India should accept defeat before Kashmiris’ struggle, says Nawaz

[hassamun]

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/sp...ttenconflict/2011/07/2011724204546645823.html

 

[Zibago]

Irrelevant. There is no innocent on streets in a protest being held in curfew.

Hmm so a minor who was in her house at time of pelting was not innocent hmm

 

[hassamun]

Very interesting.

Could you quote the oath of office that these officers have to take? could you give me a copy of the constitution they follow, for my study?

Thanks.

I can suggest the following links:-

http://www.ajkassembly.gok.pk/index.html
http://www.ajkassembly.gok.pk/AJK_Interim_Constitution_Act_1974.pdf

 

[Hellfire]

Hmm so a minor who was in her house at time of pelting was not innocent hmm

Did you ascertain those facts or is it the usual nonsensical rant on Kashmir?

Because if you read the post #228 of @hassamun who I was replying to before you decided to come in with this tripe, you will find explicitly and eloquently detailed the circumstances of this incident.

Somehow the grey cells undergo increased atrophy when Kashmir is written anywhere, eh?

I can post counter-nonsensical claims ... so maybe just can the nonsense.

Not many people know that there is a President and a Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir...It would be a good step for India to follow...

Before our friends bring in Baluchistan we should remind them that even Liberation Parties are represented there...They have won a few seats in Baluchistan Parliament...

We know that.

Also we had the same system till we decided to assimilate the state.

Kashmir is part of Pakistan that is why we observe Black Day not bloody indians.... genrations of these Bloody Indians will never understand this until Kashmir gets freedom

WOW!!!


COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS SINCERELY REGRETTED IF FELT

"....wake me up, when bullshit ends"

Inspired from the album 'The American Idiot', Track 7 'Wake Me Up When September Ends' by Green Day

Will keep up this line for all BS that is posted .. across the spectrum

 

[Zibago]

Did you ascertain those facts or is it the usual nonsensical rant on Kashmir?

Because if you read the post #228 of @hassamun who I was replying to before you decided to come in with this tripe, you will find explicitly and eloquently detailed the circumstances of this incident.

Somehow the grey cells undergo increased atrophy when Kashmir is written anywhere, eh?

I can post counter-nonsensical claims ... so maybe just can the nonsense.



We know that.

Also we had the same system till we decided to assimilate the state.



WOW!!!


COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS SINCERELY REGRETTED IF FELT

"....wake me up, when bullshit ends"

Inspired from the album 'The American Idiot', Track 7 'Wake Me Up When September Ends' by Green Day

Will keep up this line for all BS that is posted .. across the spectrum

So real events become rants when they dont fit your narrative hmm
http://m.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/story/223073.html

 

[Hellfire]

So real events become rants when they dont fit your narrative hmm
http://m.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/story/223073.html

Take up with your fellow country man ...

And the piece is nonsense .... no one .. fires into a house. First go to kashmir and then see how the crowd control is done there by police.

Do you even know the procedures before fire is initiated?

Seriously man, I try to be neutral as I am always open to views and ideas but such nonsense which is perpetuated contrary to all logic, infuriates me.

And being a proponent of less lethal and more effective crowd control measures, it really infuriates me when such incidents are incorrectly projected.

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

The good people of PK have a great sense of family with their kin and blood in Kashmir.
Please, feel in your heart the day your family will be reuninted with you. The dynamic is with the oppressed people of Kashmir.

No amount of killing, oppression and ethinic cleansing can break your bond with your family.

PK armed forces feel the pain of their kin. The politicians need to get their act together and develop a national and international strategy.

The momentum of Life is the Kashmiris. The alien race can not keep its oppression going.

It is already breaking at seams.

What is lacking is bringing this evil oppression to social media in an organised way.

No one can do it but people of PK. Kashmiris are deniend the social media.

There must be an grass root movement to bring it to attention of the world.

But then the choice is for people of PK if they wish to see their kin free from an alien force or not.

 

[Zibago]

Take up with your fellow country man ...

And the piece is nonsense .... no one .. fires into a house. First go to kashmir and then see how the crowd control is done there by police.

Do you even know the procedures before fire is initiated?

