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

[Kaniska]

We solely accept this map as international boundaries....View attachment 622861

Last week, one of employee in a media firm in India supported these maps in twitter...He has been reported to the media group, and the employee is out of the job now...I can slowly see some positive change is happening in India after UAE Govt kicked out a racist person who posted racist comment about Muslims in UAE....

 

[M. Sarmad]

I note from this formulation that not reading the Security Council resolutions in the manner that one side wishes them to be read, or stating an opinion, amounts to discourtesy and lack of decorum. Beyond noting it, a guest can hardly do anything more.

The points he made were debunked in this thread by M. Sarmad and have been debunked multiple times in the past.

Nothing he brought up was new or even a creative new approach to making the same tired old Indian excuses and distortions. Hence my point that we’re not teaching Indians why the world isn’t flat anymore.

Respected Joe, such fora/discussions provide an excellent opportunity to exchange views/information. We all know what the Indian (or Pakistani) position regarding the UN Resolutions is. We can choose to keep parroting the sarkari propaganda mindlessly over and over again, or we can try to analyse the arguments and facts presented by either side— to forge a better understanding of the extremely complex Kashmir issue that has held the people of subcontinent hostage for over seven decades now.

Indians have every right to claim that the UN Resolutions on Kashmir have become obsolete (that whether or not Pakistan or the UN accept the Indian position is a different thing). But when you accuse Pakistan of failing to withdraw its forces from Kashmir unilaterally (under the UN Resolutions) and present it is as the reason/rationale behind your own refusal to implement UN Resolutions in Kashmir, then we have every right to counter these 'relatively newer' charges/propaganda.

First of all, let's examine the Indian claim that Pakistan was obligated to withdraw its forces from Kashmir unilaterally and unconditionally under the mutually agreed upon UNCIP Resolutions of 13 Aug 1948 and 5 Jan 1949. To prove their point, the Indians quote out of context a certain provision of UNCIP resolution of 13 August 1948, that is, Part 11, paragraph A.I while deliberately suppressing the other parts of the same paragraph. The Indians are guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. These subsequent paragraphs make it obvious that the obligation of Pakistan to withdraw its troops from the state of Jammu and Kashmir does not devolve until both sides conclude a truce agreement to govern the withdrawal of not only Pakistan forces but also the bulk of the Indian armed forces from the state, the withdrawals to be carried out in a synchronized manner.


Anyone who can read and comprehend simple English would find it hard to agree with the Indian interpretation of the UNCIP resolutions. But as dear Joe has accused PDF of allowing only Pakistani interpretation of the text of UNCIP resolutions, I would like to quote the UN interpretation of the relevant part of those resolutions here.


The UN Commission assured Pakistan:

After Pakistan had made the beginning in the withdrawal of its forces from Kashmir there was to be a relation between the further withdrawals of all the Pakistan forces and the beginning withdrawals of the bulk of the Indian forces from Kashmir in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.
(Graham Report - 25 October 1967 - Kashmir Dispute (Dr. Frank P. Graham, UN Representative) - summary review of the Mediatory Reports of the United Nations in the Kashmir Situation, p.9)

Only after having been given the aforementioned 'assurance' by UNCIP had Pakistan accepted the UNCIP resolutions on 25 Dec, 1948. The UNCIP had made it clear that Pakistan was under no obligation to withdraw its forces from J&K unilaterally and unconditionally. It only had to begin withdrawing its forces, and Pakistan, after having secured the withdrawal of tribesmen by Feb 1949, began withdrawing its regular troops as well (as acknowledged in UN reports) but later withheld owing to the failure of the UNCIP, which had assured Pakistan on a number of occasions that the synchronization of withdrawals would be arranged between the respective High Commands and the Commission (see UNCIP Interim Reports for details), to notify Pakistan regarding the terms and conditions of the Truce.


