Indian Army used artillery & heavy mortars on LOC targeting Civilian Population

[Joe Shearer]

Not again @Joe Shearer & @M. Sarmad

Good Heavens! I just mentioned you! Didn't tag you because I thought you were permanently absent.

 

[Bratva]

No excerpts given but I will give you now, and if you are looking for an opportunity to shut me down, go ahead. @M. Sarmad

1. As part of truce agreement, India and Pakistan was supposed to draft terms and conditions to bring on peace on guiding principle laid by UN resolution Aug 13 and that was

Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in Part I, both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall he worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.

A1. 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.

http://kashmirvalley.info/un-resolutions/#.XpH4XsgzY2w

2. Onus can be put on India of stalling truce agreement if Pakistan can prove that it agreed to conditions abiding by the principle laid by UN resolutions

3. No such evidence could be provided by Sarmad, infact to contrary he claim Pakistan agreed but on condition of having UN troops, which is sheer violation of guiding principles that authorized India forces for law and order. India, in its own right, can reject this proposal, without being blamed of stalling the process.

4. UN in its guiding principle called presence of Pakistan in kashmir as a material change, and it was accepted by Gov. of Pakistan, thus any further demand of not leaving the state is unwarranted

As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation

5. Pakistan refusal to follow original resolution, in letter and spirit, gives India sufficient rights to reject any further supplement proposals.

6. No evidence posted in all discussion which can establish any proposal refused by Indian side which conform to UNSC resolution on Kashmir 1948.

7. Indian refusal to reject any Pakistani demand, which doesn't meet the expectations set by UN at first, can not be termed as stalling by India, but stalling by Pakistan.

8. Even today, presence of Indian forces conform to UN resolution, but presence of Pakistan is still a material change in Kashmir, thus putting Pakistan in violation and not India.

Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will he administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.



Post UN document claiming so here for all to read.

And are you saying Pakistan didn't put any condition before doing so? Very obedient. Whom are we fooling bro?

Wait a minute? Is this United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 Text that you are posting and arguing with us?

Why dont you be a good boy and post excerpts from United Nations Security Council Resolution 80 which superseded 47?

 

[Joe Shearer]

All agreement get concluded post their completion. What are you trying to say here? Did it ever get to its conclusion? I hope just writing it down and getting signed by people is not conclusion for you.



Losing the plot here you. I never said that. My reference to supplement is not for truce agreement which is part 2 of original resolution but further solutions proposed by UN appointed arbitrator for forces withdrawal after Pak refusal to withdraw unilaterally and thats where @Joe Shearer hinted toward bias, if I am not wrong.

Perfectly on target.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I wont even read beyond this.

Asking for UN troops is violation of guiding principles. It was Indian army who was supposed to maintain law and order and conduct plebiscite in company with UN representatives.

That clearly proves its you who bring in obstructions, not us. After all you were the material change which refused to clear itself.

Why are you burning now? He proved his position and supported his narrative with facts, evidence and linguistically correct interpretation of the text of even the original resolution. You're just incorrigible you people are.

 

[IMARV]

@AgNoStiC MuSliM

It was India which reached out to UN under article 35 complaining of Pakistan intrusion into its sovereign land and UN resolution clearly stated as below

B1. 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

here terminating the situation refers to Pakistan aggression and intrusion of its forces in Kashmir, thus no partial pakistan troop withdrawal can terminate the situation represented by GoI.

the resolution further says

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 that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

that clearly meant India has to remove the bulk of forces, only once material change in Kashmir caused by Pakistan cease to exist

@M. Sarmad @Joe Shearer

 

[M. Sarmad]

No, not at all. I claim discrimination in the manner in which in spite of the written evidence that Pakistan refused to comply with the resolution's conditions, no action was taken, and the plebiscite was allowed to be postponed until such time that India consented to Pakistan's refusal to comply with the resolution.

Pakistani diplomats prevailed by simply refusing to obey the UN.

That's the whole point, sir.
You consented to be bound by the UNCIP Resolutions. And that exactly is what makes the UN Resolutions on Kashmir binding upon India and Pakistan under international law.
And India, in fact, accepted those resolutions much before Pakistan did. Why would they do so, even before Pakistan, if they believed that those Resolutions were unfair and discriminatory towards India??

 

[Bratva]

No, not at all. I claim discrimination in the manner in which in spite of the written evidence that Pakistan refused to comply with the resolution's conditions, no action was taken, and the plebiscite was allowed to be postponed until such time that India consented to Pakistan's refusal to comply with the resolution.

Pakistani diplomats prevailed by simply refusing to obey the UN.

All agreement get concluded post their completion. What are you trying to say here? Did it ever get to its conclusion? I hope just writing it down and getting signed by people is not conclusion for you.



Losing the plot here you. I never said that. My reference to supplement is not for truce agreement which is part 2 of original resolution but further solutions proposed by UN appointed arbitrator for forces withdrawal after Pak refusal to withdraw unilaterally and thats where @Joe Shearer hinted toward bias, if I am not wrong.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 80, adopted on March 14, 1950, having received the reports of the Commission for India and Pakistan, as well as a report from General A. G. L. McNaughton, the Council commended India and Pakistan for their compliance with the ceasefire and for the demilitarization of Jammu and Kashmir and agreement on Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz as the future Plebiscite Administrator.

