, the Indians refused to withdraw their forces.

Selective cut-pasting of points which go in Indian favour will not take you away from the reality.

 

[karan.1970]

What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities.” (para 243)

The Indians were not ready to provide such an assurance to the UN commission also. Because they did not want the plebiscite to be held, they refused to provide this assurance to the commission and therefore, the Indians refused to withdraw their forces.

Selective cut-pasting of points which go in Indian favour will not take you away from the reality.

Either go for the whole resolution or none of it.. Resolution did not talk of any assurances.. It was supposed to be an unconditional withdrawal of Pakistani forces followed by reduction of Indian forces..Didnt happen .. So there goes the resolution in the dustbin of history

 

[EzioAltaïr]

What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities.” (para 243)

The Indians were not ready to provide such an assurance to the UN commission also. Because they did not want the plebiscite to be held, they refused to provide this assurance to the commission and therefore, the Indians refused to withdraw their forces.

Selective cut-pasting of points which go in Indian favour will not take you away from the reality.

Well then by the same logic, Pakistan didn't want it either right? Since they created a condition that no one would agree to? They were the ones who started hostilities, it was their burden to withdraw for the safety of the people. They put the condition that we withdraw, possibly so they could stage another surprise attack.

 

[Ticker]

^^ You need to read carefully dude, it says that Pakistan held despite the committee making it crystal clear that there was no relation between the withdrawal of Pakistan to Indian forces withdrawal..

See the emboldened part for clarification

and

Pakistan can hold anything, like it holds that there is no state sponsored terrorism inside Pakistan -the facts speak otherwise - does not mean that it is correct!

Please do not puke without reading completely..

#hit head, you need to read carefully to understand the reality and also know the reality to open a piles-filled stinking mouth. Half backed viewpoints without knowing complete picture will sicken your other places with piles like substances.

Yeah I am puking just looking at your face.

 

[SamantK]

What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities.” (para 243)

The Indians were not ready to provide such an assurance to the UN commission also. Because they did not want the plebiscite to be held, they refused to provide this assurance to the commission and therefore, the Indians refused to withdraw their forces.

Selective cut-pasting of points which go in Indian favour will not take you away from the reality.

Prove the underline that it was mandatory for India to give assurance, it states that "Pakistan could", not will..

Also the underlined portion, where is it taken from, any link?

 

[Ticker]

Either go for the whole resolution or none of it.. Resolution did not talk of any assurances.. It was supposed to be an unconditional withdrawal of Pakistani forces followed by reduction of Indian forces..Didnt happen .. So there goes the resolution in the dustbin of history

What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities.” (para 243)

The Indians were not ready to provide such an assurance to the UN commission also. Because they did not want the plebiscite to be held, they refused to provide this assurance to the commission and therefore, the Indians refused to withdraw their forces.

Therefore, please do not blame the non-withdrawal of Pakistani forces for not holding the plebiscite. Nehru's Note cited above is sufficient to justify the end.

Lets move on.

 

[Joe Shearer]

What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities.” (para 243)

The Indians were not ready to provide such an assurance to the UN commission also. Because they did not want the plebiscite to be held, they refused to provide this assurance to the commission and therefore, the Indians refused to withdraw their forces.

Selective cut-pasting of points which go in Indian favour will not take you away from the reality.

There is no need for "selective" cut and paste at all.

The UN Resolution was very clear, unambiguous. Pakistan to withdraw all troops; in fact, she was to try to do more; but read for yourself!

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 Pakistani 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 Pakistani 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 Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2, 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 Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of mIndia agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from
that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

How much blunter should the language be? About what happened after Pakistan raised these mischievous points, re-read #673.

 

[Ticker]

There is no need for "selective" cut and paste at all.

The UN Resolution was very clear, unambiguous. Pakistan to withdraw all troops; in fact, she was to try to do more; but read for yourself!



How much blunter should the language be?