Now, let's see what actually halted the process. From the horse's mouth:

Regarding phasing of withdrawals, the Commission denied Pakistan's demand for disclosure and held that there would be no prior disclosure to Pakistan of the Indian program of withdrawals, and that, in accordance with the 13 August 1948 resolution, the related withdrawals of the bulk of the Indian forces would be in stages to be agreed upon by India and the U.N. Commission. The U.N. Commission and their successor mediators were unable to reach such an agreement with India on the bulk and the stages of the withdrawal of the bulk of Indian forces as related to the withdrawal of all the Pakistan forces...... This persisting failure of the UN Commission and the subsequent UN Mediators to reach such an agreement with India, as provided in B 1 of part II, became one of the reasons for the deadlock

[Ibid: p.13]

So, it's clear beyond doubt that the UN Commission and subsequent UN mediators were unable to reach an agreement with India regarding terms and conditions of withdrawal of troops and that's what halted the process. Therefore, the UN Commission never notified Pakistan to begin withdrawal. India trying to hold Pakistan responsible for halting the process is not only dishonest but absurd too.


Another very interesting observation made by Dr. Frank Graham is:

India, which over a period of years stood on the two UNCIP resolutions in rejecting proposals of several UN mediators, later began to take stands against the obligations of these very resolutions on the ground that certain provisions of the resolutions had not been fulfilled by Pakistan.
[Ibid p.35]

Indian approach is clear. First they rejected all proposals made by UN mediators on the basis that they were not inline with the two UNCIP resolutions, and later refused to accept its obligations under those same UNCIP Resolution by falsely accusing Pakistan of not following the resolutions!!


What the UN appointed official mediator Sir Owen Dixon said removed all ambiguity (if there was any):

"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the 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 abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Para 52 of Document S/1791)



Why was India unwilling to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir? In Indian PM Nehru's own words:

“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]


To quote the famed Indian author A G Noorani:

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”.
----------------.

I come to this place after such a long time and its still the same. The LOC is still the same and both sides are still claiming losses of the opposition and are celebrating it. An ammo dump being targeted is being paraded as D-Day and the loss of 5 indian commandos to militants is being claimed as great victory by Pakistan. still the same. ( heard @Nilgiri say @Joe Shearer is 'kicking butt' again lolzz).

I am just going to touch this joe that the concept that all resolutions are under chapter 6 and not 7 is flawed due to several reasons and they must be understood. I am not going to touch whether the UN resolutions are extremely binding, strongly binding, not binding or incapable to be binding. I am simply going to state whether the resolutions between the year 1947-1957 ( 16 to 17 resolutions i think) were under chapter 6 or chapter 7.

First of all in layman terms, Chapter 6 of the united nations is composed of 6 articles and each of these articles speak on settlement of disputes.

Article 33 section highlights that any dispute whose continuation can create threats to international peace shall first of all seek resolution through negotiation e.t.c. e.t.c


The remaining articles highlight how the united council can investigate the disputes, nations can bring froth any dispute and the UN provide recommendations those states in dispute.

Basically the concept is that these are not binding upon states. This is a major legal question that is being argued to this day since there are several legal schools that believe that chapter 6 has binding power whereas another argues that they do not have binding power.

Before i enter into this let me state that united states charter is basically the constitutional framework for the united nations or something meant to be like that and the first thing we study in constitutional law is that it is not to be cherry picked nor to be read in isolation but as a whole document from section to last since each section creates an effect upon the other and any contradiction highlights the incompetence of state structure. Let me highlight. We, in our constitution, had judicial review in article 199 and and article 8 which highlight laws inconsistent with or in derogation of islam or fundamental rights will be void and article 199 is judicial review thus we see here that the constitution is saying one thing here that the courts can strike down laws passed by parliament if they contravene islam or fundamental rights however Zia added another article which was Article 239 (5) which barred the courts from questioning any amendment to the constitution now this is in contradiction to article 8 which empowers the court to strike down any law or amendment that is against islam or fundamental rights. This was struck down by courts in 2015 but the fact is that constitutions are read as a whole and each section connects the other and must empower the sections rather than hinder them.

The reason why i used this example is to help you understand some basics of law so that when we read the UN charter, we can come to understand why two opinions exist and how they effect the UN resolutions.