The resolution called for (1) simultaneous and progressive demilitarisation by both India and Pakistan to the point where the remaining force would "not cause fear at any point of time to the people on either side of cease-fire line."[1] (2) The northern areas to be administered by local authorities, subjected to UN supervision (3) The Council to appoint a United Nations Representative to assist in the preparations and implementation of the demilitarization program, to advise the Governments of India and Pakistan as well as those of the Council, to exercise all of the power and responsibilities of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, to arrange for the Plebiscite Administrator to assume all the functions assigned to him at the appropriate stage of demilitarization and to report to the Council as he saw necessary.

The resolution 80 marked a shift from the resolution 47 which called for Pakistan to withdraw first. Resolution 80 asked India and Pakistan to withdraw their troops simultaneously for the purpose of plebiscite. It also implicitly equated the Azad Kashmir Forces and the Jammu and Kashmir State Forces, which went against the assurances given by the earlier UN Commission. This attempt at the equality of Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir did not find India's agreement.[2]


United Nations Security Council Resolution 98, adopted on December 23, 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 an agreement on the specific number of troops to remain of each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the previously established period of demilitarization. As proposed by the UN Representative this number was to be between 6000 Azad forces and 3500 Gilgit and northern scouts on the Pakistani side and 18000 Indian forces and 6000 local state forces on the Indian side.[1] The resolution then thanked the UN Representative for his efforts, requested the Governments of India and Pakistan report to the Council no later than 30 days after the adoption of this resolution and asked the UN Representative to keep the Council informed of any progress.

 

[SIPRA]

O PaaJee,

Kashmir will NEVER be resolved through talks...

For now it is TrenchWarfare on the CeaseFireLine...

Mangus

Fundamental disputes are never resolved with talks, but with power.

 

[IMARV]

Wait a minute? Is this United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 Text that you are posting and arguing with us?

Why dont you be a good boy and post excerpts from United Nations Security Council Resolution 80 which superseded 47?

Because we rejected that as it was contrary to what was passed in first resolution mutually agreed by both parties. It marked a big shift from UN first stand on the subject and bias was clearly evident.

 

[JohnWick]

India army using Bofors and releasing UAV clips of targeted attack in public.

Bespectacled Maratha Gen Mukund Naravane isn't as peaceful and benign as he looks. Instead of trickery of Gen Rawat, he would follow text pattern and will hit hard whenever necessary.

So, he is a gay then?

 

[SIPRA]

O PaaJee,

Kashmir will NEVER be resolved through talks...

For now it is TrenchWarfare on the CeaseFireLine...

Mangus

"Asa na ho tau kaleemi hae kaar e bay buniyaad"

 

[Joe Shearer]

I think u are mistaken dueto half knowledge or are trying to conceal info.
1948 resolution demanded Pakistan to withdraw, but later dureing next years multiple resolution were passed UN asking both Pakistan and india to withdraw and let Kashmiris decide their fate.
Indians only take one out of dozens of resolution as a propaganda.

The original one. That counts. Pakistan was part of CENTO and SEATO, and had the full backing of its masters thereafter. India was non-aligned, stayed non-aligned, and faced a permanent bias against her until very recent times, during Clinton's presidency, to be precise, when Pakistan's disastrous misadventure in 1999 turned all segments of opinion against her.

 

[Bratva]

Because we rejected that as it was contrary to what was passed in first resolution mutually agreed by both parties. It marked a big shift from UN first stand on the subject and bias was clearly evident.

The ground realities were kept in mind for subsequent UN Security resolutions. And UN sufficiently determined that Withdrawing unilaterally was not appropriate Where is the bias in that? UNO is allowing Both parties to keep the some of the forces in the valley. Infact was allowed to keep 3x the number of forces than Pakistan.

The original one. That counts. Pakistan was part of CENTO and SEATO, and had the full backing of its masters thereafter. India was non-aligned, stayed non-aligned, and faced a permanent bias against her until very recent times, during Clinton's presidency, to be precise, when Pakistan's disastrous misadventure in 1999 turned all segments of opinion against her.

Is this your personal opinion as an indian or its An opinion supported by other UN members as well? So the resolutions that didnt support your narrative are termed as biased and Indians will refuse to honor it?

 

[Sal12]

Because we rejected that as it was contrary to what was passed in first resolution mutually agreed by both parties. It marked a big shift from UN first stand on the subject and bias was clearly evident.

In any plebiscite, Kashmiris will vote against India which is why India doesn't to have plebiscite and India knows the result of plebiscite. But India cannot tell the world why she doesn't want to have plebiscite so it keeps giving all the other excuses for not having the plebiscite.

 

[JohnWick]

If both India and Pakistan had any brains, they would have made LOC international border by now, both nations are getting played by bigger powers and enjoying this idiocy.

We solely accept this map as international boundaries....