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

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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,

OK, let me remind you of what your main contention was/is, that under the 47/48 resolutions 'Pakistan is required to unconditionally and unilaterally withdraw its forces'. My argument, clearly substantiated by the excerpts of the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir, is that the UN Resolutions do not take that position and link withdrawals, by both sides, to agreements between the 2 States on a program of demilitarization.

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...

See the text of the various proposals filed by UN Rapporteurs that are referenced in the relevant resolutions. They clearly document and quote the GoI's position of not accepting any program of demilitarization that involves any kind of agreement with Pakistan on the process.

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/69-71/Chapter 8/69-71_08-13-Situation in the India-Pakistan subcontinent.pdf

I still don't see any direct reference to Kashmir in UNSC Resolution 303. The Resolution references the 'question contained in document S/agenda/1606, and in the appendix further specifies that the 'item on the agenda of the council (S/agenda/1606)' refers to 2 documents:
1. The Report by the Secretary General
2. Letter to the UNSC by various countries.

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.....

So why reference it in the context of the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir?

 

[MilSpec]

OK, let me remind you of what your main contention was/is, that under the 47/48 resolutions 'Pakistan is required to unconditionally and unilaterally withdraw its forces'. My argument, clearly substantiated by the excerpts of the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir, is that the UN Resolutions do not take that position and link withdrawals, by both sides, to agreements between the 2 States on a program of demilitarization.

that is your interpretations, Not one single article calls out simultaneous demilitarization, The 52 session also reverts back to 48 when it comes to agreement.
India maintains it's position as Pakistan was a signatory to 1948 truce agreement.
not One resolution calls out that India has not done it's part...

the bottom line remains is pakistan was never sincere about the truce agreement which is further substantiated by it's unilateral aggression demonstrated in 1965.

 

[VCheng]

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

Its not enforceable , what are we discussing then ?

After the Simla Agreement, didn't the UN remove Kashmir from its list of international disputes that it monitors, considering it is a bilateral issue now?

 

[rockstar08]

Limited war may solve this Issue

 

[nForce]

After the Simla Agreement, didn't the UN remove Kashmir from its list of international disputes that it monitors, considering it is a bilateral issue now?

I wonder why Pakistanis keep bringing UN and the clause for plebiscite in UN Resolution 48 then.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

that is your interpretations, Not one single article calls out simultaneous demilitarization, The 52 session also reverts back to 48 when it comes to agreement.
India maintains it's position as Pakistan was a signatory to 1948 truce agreement.
not One resolution calls out that India has not done it's part...

This has nothing to do with 'interpretation' - The resolutions I referenced all contain explicit language about the need for an agreement between the parties over a program of demilitarization. You can keep harping on the word 'simultaneous' and try to weasel out of the corner you've painted yourself into, but the fact remains that not one resolution calls out Pakistan as 'not having done her part'. Again, the point you made is that the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir require an unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan, and it has been clearly established that (simultaneous or not) withdrawal, by either country, was based on an agreement between the 2 countries on a program of demilitarization. The majority of the proposals by UN Rapporteurs suggest a largely 'simultaneous withdrawal', and they reference the positions of the 2 countries on said proposals, and India is documented as opposing any fair and feasible proposal that called for some kind of simultaneous withdrawal.

the bottom line remains is pakistan was never sincere about the truce agreement which is further substantiated by it's unilateral aggression demonstrated in 1965.

The bottom line is that you are reduced to logical fallacies (using an event that occurred over a decade after the last consequential resolution on Kashmir was passed) to justify India's territorial greed and intransigence in not accepting any kind of a fair demilitarization program that involved simultaneous withdrawals by both States. In fact, the more logical position is that India's territorial greed and expansionist policies (as seen by her occupation and annexation, by various means, of Junagadh and Hyderabad) are what laid the foundation of policies pursued by both States in the decades since.

I wonder why Pakistanis keep bringing UN and the clause for plebiscite in UN Resolution 48 then.

After the Simla Agreement, didn't the UN remove Kashmir from its list of international disputes that it monitors, considering it is a bilateral issue now?

