What's new

India terms OIC resolution on Kashmir ''completely unacceptable''

Dear sir, words aren't that that difficult to decipher... but the the withdrawal can only happen according to sequence of events stated as worded in the pre-requisites for the truce agreement.... simply based on the the truce agreement pakistan has not initiated the process, making it pre-requisites not met for the plebiscite.... thus ball is in your court since 1948... thats all I am saying....
Please show me one instance where Pakistan has submitted a single SOP to allude to initiate demilitarization for India to do anything....
The 'sequence of events' (prior to a plebiscite being held) was changed with the Resolutions subsequent to Resolution 47, as pointed out in previous posts. Pakistan agreed to the McNaughton and Owen Dixon proposals - both called for a largely simultaneous drawn-down of forces by both India and Pakistan - India did not. These were eminently sensible and fair proposals, that India refused to accept. It is Pakistan that has proposed demilitarization of Siachen and India that has refused. The intransigent and obstructionist part throughout the history of the dispute has been India, not Pakistan.

The ball is therefore in India's court, not Pakistan's. It is India that now rejects the UNSC Resolutions that and the commitment to a plebiscite that her governement and leadership committed to several times, not Pakistan. The only fair means of demilitarization was and is one where both States withdraw their troops simultaneously with a third party deploying troops to maintain law and order, verify compliance and eventually conduct a plebiscite. This was the only feasible solution then, and it is the only feasible solution now, and now, as then, it is India that continues to renege on her commitments and refuse to allow the people of Kashmir to choose the nation they wish to be a part of.
 
.
The 'sequence of events' (prior to a plebiscite being held) was changed with the Resolutions subsequent to Resolution 47, as pointed out in previous posts. Pakistan agreed to the McNaughton and Owen Dixon proposals - both called for a largely simultaneous drawn-down of forces by both India and Pakistan - India did not. These were eminently sensible and fair proposals, that India refused to accept. It is Pakistan that has proposed demilitarization of Siachen and India that has refused. The intransigent and obstructionist part throughout the history of the dispute has been India, not Pakistan..
Absolutely Disingenuous...
The 52/ and the subsequent resolutions you refer to go back to the truce agreements of 13 Aug 1948 and 5th Jan 1949 as stated by You in the last page itself....
The pre requisite stands... you haven't been able to show me one shred of evidence of simultaneous drawn-down .... Whereas the truce agreement is there for you to see ... If you find anything otherwise.. let me know...
 
.
OIC :rofl: slaves of their Jew Masters

UN resolutions are void as Pakistan continues to sponsor terrorist activity on it's soil therefore Pakistan must first dismantle the terror network if it wants to comply with UN resolutions.

In Nov 2010 the United Nations has removed Jammu and Kashmir from its list of disputed territories.


Kashmir is a internal matter between India and Pakistan to resolve.
 
.
Absolutely Disingenuous...
The 52/ and the subsequent resolutions you refer to go back to the truce agreements of 13 Aug 1948 and 5th Jan 1949 as stated by You in the last page itself....
The pre requisite stands... you haven't been able to show me one shred of evidence of simultaneous drawn-down .... Whereas the truce agreement is there for you to see ... If you find anything otherwise.. let me know...
Nothing can be more disingenuous than you deliberately ignoring the text of the resolution right in front of you that builds upon the resolutions and agreements of 1948/49 and further clarifies and details the process of demilitarization by no longer requiring an unconditional and unilateral withdrawal of Pakistani forces - this is fact. The text of the resolutions supporting the Pakistani position has been provided and you have offered no rebuttal to those arguments.

The McNaughton and Dixon proposals even offer specific numbers and timelines and a solid and fair process of withdrawal by both sides, proposals that India rejected and continues to reject, demanding an unfeasible unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan so that the Greedy Indian State may gobble up the territory vacated by Pakistan.
 
.
Nothing can be more disingenuous than you deliberately ignoring the text of the resolution right in front of you that builds upon the resolutions and agreements of 1948/49 and further clarifies and details the process of demilitarization by no longer requiring an unconditional and unilateral withdrawal of Pakistani forces - this is fact. The text of the resolutions supporting the Pakistani position has been provided and you have offered no rebuttal to those arguments.

The McNaughton and Dixon proposals even offer specific numbers and timelines and a solid and fair process of withdrawal by both sides, proposals that India rejected and continues to reject, demanding an unfeasible unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan so that the Greedy Indian State may gobble up the territory vacated by Pakistan.