Seriously man, I try to be neutral as I am always open to views and ideas but such nonsense which is perpetuated contrary to all logic, infuriates me.

And being a proponent of less lethal and more effective crowd control measures, it really infuriates me when such incidents are incorrectly projected.

So using pellets that have blinded hundreds is a non lethal way hmm in most of the world only rubber bullets,water cannons and tear gas are used to disperse charged crowds but their main aim isnt crowd control its harming them so that their will to resist is eliminated

 

[.]

Pakistan army should wake up and a complete standoff should be the answer if a single kashmiri is killed or Injured if 45 are killed like the recent events I'd declare war FUP in part of Pakistan wipe the whole Indian state out with Nukes..I don't care about these F4ggot Indian Keyboard warriors,I'd do it and any sensible rulers of this country will do it in the future.
Mark my words !! War is coming sooner or later and this time there shouldn't be any backing Either we get kashmir or a complete annihilation of one or both sides.At least its better than standing still and watching our Pakistani Kashmiris in IOK waving Pakistani flags for nothing.
At least Hitler as however he may was or be ..Stood true to his people and protected his German ethnic minorities and waged a world war for it even in extremely troubled times... .

 

[M. Sarmad]

How many times has this issue been discussed. It's like flogging a dead horse. Here are your answers in brief.

As per UN Resolutions of 1948, Part II, it very clearly states that Pakistan is to withdraw all its forces included those tribals used for the purpose of fighting in J&K. (That includes Pak Administered Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan).

.

India claims that acceptance of Resolution 47 (1948) was stated by Nehru to be conditional on the withdrawal of Pakistani forces from territory within the 1947 boundaries of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, in accordance with the terms of that Resolution. Pakistani forces have, of course, never been withdrawn.


The factual position is as under:-


(a) The demilitarization of Jammu and Kashmir was to take place in a synchronized manner on both sides of the ceasefire line. It was India which refused to implement the process of demilitarization.


(b) The proof of Indian refusal to demilitarize is to be found in the report of Sir Owen Dixon (an eminent Australian Jurist and United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan) to the Security Council, contained in Document S-1971, in which he concluded as follows:-

"In the end, I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of 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 influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperilled."(Para 52 of Document S/1971).


(c) It should also be noted that after a thorough examination of the matter the Security Council in its Resolution No. 98(1952), adopted on 23rd December 1952, allowed both India and Pakistan to maintain a limited number of their forces on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization in order to maintain law and order. This number was to be between 3000-6000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistani side and 12000-18000 remaining on the Indian side of the cease-fire line. Pakistan agreed to this proposal; India did not.


(d) To claim, in the face of this clear and irrefutable evidence, that the plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan refused to withdraw its forces, is patently an attempt to deceive the world. The simple truth is that India did not allow the creation of conditions necessary for the holding of a free and fair plebiscite under UN auspices.

But now Pakistan has complicated things further by gifting 5800 sq km of Kashmir's Shaksgam Valley to China in 1963, against the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

Almost every scholar holds that, to the contrary, it was Pakistan which acquired 750 sq. miles of administered territory.

https://defence.pk/threads/what-we-...-know-the-sino-pak-boundary-agreement.310842/

 

[Tiger Genie]

India claims that acceptance of Resolution 47 (1948) was stated by Nehru to be conditional on the withdrawal of Pakistani forces from territory within the 1947 boundaries of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, in accordance with the terms of that Resolution. Pakistani forces have, of course, never been withdrawn.


The factual position is as under:-


(a) The demilitarization of Jammu and Kashmir was to take place in a synchronized manner on both sides of the ceasefire line. It was India which refused to implement the process of demilitarization.


(b) The proof of Indian refusal to demilitarize is to be found in the report of Sir Owen Dixon (an eminent Australian Jurist and United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan) to the Security Council, contained in Document S-1971, in which he concluded as follows:-

"In the end, I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of 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 influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperilled."(Para 52 of Document S/1971).


(c) It should also be noted that after a thorough examination of the matter the Security Council in its Resolution No. 98(1952), adopted on 23rd December 1952, allowed both India and Pakistan to maintain a limited number of their forces on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization in order to maintain law and order. This number was to be between 3000-6000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistani side and 12000-18000 remaining on the Indian side of the cease-fire line. Pakistan agreed to this proposal; India did not.


