Sorry I am not entitled to add hyperlinks to this forum yet it seems, else I would have provided few links to substantiate my arguments.
You are contradicting yourself now. In your previous post you said : "the question is can you refute (with points and supporting facts) her reply in this video ?? If so you can claim that she is biased."
And now, when her reply in this video has been refuted, can we claim that she is biased ?
Simply by quoting few words from a report, that too reported in your own news paper "Dawn". The original article is available in ( nihcr [dot] edu [dot] pk ) written by Dr. G. Sarwar Khan, who is one of the prominent politicians in Pakistan. He had willfully omitted the part wherein Mr. Dixon had mentioned about Pakistan as well. In reality he has considered both India and Pakistan equally responsible not to reach an agreement regarding the plebiscite. And you call this a neutral source ??
Also Mr. Dixon was particularly furious about Mr. Nehru because he denied to accept his proposal.
"The Dixon Plan".
It assigned Ladakh to India, the Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir (Azad Kashmir) to Pakistan, split Jammu between the two, and envisaged a plebiscite in the Kashmir Valley. Pakistan demurred at first, but agreed. It fell through because Nehru did not accept the conditions in which the plebiscite could be held; precisely the issue on which the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) and Graham failed. They, because of their ineptness; Dixon because he lost patience.
While you quote the above I can provide you another excerpt from the same report wherein he mention about Pakistan.
"It appeared to me, that the danger to the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite could not be removed unless in the administrative hierarchy-of the State so far as it controlled the plebiscite area United Nations officers were interposed temporarily." But Pandit Nehru would have none of this. He reiterated his position once more : Pakistan was an aggressor whose aggression must be recognized ; sovereignty should remain with the present Government of Kashmir during the plebiscite ; any other policy would amount to " appeasement of the aggressors."
As for violation of UNSC Resolutions by Pakistan (too), do you have any Neutral and Reliable source to back up your claim ? You (just like Ms. Fair) claim that plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan didn't fulfill the (pre)conditions.
Forget anything written on paper, look at the reality on ground. Did Pakistan troops and militia ever withdrew as asked in resolution ??
Because, Dr. Frank Graham, who succeeded Sir Owen Dixon as the United Nations representative suggested on September 7, 1951, that first of all Pakistani troops will withdrawn, then Azad forces will be disarmed and disbanded and then the build of Indian army will withdrawn and Maharaja forces will be disarmed and disbanded. The number of armed forces to remain at the end of the period of demilitarization should be decisively reduced to the smallest number possible for final disposal by the plebiscite administrator.
Did UN in any of its Resolutions, or Any UN official mediator in a final report submitted to the UN, blame Pakistan for halting the process or declare that Plebiscite could not be held in J&K because of Pakistan, as it had failed to fulfill the (pre)conditions ?
Not just Pakistan alone, UN has time and again accused both India and Pakistan of not reaching an agreement about demilitarization and plebiscite. So it's not India who is responsible, Pakistan is also equally responsible. Moreover if you go according to Sir Owen Dixons, report Pakistan is the aggressor here. What more do you want to know ??
If not, then your claim
cannot be accepted.
On the other hand, the UN official mediator did hold India responsible for not agreeing to terms and conditions of demilitarization ...
Yes, India didn't accepted it due to the fact that there was a great chance of Pakistan regular forces as well as militia in the disguise of local population and instigate an uprising given the fact that the Dogra Maharaja was not popular among the Muslim population in the valley.
We can't trust you now, then how is it possible that Pakistan who is clearly mentioned as an aggressor in UN reports be trusted back then ?? After all it is the same Pakistan army who infiltrated Kargil heights while our Prime minister was forwarding an olive branch to you.
In lieu with the UN Resolutions ? Not really. The International law permits a State in de facto and effective possession of an area to conclude agreements of a limited local character to maintain peace and tranquility
The Sino Pak border agreement of 1963 is Provisional.
It is illegal and a bluff, if you have read that agreement fully, anyone who know English can easily coherent.
"International law permits a State in de facto and effective possession of an area to conclude agreements of a limited local character to maintain peace and tranquility. It has, however, no right to conclude a definitive boundary treaty. The Sino-Pak agreement is a definitive agreement though it is termed “Provisional.” It provides for the appointment of a Boundary Commission, setting up of boundary pillars and drawing up of protocols; the characteristics of a definitive boundary agreement. Article 6 of the Agreement does not alter the fact for it forecloses any significant revision of its terms or the reopening of the accord: “The two parties have agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, the sovereign authority concerned will reopen negotiations with the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the boundary, as described in Article Two of the present agreement, so as to sign a formal boundary treaty to replace the present agreement, provided that in the event of that sovereign authority being Pakistan, the provisions of the present agreement and of the aforesaid protocol shall be maintained in the formal boundary treaty to be signed between the People’s Republic of China and Pakistan” (For the text vide China, India, Pakistan, edited by K. Sarwar Hasan; Pakistan Institute of International Affairs, Karachi, 1966; pp. 378-383)."
The Agreement thus envisages that, “sovereign authority” competent to sign a boundary agreement will emerge only after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute. But that authority, if it is India, can do no more than “reopen negotiations” with China “so as to sign a formal Boundary Treaty to replace the present Agreement.” This does not bar revision of its terms explicitly, but the hint of finality is clear.
Therefore this agreement is nothing but bluff, something like leasing out some government property to a private part till 99999999999 years.
The UN, in its Resolution 98, 23 Dec 1952, urged the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3,000 and 6,000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line and between 12,000 and 18,000 armed forces remaining on the India side of the cease-fire line.
Pakistan agreed, But India rejected the proposal
Not acceptable simply because you are the aggressor, and we don't trust you period.
Who is a fool now ? Mr. Owen Dixon (an Australian judge and diplomat who served as the sixth Chief Justice of Australia. A justice of the High Court for thirty-five years, Dixon was one of the leading jurists in the English-speaking world and is widely regarded as Australia's greatest-ever jurist) ? the UN ? the English Press ? or Ms. Christine Fair herself (and her Indian admirers ) ??
Mr. Owne Dixon was never a fool, that's why he had clearly mentioned Pakistan as an
aggressor and even asked;
Pakistan was an aggressor whose aggression must be recognized ; sovereignty should remain with the present Government of Kashmir during the plebiscite ; any other policy would amount to " appeasement of the aggressors." LOL