No, the UN did not remove Kashmir from its list of international disputes (is there such a list maintained by the UN and can you link to it) and it is not a solely 'bilateral issue' given that the Simla Agreement clearly references the commitment of both States to the UN Charter and has no language with respect to retrospective coverage, otherwise the IWT would be irrelevant as well.

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

How is the IWT enforceable? What happens if Pakistan or India refuse to implement it's recommendations?

How is the Simla Agreement enforceable?

Chapter VI Resolutions are just as 'binding' as Chapter VII Resolutions. The UN Charter itself has no language stating that Chapter VI resolutions are less relevant or 'binding' than Chapter VII.

 

[VCheng]

I wonder why Pakistanis keep bringing UN and the clause for plebiscite in UN Resolution 48 then.

I have no idea why that happens. The Simla Agreement is quite clear, which is why every time Pakistan approaches the UN, it says it cannot mediate over Kashmir unless asked by both India and Pakistan to intervene in a bilateral issue under Simla.

 

[Donatello]

India should look east.

 

[MilSpec]

This has nothing to do with 'interpretation' - The resolutions I referenced all contain explicit language about the need for an agreement between the parties over a program of demilitarization. You can keep harping on the word 'simultaneous' and try to weasel out of the corner you've painted yourself into, but the fact remains that not one resolution calls out Pakistan as 'not having done her part'. Again, the point you made is that the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir require an unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan, and it has been clearly established that (simultaneous or not) withdrawal, by either country, was based on an agreement between the 2 countries on a program of demilitarization. The majority of the proposals by UN Rapporteurs suggest a largely 'simultaneous withdrawal', and they reference the positions of the 2 countries on said proposals, and India is documented as opposing any fair and feasible proposal that called for some kind of simultaneous withdrawal.

Not a single reference you provided nullifies the truce agreement which still stands as the 53 Resolution itself points back to the 48 truce agreement. The pre-requisites call out for a catagorical unilateral withdrawal by pakistan, Pakistan has not formally declined and thus UN no resolution substantiates Pakistan's part. As far as "Agreement of demilitarization" is concerned, there exists a perfectly good one, to which pakistan is a signatory, why would we change that? If pakistan has any issues with the truce agreement lit it go to UN and decline the truce agreement and start over.

The bottom line is that you are reduced to logical fallacies (using an event that occurred over a decade after the last consequential resolution on Kashmir was passed) to justify India's territorial greed and intransigence in not accepting any kind of a fair demilitarization program that involved simultaneous withdrawals by both States. In fact, the more logical position is that India's territorial greed and expansionist policies (as seen by her occupation and annexation, by various means, of Junagadh and Hyderabad) are what laid the foundation of policies pursued by both States in the decades since.
.

You are just clutching to straws, my point is set wide open here for everyone to read and make up their mind. You try as much as you want to obfuscate the issue, 48 resolutions and subsequent drafts point back to the truce agreements as the basis for demilitarization, Being a signatory to the truce agreement, pakistan has never shown any initiative to start the withdrawal, and neither has protested the truce agreement in the UN to change or decline it. So as all of these discussions end, ball is still in your court...
Well tried, kudos on the Histrionics


as far as rest of your post, Junahgad went to plebiscite and your dear bhutto's grand daddy invited India, Hyderabad went to war with India and lost, so did Goa Portuguese.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not a single reference you provided nullifies the truce agreement which still stands as the 53 Resolution itself points back to the 48 truce agreement. The pre-requisites call out for a catagorical unilateral withdrawal by pakistan, Pakistan has not formally declined and thus UN no resolution substantiates Pakistan's part. As far as "Agreement of demilitarization" is concerned, there exists a perfectly good one, to which pakistan is a signatory, why would we change that? If pakistan has any issues with the truce agreement lit it go to UN and decline the truce agreement and start over.

False - as pointed out to you previously, even the 1948 resolution makes no final call upon Pakistan to withdraw unilaterally, and links demilitirisation to an agreement between India, Pakistan and the UN Commission:
"... both the Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their representatives and the Commission."