Sir,
The only thing I am saying is that the assurance of not creating a situation which might have constituted an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities, could only have been granted by both the parties and not Pakistan only.

The Indians did not provide such an assurance to the commission, which could be conveyed to Pakistan. What was the reason for such non-provision of sought assurance. The commission could not have given this assurance independently, as they did not have the resources to do so. So when the assurance was sought from Indians they did not provide it.

 

[SamantK]

Sir,
The only thing I am saying is that the assurance of not creating a situation which might have constituted an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities, could only have been granted by both the parties and not Pakistan only.

The Indians did not provide such an assurance to the commission, which could be conveyed to Pakistan. What was the reason for such non-provision of sought assurance. The commission could not have given this assurance independently, as they did not have the resources to do so. So when the assurance was sought from Indians they did not provide it.

Hello, you did not read this properly too..

The assurances if any were to be given after Pakistan started withdrawing the troops..

When the commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2, 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 Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of mIndia agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from
that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

 

[illusion8]

The resolution was super clear, Pk withdraws unilaterally and completely, transfers power to local bodies informs India after withdrawal, India verifies and if satisfactory informs the security council and then pulls the bulk of its troops out in batches that also means India can leave some troops behind after consulting with the UN.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir,
The only thing I am saying is that the assurance of not creating a situation which might have constituted an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities, could only have been granted by both the parties and not Pakistan only.

The Indians did not provide such an assurance to the commission, which could be conveyed to Pakistan. What was the reason for such non-provision of sought assurance. The commission could not have given this assurance independently, as they did not have the resources to do so. So when the assurance was sought from Indians they did not provide it.

Sir,

You have, perhaps inadvertently, misread the Commission's report.

India never failed the commission by refusing to give it an assurance of the kind that you have mentioned. Such an assurance was never sought by the commission. It was clear that the level of troops to be retained by India was purely between the commission and India, so neither the question of satisfying Pakistan on that score, nor the question of extending an assurance to Pakistan prior to its compliance ever arose.

These questions are interpolations into the actual record, your personal surmises and reconstructions, very creative reconstructions. The commission wanted to get on with its job, India wanted to get on with the whole show, it was just the attritional methods of the Pakistani delegation that obstructed movement.

Hello, you did not read this properly too..

The assurances if any were to be given after Pakistan started withdrawing the troops..

That is precisely correct.

In addition, @Ticker's thanks to @Nassr for pointing out the hypocrisy of Nehru's stance on Kashmir was premature. Just a simple comparison of dates will show that Nehru's despairing note was written long after these obviously dilatory tactics by one side had emerged in August.

 

[Jinx1]

Hello, you did not read this properly too..

The assurances if any were to be given after Pakistan started withdrawing the troops..

Those of us who have remained at positions where MOUs etc are drafted and signed would know that there is much more to be done between signing and implementation of the agreement. All things can not be added in the MOUs etc.

I have read what @Ticker has been trying to explain. I agree with his views. The assurance which Pakistan was seeking was justified and the commission was ready to provide that. But to seek such an assurance the commission would have to go to the other party for confirmation. If the other party would not provide such a confirmation; it either means that they want to take advantage of Pakistani withdrawal or don't trust the Pakistanis or even the commission to keep their side of the bargain. The onus in such a case would lie with the party which is refusing to provide such a confirmation.

These are indeed very interesting resolutions to analyse. Different analysts or lawyers would analyse all these differently in order to justify their points of view. And they may never agree with each other.

A problem in perpetuity indeed unless both parties agree to a mutually agreed viewpoint. In such intractable cases, it may never happen.

 

[SamantK]

Those of us who have remained at positions where MOUs etc are drafted and signed would know that there is much more to be done between signing and implementation of the agreement. All things can not be added in the MOUs etc.