So The Namibia judicial advisory highlighted that the legal opinion stating that chapter 6 is non binding is in contradiction to several articles of the UN charter. The first that they highlighted was that it goes against the concept on Article 24 shose first section placed responsibility upon the security council to act on behalf of member states to maintain international peace and they shall be given powers in accordance to chapter 6,7,8,9. Now here we see that member states have given primary responsibility to the security council in maintenance of international peace. So if there is any threat to the international peace, they need to provide prompt and effective action to solve such threat on behalf of member states. Ofcourse we can all argue, how, when , where but that is not what i am saying. The reason why the jurist opinion pointed that chapter 6 being recommendation would make article 24 superfluous is bcz you have one article that is stating prompt responses to solve problems and then you have one chapter that says recommend and then leave. I understand that the balance of state independence and having to create a unilateral world organization was not easy but such contraventions create hindering effects in dispute resolution and even the working of the UN. They then highlighted Article 47 and 48. Now what are these two articles? Another Article was mentioned which was article 25 which states that member states must agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the security council.

Article 47 states that action required for the carrying out of decisions for the maintenance of international peace shall be taken by all members and mutual assistance to each other or through the organizations that they are part of.

Now this thought process of binding nature is supported by some jurists whereas others state that they are non binding who state that such separation of chapters was made to differentiate between consent of parties and binding resolutions and that chapter 7 does not have the matter of consent that is present in chapter 6. They also argue that the chapter 6, the disputed parties cannot vote upon the dispute resolution thus if such binding nature is given then the two parties are not given the power to bring forth their vote upon a resolution that is binding upon them.

There are some that take a more moderate view that Chapter 6 is not just advisory opinion and they are still directives of the security council which must be respected and are the responsibility of the security council to be implemented however they do not have the stringent military options attached to them which resolutions under chapter 7 have. Now rosalynn higgings stated that these chapters are highly ambiguous in nature and the binding nature of a dispute resolution must be seen through the words and the content that the resolution attaches and most importantly upon whether the parties wanted recommendations or decisions rather than look upon chapters. The united nations, in all its wisdom, did not brand chapters on resolution in its early stages.

The reason why i posted above was to help you understand how polarized the charter of UN is and how grand the legal questions are and yes there are legal questions and interpretations. all of you are looking at things from contract law or guardian law ( his example) or local law but international law is very different from muncipal law and it is very ill defined. Nobody is lying over here but interpreting things to your concepts and basis atleast to the argument of chapter 6 and chapter 7.

Now with the hope that the complexity of international law shall be respected let us dive into whether the resolutions of 1947-1957 fall into chapter 6 or chapter 7. i have great respect for kofi annan but he was not a lawyer and the complexity of the UN charter was not his domain. Whatever he states whether they were binding or not cannot be taken on face value. such complex questions require legal history.

Now first of all the 17 resolutions did not have a specific chapter mentioned which means that where those that state that they were under chapter 6 cannot disapprove those that state that they were under chapter 7 since chapters were not specifically mentioned.

In such a lost situations, we need to take guidance from rosalyn higgins who stated that content of the resolution and the will of the parties determine whether the resolution is binding or recommendation.

Resolution 47 that constituted a committee had the words instructs the commission to proceed at once and place its good offices and mediation at the disposal of the governments of India and Pakistan. Now this is the resolution that India keeps talking about and here we see the UN constituting a commission, highlighting its powers, uses and directed it to do it immediately so there was an element of binding within it. It cannot be called a recommendation since nowhere did it state "subject to approval". So we can clearly see that the concept that they were recommendations contravenes the language of the resolution. Infact the increase in powers of the commission in terms of Ceasefire line highlights that they were not recommendations but binding in nature. How can we say that a resolution is recommendatory and at the same time the commission is empowered to oversee the cease fire and the cease fire line agreement. Resolution 96 also has similar language where it instructed the representative to continue its efforts of bringing forth demilitarization of Kashmir by both parties and report after 6 weeks of all the problems that he is facing in creating this effect.