The "details" were never worked out since India refused to consider any fair proposal that involved simultaneous demilitirisation. The resolution itself never made clear whether Pakistan was required to finish her withdrawal prior to India beginning her withdrawal and makes a distinction between 'when Tribesmen and nationals not resident are withdrawn' vs 'Pakistani troops being withdrawn' as a precursor to Indian troop withdrawals. Pakistan's contention, substantiated by almost every single subsequent resolution on Kashmir that referenced proposals by UN rapporteurs, was that there needed to be an official agreement over the entire program of demilitirization.

You are just clutching to straws, my point is set wide open here for everyone to read and make up their mind.

Your point has been debunked time and again, with excerpts from the relevant resolutions, you just choose to keep regurgitating the canard of 'Pakistan is required to withdraw unconditionally and unilaterally'. As I pointed out above, using language from the very UNSC Resolution from 1948 you use to dissemble, that was never the case. Demilitirisation was linked to an agreement between Pakistan and India since the beginning.

as far as rest of your post, Junahgad went to plebiscite and your dear bhutto's grand daddy invited India, Hyderabad went to war with India and lost, so did Goa Portuguese.

Bhutto's grandaddy had no authority to invite any foreign intervention - the accession had been signed and completed, and the government of Pakistan officially protested against Indian intervention. It really beggars belief that you would use such a ludicrous justification.

India was actively involved in destabilizing Hyderabad (sponsoring terrorism in the State). I'll post a link to the relevant article in a bit.

 

[MilSpec]

The "details" were never worked out since India refused to consider any fair proposal that involved simultaneous demilitirisation. The resolution itself never made clear whether Pakistan was required to finish her withdrawal prior to India beginning her withdrawal and makes a distinction between 'when Tribesmen and nationals not resident are withdrawn' vs 'Pakistani troops being withdrawn' as a precursor to Indian troop withdrawals. Pakistan's contention, substantiated by almost every single subsequent resolution on Kashmir that referenced proposals by UN rapporteurs, was that there needed to be an official agreement over the entire program of demilitirization.

Your point has been debunked time and again, with excerpts from the relevant resolutions, you just choose to keep regurgitating the canard of 'Pakistan is required to withdraw unconditionally and unilaterally'. As I pointed out above, using language from the very UNSC Resolution from 1948 you use to dissemble, that was never the case. Demilitirisation was linked to an agreement between Pakistan and India since the beginning.

You have not debunked a single line brother... Al you are trying to, is obfuscate a very simply worded documents for unknown reasons. You keep harping 1948 truce agreement was unfair and unfeasable, then why in the lords name would Pakistan Sign and accept such a truce agreement in 1948, did the collective conscience go el-pollo-loco back then.
As you seem to have selective amnesia regarding the sequence of troop withdrawal, let me try and refresh you and other readers alike.

OK lets examine the truce agreement itself


"The resolution itself never made clear whether Pakistan was required to finish her withdrawal prior to India beginning her withdrawal and makes a distinction between 'when Tribesmen and nationals not resident are withdrawn' vs 'Pakistani troops being withdrawn' as a precursor to Indian troop withdrawals. "

. (1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India
that the tribesmen and Pakistan 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 Pakistan forces are being withdrawn
from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to
begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to
be agreed upon with the Commission

So to simplify your doubts about distinction between 'when Tribesmen and nationals not resident are withdrawn' vs 'Pakistani troops being withdrawn' the distinction exists in PART IIA

Lets examine PART IIA:
(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavor to secure
the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and
Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the
State for the purpose of fighting.

For your simplification:
>The tribesmen and nationals (which constitutes pakistani nationals serving in the armed forces of pakistan) need to be withdraw...
>Notify UN
>Commission Notifies India
> India withdraws troops and maintain a small contingent
>conducts plebiscite




1. (l) 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.

the underlined phrase: denoted pakistan did represent the troops, tribal or otherwise, and thus bears full responsibility for their management. Apart from there in full representation AGREES to withdraw it's troops being signatory to 1948 truce agreement.

Hope that helps,
If you have any further doubts, do not hesitate to ask.

regards

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You have not debunked a single line brother...

I've debunked your entire argument, but I'll humor you and do it one more time ...