(d) To claim, in the face of this clear and irrefutable evidence, that the plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan refused to withdraw its forces, is patently an attempt to deceive the world. The simple truth is that India did not allow the creation of conditions necessary for the holding of a free and fair plebiscite under UN auspices.









Almost every scholar holds that, to the contrary, it was Pakistan which acquired 750 sq. miles of administered territory.

https://defence.pk/threads/what-we-...-know-the-sino-pak-boundary-agreement.310842/

You are wrong. Here is the link to resolution 47 from the United Nations website. It clearly states that Pakistan must clear out of all of Kashmir; then once it is proven that Pakistan has got out, then India should reduce its military to minimum required to maintain law and order. Then and only then will there be referendum required. Read it yourself.

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/47(1948)

 

[Hellfire]

So using pellets that have blinded hundreds is a non lethal way hmm in most of the world only rubber bullets,water cannons and tear gas are used to disperse charged crowds but their main aim isnt crowd control its harming them so that their will to resist is eliminated

Nope. I do not agree to the use of this kind of measures, but nor do I agree to anyone breaking the law. And there is always a graded escalation of response by the Police Forces. It is the domain of the police forces here in this case, and the orders of escalations are issued exactly like issued in your country. A political set of control.

Hence the contention of 'political' settlement of the issue which I have been harping on till date.

On the other hand, when you post such things and try to portray as if someone entered the house and fired, it shows what your intent is - to perpetuate incorrect facts and in short, to rant. Hence my earlier post about your post a mere rant.

You can refer to my post #235 the undermentioned line:

A collateral damage to a convoluted drama being played out.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/india-sh...uggle-says-nawaz.440188/page-16#ixzz4FRknlf2m

Coming back, what is most irritating is that you are portraying the facts as if the Indian State has fired on a girl as a deliberate act. If that be the case, my counter nonsensical post from your war on your people in FATA and Waziristan

http://tribune.com.pk/story/739351/...eaths-pour-in-as-tribesmen-threaten-protests/


When I make the above post, I do so to tell you that the nonsense you are trying to pull with me can be played both ways. But it does not do away with the fact that any force employed by a legal state, in acts of enforcing its will on organization/people/territory as legally under its control (and here before you shoot off, the legality of Indian claim to Kashmir is based on the same Act which gives the legality to Pakistan to exist ie Indian Independence Act of 1947) has the inherent risk of collateral damage.

Now, if you contend that this act was a deliberate act, then you can use the same analogy on your own acts. And we can have a troll war on this thread.

Cheers

 

[M. Sarmad]

You are wrong. Here is the link to resolution 47 from the United Nations website. It clearly states that Pakistan must clear out of all of Kashmir; then once it is proven that Pakistan has got out, then India should reduce its military to minimum required to maintain law and order. Then and only then will there be referendum required. Read it yourself.

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/47(1948)

Pakistan and India have different interpretation of the Resolution 47. And this difference in understanding/interpretation of the UN resolution(s) was what halted the process of demilitarization in Kashmir.

But here I am quoting Sir Owen Dixon. On 27 May 1950, Dixon was invited by the United Nations to act as their official mediator between the governments of India and Pakistan over the disputed territory of Kashmir


The words/opinion of the UN appointed official mediator definitely carries more weight than the words/opinions/propaganda of Indian or Pakistani government. So next time before accusing Pakistan of halting the process, please keep in mind what the official mediator had reported about this matter :

"In the end, I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of 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 influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperilled."(Para 52 of Document S/1971).

 

[Hellfire]

@OrionHunter Tell him that the Principality of Hunza had the claims on Shasgam Valley. By simply surrendering their claims as inherited from the Mir of Hunza when he signed the instrument of accession in favor of Pakistan, it does not absolve them of the responsibilities and claims of the Principality of Hunza as inherited by them. The fact of the matter is further emphasised by the Mir's protestations over the signing of the Sino-Pakistan Boundary Pact (interim).