Resolution 98 was more recommendatory since it repeatedly used the words 'urges'to bring forth demilitarization of the area with having a set number of forces...

the point is that to state that all resolutions were chapter 6 ( a very disputed chapter and home to multiple interpretations), is flawed since the resolutions contained other aspects which were implemented and instructions to those commissions and offices. I am reminded of professor Stephens zunes that stated that the chapter is not merely advisory but are directives of the security council and thus they have binding power although absent the although absent the stringent enforcement options such as military force which are available in chapter 7. If we look at it from his point of view then we can understand the resolution language even more that since there are no stringent enforcement in place thus the language must be in a form or urges and requests rather than absolute orders.

Now i am reminded again of article 24 and article 25 which places responsibilities upon both security council in its directives and upon member nations upon the directives...


Some have highlighted that these are general laws and chapter 6 and 7 are special laws but the constitution must be general and must not play the legal relationship between special and general with its own articles as i highlighted the relationship between article 8 and article 199 and article 239(5). This highlights flaws in the nature of the framework.


I hope that you guys when bringing forth arguments respect the polarity of the framework of the united nations and refrain from calling each other liars, deceivers and stuff.


Frankly in the end this is useless. The united nations cannot and will not be able to solve this. they are not empowered enough and frankly all of us would be quite worried in a world where the security council is empowered enough to force two nuclear nations with armies larger than most of the world's armies to be enforced because then they can enforce alot of other stuff then as well. As we argue that you didnt follow this and you didnt follow that and you signed this agreement and you signed that agreement and this resolution is chapter 6 and that is chapter 7 and all of it, the people of kashmir are suffering. One is under lockdown and before that was being pushed down whereas the other is struggling with representation within a country is so hoped to join with empty promises that it did not fulfill. We can argue and win discussions here in front of 20 people but the people on the ground dont care. they dont care how many resolutions were passed, they dont care who is right and who is wrong and what is the legal procedure and what are the legal questions. They dont care. they see two armies entrenched firing against one another and justifying each bullet and each death with a thousand excuses. they see those crazy nations building bridges over incidents that took a million lives whereas on their end they see fences, posts bring increased daily.

Your discussions were very informative but the legal position had flaws but it doesnt matter. We are not in court here but i hope the above sample will help you understand the complications of law and how difficult it is for the people of the region.



===============

@Joe Shearer we have learned much in this discussion. Alot but the only thing we can take home is "you did this" "I did this" " you should have done this" " you didnt do this" and Joe that wont solve the problem. Not At All.

In the end nothing has changed

Nice to see you post.
Finally, someone who actually understands law ...
I too find it very difficult to disagree with the opinion of Rosalyn Higgins.

But regardless of under what chapter the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir were passed, those 2 mutually agreed upon UNCIP resolutions, under international law, are binding on all parties involved.


The two UNCIP resolutions are not only a bilateral agreement, but are also an international agreement charged with the obligations which underlie an international agreement negotiated by the UNCIP with, and accepted by, both India and Pakistan under the auspices of the United Nations. Any unilateral declaration that the State of Jammu and Kashmir, or any part of the State, while under heavy military occupation and without a plebiscite, is now a permanent and non-negotiable part of India or Pakistan, is and would be contrary to one of the basic provisions of their own international agreement and contrary to the position held by the United Nations. Any such unilateral declaration by India or Pakistan on the permanent status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir cannot nullify the position and responsibility of the primary peace-keeping and executive body of the United Nations, namely, the Security Council, under the obligations of its own sponsored two UNCIP resolutions for a cease-fire, a truce and a plebiscite as negotiated and accepted by India and Pakistan.
[Ibid pp 39-40]


While a recommendation under Chapter VI by itself "may not" be binding, this is not the case in the Kashmir dispute. Here, the parties have consented to be bound by the resolutions of 13 August and 5 January. (13 M. WHITEMAN, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 360 (1968).