My friend this is 2015 wakeup and smell the roses, there is not going to be a change on the LOC no Indian govt can ever sanction it. You know it and I know it so what is the solution? just make LOC the international border nothing will change the status quo.
 
.
Nothing can be more disingenuous than you deliberately ignoring the text of the resolution right in front of you that builds upon the resolutions and agreements of 1948/49 and further clarifies and details the process of demilitarization by no longer requiring an unconditional and unilateral withdrawal of Pakistani forces - this is fact. The text of the resolutions supporting the Pakistani position has been provided and you have offered no rebuttal to those arguments.

The McNaughton and Dixon proposals even offer specific numbers and timelines and a solid and fair process of withdrawal by both sides, proposals that India rejected and continues to reject, demanding an unfeasible unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan so that the Greedy Indian State may gobble up the territory vacated by Pakistan.
Boss every thing you posted reverts back to 48/49 truce agreement... how can you be so blind...
Why did you sign the truce agreement if it was unfeasable... you could have walked out right then and there




*The UNCIP unanimously adopted this Resolution on 13-8-1948.

Members of the Commission: Argentina. Belgium, Columbia,
Czechoslovakia and U.S.A.

*RESOLUTION ADOPTED AT THE MEETING OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN ON 5 JANUARY, 1949. (DOCUMENT NO. S/1196, PARA IS, DATED THE 10TH JANUARY, 1949)
Having received from the Governments of India and Pakistan in Communications, dated December 23 and December 25, 1948, respectively their acceptance of the following principles which are supplementary to the Commission's Resolution of August 13, 1948;
The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite;
A plebiscite will be held when it shall be found by the Commission that the cease-fire and truce arrangements set forth in Parts I and II of the Commission's resolution of 13 August 1948, have been carried out and arrangements for the plebiscite have been completed;

RESOLUTION 91 (1951) CONCERNING THE INDIA-PAKISTAN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITED KINGDOM AND UNITED STATES AND ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 30, 1951. (DOCUMENT NO. S/2017/REV. I, DATED THE 30TH MARCH, 1951)

Observing that the Governments of India and Pakistan have accepted the provisions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949, and have re-affirmed their desire that the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations,

*RESOLUTION 98 (1952) ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL AT ITS 611TH MEETING ON 23 DECEMBER, 1952. (DOCUMENT NO. S/2883, DATED THE 24TH DECEMBER, 1952).

THE SECURITY COUNCIL,

Recalling its resolutions, 91 (1951) of 30 March 1951, its decision of 30 April 1951 and its resolution 96 (1951) of 10 November 1951, (which in turn points back to 13 aug 1948)

FF- 1971

RESOLUTION 303 (1971) ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL AT ITS 1606TH MEETING, ON 6 DECEMBER 1971.

THE SECURITY COUNCIL,
Having considered the item on the agenda of its 1606th meeting as contained in document S. Agenda/1606.

Taking into account that the lack of unanimity of its permanent members at the 1606th and 1607th meetings of the Security Council has prevented it from exercising its primary responsibility for the aintenance

on international peace and security,

Decides to refer the question contained in documents S/Agenda/1606 to the General Assembly at its twenty-sixth session, as provided for in Assembly resolution 377 A (V) of 3 November 1950. (which again build on the same 13 Aug 1948 )


RESOLUTION 307 (1971) ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL AT ITS 1616TH MEETING, ON 21 DECEMBER 1971.

THE SECURITY COUNCIL,

doesn't refer to any kashmir specific inquiries, instead talks of 1949 geneva conventios for Pakistani POW's.
 
.
What is the OIC going to do in actions? stop selling us oil? when we are one of opec's biggest consumers I think not.
 
.
In Nov 2010 the United Nations has removed Jammu and Kashmir from its list of disputed territories.
.
Yep, keep clinging to straws - the following, for example, are notes from a map on the United Nations site:

Line of Control as promulgated in the 1972 SIMLA Agreement
Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not been agreed upon by the parties.
The boundaries and names shown on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.


And of course there's UNMOGIP, though Modi has tried his best to 'forget' about them by kicking them out of their offices etc.