Also tell him, that the whole Sino-Pakistan agreement is a transient treaty and the clause to re-negotiate the treaty upon a final settlement of Kashmir issue exists which allows the Chinese further claims in future as the principalities of the area which since acceded to Pakistan had been paying tribute to China in addition to the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir and prior to it, the Sikhs - and any inch of land (and now rocks in sea) where Chinese had some kind of presence for even a day, is claimed by them as their territory

So in short - they should stop lying to themselves and wake up to smell the coffee (or the brain-fart of gain of territory in this case)

Also tell him, that the Dixon proposal also involved removal of Sheikh Abdullah from power

"Dixon, however, had offered no alternative. He had taken position there could be no fair plebiscite under Abdullah regime. It was on this issue and nothing else discussions had broken down. GOI was still willing to discuss direct with GOP or under auspices SC solution involving partition with plebiscite in Vale under conditions which reasonable observers U.N. must consider fair"

I quote Noorani above.

The reason of dithering on Dixon proposal was Sheikh Abdullah's reluctance and inputs to hold a plebiscite in valley as being detrimental to India's cause (and he was the recognised leader of the Kashmiri struggle against Maharaja hence was considered as being a credible representative of the Kashmiris) and to allow for absorption of area which were accepted by Dixon of being clear cut cases of accession example of Northern Area and the so called Azad Kashmir with Pakistan and Ladakh and Eastern Jammu into India without a need for plebiscite.

Some authors have also cited fears of second round of displaced people as being a factor in rejection of the proposal and of course, JL Nehru's own reluctance. But pertinent to note, there was resistance from Sheikh Abdullah and Kashmiris over this attempt at settling the issue by looking at the erstwhile princely state in parts. Remember the consolidation of various parts of Jammu and Kashmir into a single political entity was only completed by 1936 (if I recall correctly; will amend if am wrong or any member can correct me)

@Joe Shearer : your comments on Dixon Plan?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Dixon proposal also involved removal of Sheikh Abdullah from power

"Dixon, however, had offered no alternative. He had taken position there could be no fair plebiscite under Abdullah regime. It was on this issue and nothing else discussions had broken down. GOI was still willing to discuss direct with GOP or under auspices SC solution involving partition with plebiscite in Vale under conditions which reasonable observers U.N. must consider fair"

I quote Noorani above.

And I quote Noorani below:

Writing to the Chief Minister of West Bengal, B.C. Roy on 29 June 1953, Nehru confided “If there was a plebiscite, a great majority of Muslims in Kashmir would go against us.” They had “become frightened of the communal elements in Jammu and in India.” He had “this feeling of our losing grip in Kashmir.” [Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 22, pp.204-5]


In 1996 was published a Note Nehru had written to Sheikh Abdullah on 25 August 1952 from Sonamarg in Kashmir. It is a document of cardinal importance. It laid bare Nehru’s entire approach to the questions; his strategy and tactics. He revealed that “towards the end of 1948” he concluded that “there were only two possibilities open to us, continuance of the war in a limited way; (2) some kind of a settlement on the basis of the existing military situation”. He had accepted the UNCIP resolutions to get a ceasefire; not to hold a plebiscite. “We are superior to Pakistan in military and industrial power,” With the passage of time Pakistan will “accept a settlement which we consider fair, whether in Kashmir or elsewhere”.

He was not bothered about what “Pakistan did or what the United Nations might do.” But he was “worried to find that the leaders of Kashmir were not so clear in their minds about the present or the future.” He was not worried about the wishes of the people either. They were “not what are called a virile people. They are soft and addicted to easy living.” Like Indira Gandhi, he felt that they were interested in “an honest administration and cheap and adequate food. If they get this, then they are more or less content.” The State would retain its “autonomy in most respects.” The leaders must shed doubt as doubt “percolates to their followers.” His recipe was clear. “Make the people think that the association of Kashmir State with India is an accomplished and final fact, and nothing is going to undo it.” [Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 19, pp.322-330. ed. S. Gopal, Nehru Memorial Fund, OUP, Second Series.]


http://www.criterion-quarterly.com/bilateral-negotiation-on-kaskmir-unlearnt-lesson/