 

[saiyan0321]

If it comes to that, this entire discussion stems from the point of view of one disputant that Nehru's move to offer a plebiscite, and Mountbatten's endorsement of this, were in some way embodied and enforceable in the UN Resolution, the original resolution, and in the subsequent resolutions. It is this that forms the body of the Pakistani legal case; for the rest, it is a case of a perpetrator of assault and battery arguing skilfully in court about the nature of the law on the subject. Never has Pakistan hesitated to set aside legal or constitutional niceties to resort to force; it was, after all, the country in which the extremely questionable Doctrine of Necessity made its appearance in fully-armed glory like Pallas Athena emerging from the brow of Zeus. So all that you have read is the attempt of one side to respond to that half of the other side that takes refuge in legalities, and the concurrent attempt to set aside for the sake of argument the tendency to violence of the other. The Constable's Song from the Pirates of Penzance comes to mind.

All of this has been discussed before joe and its the same. you said, we said. One side brings resolution, the other brings invasions, one side brings Indian action on 27th october then the other brings action on 22nd october, 1965, 1999, 1971, mukti bahini e.t.c e.t.c and it goes on and on and after 70 years have we not found out that this dance is simply not bringing forth a solution. No one side can claim higher ground and each side can justify each and every single action but that doesnt bring forth a solution. A proper solution. The conflict was allowed to become this complicated bcz it always turned into he said, you did, we did until now, even giving representation to the people seems a herculean task. Article 370 to doctrine of necessity joe and you can understand how right @Nilgiri is

I stay away from these threads. Very little good persists and comes out of them (compared to before) and I always see deja vu if I do have a glance. Some of the earlier threads already had everything perspective wise being shared by great debaters like Joe, Hellfire, Azlan and yourself. I read them and had my fill, now its just smushing in the mud with legions of endless trolls....not worth sifting it.

So for these current ones.... I learn nothing and only lose feeling and sensation (net big overall loss in the end)...especially when I see former champs/worthies going into repeating mode or have withdrawn (respected) consistency in other arguments/situations. I will just keep in mind the simpler times with the more crystallised succinct arguments...rather than looking too much for sullying the image I had of them....these are personally troubling times for many so I have to empathise.

BTW wasn't me that said joe was kicking butt (though he is, bless his soul, and I will have a selective perusal a bit later)...I think it was @Krptonite that brought it up somewhere hehe.

Sigh. Cant argue there. your post kinda took the show nilgiri which is your forte

Nice to see you post.
Finally, someone who actually understands law ...
I too find it very difficult to disagree with the opinion of Rosalyn Higgins.

Thanks and its great to see you too.

Her and stephen zumes have a point. Legal frameworks are the most important legislative business in the world. Any monkey can pass ( xyz needs to be jailed for xyz years for xyz offence.) but a procedural legal framework takes a legal acumen that is most rare. They demand that each section empower the other and uplift the framework and not hinder it and although i dont envy the framers of the charter, whom were stuck with trying to balance between strengthening international law, not involving in state affairs whilst empowering the nations that won the war thus we see the charter contradicting itself at some points and hinder its own working. another aspect is that the UN is not a state which has legislative, judiciary and legal minds and enforcement capability where all of these together make sure the frameworks are defined and interpreted and these interpretations are followed by the state. The UN is not that which is why the loopholes are not filled nor amended nor interpreted where the interpretation is implemented. This is why the UN will always and i mean always struggle in controlling or implementing any problem that concerns power states or strategic states and while it may hail its victories in burkina faso or east timor but it is the stories of kashmir, palestine, yemen, nagorono karabakh and so many others that speak loudly of the capability of United nations.

Anyway Good to see you sarmad. Do come elsewhere as well if for nothing else but for fun and we all must understand that these are trying times and in these times we must learn from the example of the Prophet and the sufis. If somebody is abusive, we do not abuse. If somebody is wrong, we say it and speak our truth and if they disagree then it is fine, we do not abuse the dead nor make fun of them no matter how much we detest them and we always and always keep our composure and through that bring forth our points in a cordial manner.