"The resolution itself never made clear whether Pakistan was required to finish her withdrawal prior to India beginning her withdrawal and makes a distinction between 'when Tribesmen and nationals not resident are withdrawn' vs 'Pakistani troops being withdrawn' as a precursor to Indian troop withdrawals. "

. (1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India
that the tribesmen and Pakistan 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 Pakistan forces are being withdrawn
from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to
begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to
be agreed upon with the Commission

So to simplify your doubts about distinction between 'when Tribesmen and nationals not resident are withdrawn' vs 'Pakistani troops being withdrawn' the distinction exists in PART IIA

I have no doubts about the distinction between 'Tribesmen and nationals not resident' and 'Pakistan forces' - the UNSC Resolution clearly lists them as 2 (or 3 if you really want to parse things) entities and uses the phrase 'have withdrawn' in the case of the former (Tribesmen and nationals not resident) instead of 'are being withdrawn' in the case of the former (Pakistani forces/troops).

Lets examine PART IIA:

>The tribesmen and nationals (which constitutes pakistani nationals serving in the armed forces of pakistan) need to be withdraw...

Wrong - the term 'tribesmen and nationals' does not refer to Pakistani troops, because in that case there would not be 2 separate references made under different parts of the resolutions:

"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 "

If 'Pakistani nationals' referred to both military and non-military Pakistani nationals, then the statement above would be absurd in that it was stating that 'Pakistan troops have withdrawn' and 'Pakistani troops are being withdrawn'. In addition, the resolution states that 'Pakistan shall use its best endeavor to secure the withdrawal of Tribesmen and Pakistani nationals' and uses different language for the withdrawal of Pakistani Troops, "Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State".

>Notify UN
>Commission Notifies India
> India withdraws troops and maintain a small contingent
>conducts plebiscite

The notification itself could not occur until, as the Resolution itself States, there was agreement on the details of the plan of demilitarization between India, Pakistan and the UN Commission.

1. (l) 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.

the underlined phrase: denoted pakistan did represent the troops, tribal or otherwise, and thus bears full responsibility for their management. Apart from there in full representation AGREES to withdraw it's troops being signatory to 1948 truce agreement.

False - the UNSC Resolution makes clear distinctions (and uses distinct language) to refer to the distinct entities of 'the Tribesmen and Pakistani nationals' and 'Pakistani troops', as explained in my response above. So the section above only refers to Pakistani troops, and not 'the tribesmen and nationals' - those entities are addressed separately in Section II(A)-2 of the Truce Agreement (notice - 2 different references to 2 different entities:

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.

Second, yes, Pakistan agreed to withdraw her troops in accordance with the UNSC Resolution, BUT (and this is the part where Indians love to obfuscate and dissemble), the resolution was clear in leading up to that principle that:

"both the Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their representatives and the Commission."

In other words, while the UN proposed, and Pakistan agreed to, a withdrawal, the details/specifics (numbers, timing, coordination with India) of the withdrawal were subject to an agreement between India, Pakistan and the UN Commission. Pakistan wanted a clear timeline and commitment from India on when and how many troops she would be withdrawing under the 'agrees to withdraw the bulk of its forces' - India refused to provide that commitment and therefore an agreement on the 'details of the demilitarization' was never reached, which meant that Pakistan was under no obligation to unilaterally withdraw her troops.

Oh, and on Hyderabad: Hyderabad 1948 | India's hidden massacre.

 

[Indus Falcon]

I've debunked your entire argument, but I'll humor you and do it one more time ...

I have no doubts about the distinction between 'Tribesmen and nationals not resident' and 'Pakistan forces' - the UNSC Resolution clearly lists them as 2 (or 3 if you really want to parse things) entities and uses the phrase 'have withdrawn' in the case of the former (Tribesmen and nationals not resident) instead of 'are being withdrawn' in the case of the former (Pakistani forces/troops).

Wrong - the term 'tribesmen and nationals' does not refer to Pakistani troops, because in that case there would not be 2 separate references made under different parts of the resolutions:
"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 "
If 'Pakistani nationals' referred to both military and non-military Pakistani nationals, then the statement above would be absurd in that it was stating that 'Pakistan troops have withdrawn' and 'Pakistani troops are being withdrawn'. In addition, the resolution states that 'Pakistan shall use its best endeavor to secure the withdrawal of Tribesmen and Pakistani nationals' and uses different language for the withdrawal of Pakistani Troops, "Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State".

