What's new

India should accept defeat before Kashmiris’ struggle, says Nawaz

The Simla accord of 1972 nullifies the UN declaration of 1948

as per Simla Accord in 1972,

Both countries will "settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations".[1][4] India has, many a times, maintained that Kashmir dispute is a bilateral issue and must be settled through bilateral negotiations as per Simla Agreement, 1972 and thus, had denied any third party intervention even that of United Nations.[5]
 
I doubt India will accept the defeat nor it should. That's not the world i know. The world i know is pain and sacrifice of long years which at the end eventually tastes the reward worth satisfying. Because Kashmir is the tool for the bigger prize. Who knows Pakistan might get more than what Pakistan bargains for. :D
 
Last edited:
The Simla accord of 1972 nullifies the UN declaration of 1948

as per Simla Accord in 1972,

Both countries will "settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations".[1][4] India has, many a times, maintained that Kashmir dispute is a bilateral issue and must be settled through bilateral negotiations as per Simla Agreement, 1972 and thus, had denied any third party intervention even that of United Nations.[5]
Wikipedia ?. I can even change the Shimla Accord in Wikipedia....
 
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).

The second step is that after due verification by the UN, the Indian Army will maintain a minimum force level to ensure security of J&K till a plebiscite is held.

The third and final step is for a plebiscite to be held in the entire J&K including Pak administered Kashmir and GB.

Pakistan is yet to withdraw its forces from Kashmir as the first step according to the UN Resolutions. That is now an impossibility and therefore the plebiscite issue is as dead as a dodo.

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.

And then you say 700,000 Indian troops in Kashmir? It's a lie that's been perpetuated ad nauseam. 700,000 troops means an equivalent of 46 infantry divisions!! Wow! That's more than the strength of all infantry divisions in the Indian Army! This nonsense needs to stop. It's beyond hilarious! The actual strength in Kashmir is 220,000 which includes the BSF, CRPF, Rashtriya Rifles, J&K Police and the Territorial Army. Most of the Army has been deployed on the IB/LoC.
Even English Wikipedia, estimates the number of Indian troops in Kashmir to up to 600 000, that is why I said it looks like a forceful occupation.. with close to 40 or 45 infantry divisions, plus the air force..
 
Even English Wikipedia, estimates the number of Indian troops in Kashmir to up to 600 000, that is why I said it looks like a forceful occupation.. with close to 40 or 45 infantry divisions, plus the air force..
You're way off course. Firstly, we don't use the air force and never did unlike the PA which is using fighter jets, artillery and tanks in FATA/NW and in Balochistan earlier. How many civilians have died and townships destroyed in collateral damage during your ops in these areas? We'll never know for sure as independent media has been banned from entering these areas. We just have to go by the propaganda dished out by your ISPR.

Secondly, Wiki isn't the bible. I have given you in my earlier post the approx number of security forces in Kashmir plus minus a thousand as it keeps fluctuating depending on the situation. In other words the number being bandied about by you guys that there are 700,000 army troops in Kashmir is utter rubbish. I have given you the breakdown too. Pl read it again.

Heck your General Hafiz Saeed even said in his rant yesterday that there are one million Indian troops in Kashmir!! Lol! Next, Lt Gen Sayed Sallaudin of the HuM will go a step further and contend that India has more than 1.5 million troops in Kashmir!!

You guys need to get real and stop spreading fiction.
 
why u guys are so much intimidated about hafiz saeed ..first provide proof against him then talk ...should we say u people have chosen terrorist to run your country ..well proofs are there for your prime minister for sure...baluchistan fata and nwfp isnt your matter of concern ..because they arent a disputed territories between two nations ..collateral damage is another thing and shooting innocent civilians on their faces is whole lot of another thing ..i hope u got my point ...expecting your intelectualism to be u know wt i mean :P
 
First have some balls to accept the realities as for now you are crying like whimps for atoot ang. May be you should stop barking like a bitchh first then we can talk about it.



Yeah sure keep telling yourself that and you might sleep better.
Well tell me something which country and its bitches regularly and almost pathetically continue barking about kashmir??? Nd what ur language buddy...

Wikipedia ?. I can even change the Shimla Accord in Wikipedia....
Sure you can change it on wiki but the real signed thing cannot be changed...
 
Well tell me something which country and its bitches regularly and almost pathetically continue barking about kashmir??? Nd what ur language buddy...


Sure you can change it on wiki but the real signed thing cannot be changed...

That would be indians in comparison Pakistanis just talk about human rights of Kashmirs. Keep barking its in your indian genome.
 
Kashmir is the single most critical issue in the world.

If indians thought that with time...Kashmiris would become docile and resgined to foreign occupation then the truth is harsh.

Sad, sad state of affairs.

An alien force can never occupy a land where the population percieves it to be so.

Pak Diplomacy and political classes have let this oppression go on forever.

There is no systematic policy apart from hollow statements and every now an then raising voices.

Pak political classes must stop appeasing the hegemonic state and craft a sustained strategy of peaceful resolution of Kashmir in accordance to the wishes of Kashmiri people.
 
If India is as democratic as it claims to be, why not pull out its troops and hold a referendum under UN supervision. because 700 000 troops in Kashmir, looks like an occupation.. nothing less and more so if there are bloodbaths very often..

The UN Resolution 47 recommended that in order to ensure the impartiality of the plebiscite Pakistan withdraw all tribesmen and nationals who entered the region for the purpose of fighting and that India leave only the minimum number of troops needed to keep civil order. The Commission was also to send as many observers into the region as it deemed necessary to ensure the provisions of the resolution were enacted. Pakistan ignored the UN mandate, did not withdraw its troops and claimed the withdrawal of Indian forces was a prerequisite as per this resolution.

The Resolution also mentioned that a Plebiscite should take place only after Pakistan has completed the withdrawal and India has minimised their forces. But the first step has still not been taken by Pakistan diminishing all scope for any further steps by India. We can't risk withdrawing troops first and losing the whole place to Pakistan. If a plebiscite is to take place it will have to be according to rules set by the UN.
 
Who is Nawaz? a neo-prophet? whoever wants kashmir, come get it.
 
I would like to know what Pakistan is going offer in return if India accepts defeat? Would it vacate the part under its control and give it back to India? If not, why should India accept Pakistan's plea on this matter?
 
Back
Top Bottom