 

[Champion_Usmani]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1249635176805736449

 

[Aswaklanta D]

Difficult to understand many things here in discussion but I think to solve any problem there needs intention for solving problems. And I don't think India Pakistan has intention to solve it.

 

[Anik101]

Say whatever but no one can match this.
Pakistani gun pits in sharda peeth:

For those who think that this is fake.
Here are the co-ordinates:
34.795648,74.195474
Go check yourself.

Now compare this with the sat images of Indian Army Phanzgam field arty base pakistani tweeples are tweeting. Nearest arty pit is 300m from civilian settlements and any counter arty fire by the well trained gunners will do no harm to the civilians.

 

[Champion_Usmani]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1249670237747843076

 

[Basel]

I mentioned earlier many times. Targeting civilians is the policy. Demoralize them and the army. This is called strategic bombing and is different from tactical bombing.

This is exactly what the Nazis did in UK and india has been doing since 73 years. Pakistan intelligence community has to repay in kind if not more. General Tariq ex corp commander Mangla also wrote about this and how staying cautious will damage Pakistan.

He further implied that tactical strikes by Pakistan military is not enough, there has to be quid pro quo +.

Correction Allies also did same kind of bombing on Germany with much greater level, ever heard of Dresden city night bombing by Allies, they intentionally killed huge number of civilians by burning them alive, it was a war crime which was never took to courts.

 

[M. Sarmad]

... I think to solve any problem there needs intention for solving problems. And I don't think India Pakistan has intention to solve it.

India doesn't intend to solve Kashmir dispute..
They don't have a legal case in J&K, and they know very well that any reasonable solution will go against them.
They believe that the status quo suits them and they will keep occupying Kashmir illegally as long as they can

 

[Aasimkhan]

India doesn't intend to solve Kashmir dispute..
They don't have a legal case in J&K, and they know very well that any reasonable solution will go against them.

thus the mantra of ATOOT ANG, my foot

 

[M. Sarmad]

thus the mantra of ATOOT ANG, my foot

While the Indian 'Atoot Ang' mantra maybe easily acceptable domestically, Indian diplomats haven't been successful in earning international recognition/UN acceptance of India laying claim upon Kashmir as its integral part (and not a disputed territory) .. And that's what matters in the end.

 

[Last starfighter]

Just got off the phone to certain ppl in samanhi sector. There's not much happening there . However reliable sources inform me that the bajrang Bali's and Hanuman's targeted civilians in another sector.
The lions of Allah responded and flattened the monkeys. With lots of dead monkeys still lying dead where they fell. Subhanallah

 

[Cash GK]

IK didn't even comment on it while begging international community. It would have been more effective.

You are a..hole..he is fighting day nite to safe his 230 millions back home..we pay million in tax here in spain we did not get any help from spainsh government n pak embassy is delivery food in our houses here on the order of goverment of pakistan.. You need education you must follow IK taleschool program which educate people like you in corona times. So they can use brain. Oh sorry people like you have brain size of peanut. Idiot brainless

 

[Aswaklanta D]

India doesn't intend to solve Kashmir dispute..
They don't have a legal case in J&K, and they know very well that any reasonable solution will go against them.
They believe that the status quo suits them and they will keep occupying Kashmir illegally as long as they can

Yes it suiting us. And look at history, this is how it happen in all times.
Legal or not legal is only politics. Look at all country and all old kindoms. Happen to India Pakistan so many many times. No issue of legal or not legal Only issue is if political leadership and elite see it benefit in solving issue and have intention.
Also like you say if result going against us, why we do it. we not stupid to do it.

 

[Cash GK]

Yes it suiting us. And look at history, this is how it happen in all times.
Legal or not legal is only politics. Look at all country and all old kindoms. Happen to India Pakistan so many many times. No issue of legal or not legal Only issue is if political leadership and elite see it benefit in solving issue and have intention.
Also like you say if result going against us, why we do it. we not stupid to do it.

You mean.. British were right to occupied your country.. means your argument justify oçcupation and freedom fight which your i mine forefathers putted againt was totally wrong.. You deserve 25 gun salute...