Boss every thing you posted reverts back to 48/49 truce agreement... how can you be so blind...
Why did you sign the truce agreement if it was unfeasable... you could have walked out right then and there
.
Pakistan was not 'blind' at all - her view was vindicated with the subsequent UNSC Resolutions. All of the Resolutions you keep point to continue to endorse the Pakistani position:

Resolution 98 points to Resolution 96, which states that:
Noting with approval the basis for a programme of demilitarization which could be carried out in conformity with the previous undertakings of the parties, put forward by the United Nations Representative in his communication of 7 September 1951 to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, [3]

1. Noting with gratification the declared agreement of the two parties to those parts of Mr. Graham’s proposals which reaffirm their determination to work for a peaceful settlement, their will to observe the cease-fire agreement and their acceptance of the principle that the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be determined by a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations;

2. Instructs the United Nations Representative to continue his efforts to obtain agreement of the parties on a plan for effecting the demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

The highlighted sections establish, without a shadow of doubt, that the UNSC was/is not demanding a unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan, and requires a mutually agreed upon 'program of demilitarization'.
RESOLUTION 303 (1971) ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL AT ITS 1606TH MEETING, ON 6 DECEMBER 1971.

THE SECURITY COUNCIL,
Having considered the item on the agenda of its 1606th meeting as contained in document S. Agenda/1606.

Taking into account that the lack of unanimity of its permanent members at the 1606th and 1607th meetings of the Security Council has prevented it from exercising its primary responsibility for the aintenance on international peace and security,

Decides to refer the question contained in documents S/Agenda/1606 to the General Assembly at its twenty-sixth session, as provided for in Assembly resolution 377 A (V) of 3 November 1950. (which again build on the same 13 Aug 1948 )
Resolution 303 says nothing about Kashmir, and the underlined part does not point back to the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir in 1948/49, it points to Resolution 377A of the General Assembly, a resolution on 'peace':

"On 3 November 1950, the General Assembly adopted resolution 377 A (V), which was given the title “Uniting for Peace”. The adoption of this resolution came as a response to the strategy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) to block any determination by the Security Council on measures to be taken in order to protect the Republic of Korea against the aggression launched against it by military forces from North Korea."
United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
 
.
Yep, keep clinging to straws - the following, for example, are notes from a map on the United Nations site:

Line of Control as promulgated in the 1972 SIMLA Agreement
Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not been agreed upon by the parties.
The boundaries and names shown on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.


And of course there's UNMOGIP, though Modi has tried his best to 'forget' about them by kicking them out of their offices etc.


Pakistan was not 'blind' at all - her view was vindicated with the subsequent UNSC Resolutions. All of the Resolutions you keep point to continue to endorse the Pakistani position:

Resolution 98 points to Resolution 96, which states that:
Noting with approval the basis for a programme of demilitarization which could be carried out in conformity with the previous undertakings of the parties, put forward by the United Nations Representative in his communication of 7 September 1951 to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, [3]

1. Noting with gratification the declared agreement of the two parties to those parts of Mr. Graham’s proposals which reaffirm their determination to work for a peaceful settlement, their will to observe the cease-fire agreement and their acceptance of the principle that the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be determined by a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations;

2. Instructs the United Nations Representative to continue his efforts to obtain agreement of the parties on a plan for effecting the demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

The highlighted sections establish, without a shadow of doubt, that the UNSC was/is not demanding a unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan, and requires a mutually agreed upon 'program of demilitarization'.

Resolution 303 says nothing about Kashmir, and the underlined part does not point back to the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir in 1948/49, it points to Resolution 377A of the General Assembly, a resolution on 'peace':

"On 3 November 1950, the General Assembly adopted resolution 377 A (V), which was given the title “Uniting for Peace”. The adoption of this resolution came as a response to the strategy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) to block any determination by the Security Council on measures to be taken in order to protect the Republic of Korea against the aggression launched against it by military forces from North Korea."
United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
i really dont want to bang my head on the wall.lets rest the case knowing what the world thinks about it.
Kashmir profile - Timeline - BBC News
 
. .
Resolution 98 points to Resolution 96, which states that:
Noting with approval the basis for a programme of demilitarization which could be carried out in conformity with the previous undertakings of the parties, put forward by the United Nations Representative in his communication of 7 September 1951 to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, [3]

The previous undertaking being the truce agreement of 1948 to which Pakistan is a signatory but has not moved since the day despite the subsequent communications of UN representative....
Instead of a statement of the SOP for intent of demilitarization pakistan made it's position clear with 1965's unilateral aggression....

Not in a single post in this thread you have conclusively proven Simultaneous demilitarization... thats that....
 
.
The UN resolution on J&K is little else than an advisory.

Its not enforceable , what are we discussing then ?
 