The notification itself could not occur until, as the Resolution itself States, there was agreement on the details of the plan of demilitarization between India, Pakistan and the UN Commission.


False - the UNSC Resolution makes clear distinctions (and uses distinct language) to refer to the distinct entities of 'the Tribesmen and Pakistani nationals' and 'Pakistani troops', as explained in my response above. So the section above only refers to Pakistani troops, and not 'the tribesmen and nationals' - those entities are addressed separately in Section II(A)-2 of the Truce Agreement (notice - 2 different references to 2 different entities:
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.

Second, yes, Pakistan agreed to withdraw her troops in accordance with the UNSC Resolution, BUT (and this is the part where Indians love to obfuscate and dissemble), the resolution was clear in leading up to that principle that, "both the Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their representatives and the Commission."

In other words, while the UN proposed, and Pakistan agreed, to a withdrawal, the details/specifics (numbers, timing, coordination with India) of the withdrawal were subject to an agreement between India, Pakistan and the UN Commission. Pakistan wanted a clear timeline and commitment from India on when and how many troops she would be withdrawing under the 'agrees to withdraw the bulk of its forces' - India refused to provide that commitment and therefore an agreement on the 'details of the demilitarization' was never made, which meant that Pakistan was under no obligation to unilaterally withdraw her troops.

Oh, and on Hyderabad: Hyderabad 1948 | India's hidden massacre.

Appreciate your efforts at talking to walls.

May God Bless you!

 

[MilSpec]

I've debunked your entire argument, but I'll humor you and do it one more time ...

I have no doubts about the distinction between 'Tribesmen and nationals not resident' and 'Pakistan forces' - the UNSC Resolution clearly lists them as 2 (or 3 if you really want to parse things) entities and uses the phrase 'have withdrawn' in the case of the former (Tribesmen and nationals not resident) instead of 'are being withdrawn' in the case of the former (Pakistani forces/troops).

Wrong - the term 'tribesmen and nationals' does not refer to Pakistani troops, because in that case there would not be 2 separate references made under different parts of the resolutions:

"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 "

If 'Pakistani nationals' referred to both military and non-military Pakistani nationals, then the statement above would be absurd in that it was stating that 'Pakistan troops have withdrawn' and 'Pakistani troops are being withdrawn'. In addition, the resolution states that 'Pakistan shall use its best endeavor to secure the withdrawal of Tribesmen and Pakistani nationals' and uses different language for the withdrawal of Pakistani Troops, "Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State".

The notification itself could not occur until, as the Resolution itself States, there was agreement on the details of the plan of demilitarization between India, Pakistan and the UN Commission.


False - the UNSC Resolution makes clear distinctions (and uses distinct language) to refer to the distinct entities of 'the Tribesmen and Pakistani nationals' and 'Pakistani troops', as explained in my response above. So the section above only refers to Pakistani troops, and not 'the tribesmen and nationals' - those entities are addressed separately in Section II(A)-2 of the Truce Agreement (notice - 2 different references to 2 different entities:

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.

Second, yes, Pakistan agreed to withdraw her troops in accordance with the UNSC Resolution, BUT (and this is the part where Indians love to obfuscate and dissemble), the resolution was clear in leading up to that principle that:

"both the Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their representatives and the Commission."

In other words, while the UN proposed, and Pakistan agreed to, a withdrawal, the details/specifics (numbers, timing, coordination with India) of the withdrawal were subject to an agreement between India, Pakistan and the UN Commission. Pakistan wanted a clear timeline and commitment from India on when and how many troops she would be withdrawing under the 'agrees to withdraw the bulk of its forces' - India refused to provide that commitment and therefore an agreement on the 'details of the demilitarization' was never reached, which meant that Pakistan was under no obligation to unilaterally withdraw her troops.

Oh, and on Hyderabad: Hyderabad 1948 | India's hidden massacre.

So pakistani troops are not pakistani nationals... seems legit...

Looks like I have to spoon feed every line of the truce agreement to you, unfortunately out of time right now.. will pick it up later.

regards...

 

[nForce]

India should look east.

Be rest assured, India is doing that. And yes, also, West, South and North.