I have read what @Ticker has been trying to explain. I agree with his views. The assurance which Pakistan was seeking was justified and the commission was ready to provide that. But to seek such an assurance the commission would have to go to the other party for confirmation. If the other party would not provide such a confirmation; it either means that they want to take advantage of Pakistani withdrawal or don't trust the Pakistanis or even the commission to keep their side of the bargain. The onus in such a case would lie with the party which is refusing to provide such a confirmation.

These are indeed very interesting resolutions to analyse. Different analysts or lawyers would analyse all these differently in order to justify their points of view. And they may never agree with each other.

A problem in perpetuity indeed unless both parties agree to a mutually agreed viewpoint. In such intractable cases, it may never happen.

You are right that everyone has a different point of view, since India went to the UN first on this dispute India obviously was favored in the wording and as such had to be accepted.. If Pakistan wants assurances despite what the resolution says then they should have completely rejected the resolution.. then there would have been no question of plebiscite

What irks is that many in Pakistan blame India, that it did not follow the UN resolution which is completely incorrect.. keeping in mind the wording of the resolution, India has been correct in this matter..

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Sir,
The only thing I am saying is that the assurance of not creating a situation which might have constituted an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities, could only have been granted by both the parties and not Pakistan only.

The Indians did not provide such an assurance to the commission, which could be conveyed to Pakistan. What was the reason for such non-provision of sought assurance. The commission could not have given this assurance independently, as they did not have the resources to do so. So when the assurance was sought from Indians they did not provide it.

You don't seem to have read/or understood the Resolution (that Joe has reproduced here) which formed the mandate and the basis of existence of the Commission. So lets look at it again:

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 Pakistani 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 Pakistani 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 Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2, 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 Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of mIndia agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from
that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...en-pakistan-mountbatten-46.html#ixzz23ASkgZ6F

Re-reading that, its readily apparent that the Resolution was enjoining upon the two parties: ACTIONS not ASSURANCES.
It even indicates the sequence of those actions:

FIRST-
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.
Viz. Govt. of Pakistan AGREES to "withdraw its troops from that state" since "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"
In other words, GoP agrees (or commits) to restore "status quo ante".

THEN-
2. The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.
Only here, some latitude may inferred to be extended to GoP by virtue of the use of "use its best endeavour", but does not absolve or mitigate the obligation on GoP "to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting."

AFTER THAT-
3. Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.

Here the Resolution not only makes GoP liable to vacate the territory but also places the power of administration of the territory on "Local Authorities" under surveillance (i.e. monitoring) of the Commission NOT GoP.

FINALLY-
B.

1.When the commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2, 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 Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from
that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

This clearly specifies that when GoP has effected the withdrawal of its Nationals and Tribesmen and "further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir" then only "the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission."
SINCE (and this is important); thus "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".

Things cannot be any more clearly described as in this part of the Resolution, that Joe has reproduced.

 

[Joe Shearer]

As already pointed out, the commission never agreed to extend such an assurance. The report contains no mention of such an intention. The report contains no mention of any binding on India prior to Pakistani withdrawal. On the contrary, it was clear that such issues were bilateral. Such an explicit written mention must surely supersede any surmise 64 years after the fact. In fact, to assume that Pakistan's views had any impact on the Commission's proceedings also ignores the commission's written view that it was free to hear the views of the Pakistani side on the matter. Not use it to guide its proceedings but to give it a hearing.

The mistake made again and again is to assume that since these views were given a hearing, they and their ramifications were in any way binding on the commission. This mistake compounds the other mistake, assuming that the commission, unreported anywhere but visualized by current surmise and creative reconstruction, then went on to realize these binding demands by making corresponding demands on the Indian side.

The written record could not be clearer.

Neither did the commission agree to provide any assurance to Pakistan, it also did not seek such assurance from India, nor was there any rejection of such a request by India for the simple reason that such a request was never made.

Why should all this have happened, when the record clearly shows that the commission clearly understood and stated that Pakistan's role was confined to withdrawal of troops, and that any arrangements for withdrawal of Indian troops were internal to its discussions and arrangements with India?