.
The previous undertaking being the truce agreement of 1948 to which Pakistan is a signatory but has not moved since the day despite the subsequent communications of UN representative....
Instead of a statement of the SOP for intent of demilitarization pakistan made it's position clear with 1965's unilateral aggression....
Every single UN Resolution I have referenced has specific language (quoted for your benefit) that specifically points to a requirement for agreement between India and Pakistan on the program of demilitirization. These resolutions also reference various reports by UN Rapporteurs (McNaughton, Dixon, Graham) who provided both broad outlines and specific suggestions for demilitirization, all accepted by Pakistan and rejected by India. That makes it perfectly clear that the UNSC resolutions subsequent to 48/49 removed the requirement that Pakistan implement an unconditional and unilateral withdrawal. You have been unable to offer a counter-argument to, or alternate interpretation of, the language of the resolutions posted here.
Not in a single post in this thread you have conclusively proven Simultaneous demilitarization... thats that....
The UNSC resolutions I have referenced (and whose language I have quoted) clearly establish the fact that the demilitarization is subject to the agreement between India and Pakistan on a program of demilitarization, and that it is India that has rejected every single plan (referenced in these resolutions) proposed by multiple UN rapporteurs. Every single resolution (post 48/49) you have argued supported your case, I've given you language from it that clearly establishes a need for agreement between India and Pakistan over a program of demilitarization.

You have been unable to offer a counter-argument to, or alternate interpretation of, the language of the resolutions posted here. In essence, you've been debunked each time.

In addition to the above, I also exposed your poor research work and inability to comprehend UN material and references by pointing out that your repeated references to UN Resolution 307/303 had absolutely nothing to do with the Kashmir dispute.

The UN resolution on J&K is little else than an advisory.

Its not enforceable , what are we discussing then ?
The UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir had the agreement and commitment of both States. The UN Charter contains no reference to resolutions under Chapter VI vs Chapter VII being 'binding' or one being an 'advisory'.

The only difference between the two is that the UN can authorize the use of force under Chapter VII, but the requirement on states to implement their commitments to Chapter VI and Chapter VII is the same.
 
.
Every single UN Resolution I have referenced has specific language (quoted for your benefit) that specifically points to a requirement for agreement between India and Pakistan on the program of demilitirization. These resolutions also reference various reports by UN Rapporteurs (McNaughton, Dixon, Graham) who provided both broad outlines and specific suggestions for demilitirization, all accepted by Pakistan and rejected by India. That makes it perfectly clear that the UNSC resolutions subsequent to 48/49 removed the requirement that Pakistan implement an unconditional and unilateral withdrawal. You have been unable to offer a counter-argument to, or alternate interpretation of, the language of the resolutions posted here.

The UNSC resolutions I have referenced (and whose language I have quoted) clearly establish the fact that the demilitarization is subject to the agreement between India and Pakistan on a program of demilitarization, and that it is India that has rejected every single plan (referenced in these resolutions) proposed by multiple UN rapporteurs. Every single resolution (post 48/49) you have argued supported your case, I've given you language from it that clearly establishes a need for agreement between India and Pakistan over a program of demilitarization.

Not a Single , a Single subsequent resolutions suggests Simultaneous Withdrawal..."need for agreement between India and Pakistan over a program of demilitarization." is in no way same as simultaneous withdrawal, the program has been established in the 1949 Truce agreement to which Pakistan is a signatory...No resolution or representation report alludes to India having backed out of anything, nor gives India any diktats on undertaking any steps unlike it does for pakistan in the truce agreement... If that is beyond your comprehension, then I can't help you with that...

Now the question of 303 is exactly as what I am said in my post, it has nothing to do with Kashmir and on 1607 talks alludes back to 1948 draft resolution... read page 158 Last para for reference
http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/...uation in the India-Pakistan subcontinent.pdf

307 as in my post specifically says has nothing to do with kashmir but talks about geneva conventions for Pakistani Pows... So I am not sure about your confusion.....
 
.
The UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir had the agreement and commitment of both States. The UN Charter contains no reference to resolutions under Chapter VI vs Chapter VII being 'binding' or one being an 'advisory'.

The only difference between the two is that the UN can authorize the use of force under Chapter VII, but the requirement on states to implement their commitments to Chapter VI and Chapter VII is the same.

If it cannot be enforced , its nothing more than an advisory.

It has not been implemented for 60+ years , the UN has not been able to do a sausage.

Pak can go on clinging to it.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom