India's arguments on Kashmir why they don't want to hold a plebiscite

[TopGun786]

There was a time when Lord Mountbatten the first Governor General of India, offered Jinnah plebiscite in Kashmir in exchange for Pakistan stopping its attack on Kashmir.
But Jinnah refused, believing that he could win Kashmir militarily.

Just shows opportunity seldom knocks twice.

Reference please

 

[Jaeger]

Reference please

The Jinnah–Mountbatten Talks were bilateral talks held in Lahore between the Governor-Generals Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Louis Mountbatten of Pakistan and India, to address the Kashmir dispute. The talks were held on 1 November 1947, five days after India dispatched its troops to defend the princely state of Kashmir(which was a Muslim majority state recently acceded to India) against a tribal invasion. In the talks, Mountbatten presented India's offer to hold an impartial plebiscite under the United Nations auspices to decide the accession of Kashmir. Jinnah effectively rejected the offer.

Jinnah–Mountbatten talks

The Jinnah–Mountbatten Talks were bilateral talks held in Lahore between the Governor-Generals Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Louis Mountbatten of Pakistan and India, to address the Kashmir dispute. The talks were held on 1 November 1947, five days after India dispatched its troops to defend the...

dbpedia.org

Jinnah – Mountbatten Talks

The Jinnah–Mountbatten Talks were the series of bilateral talks and negotiations between Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Governor-General of Pakistan, and Louis Mountbatten, Governor-General of India, on the Kashmir dispute in November 1947.

storyofpakistan.com

 

[DabbuSardar]

Kashmir is a trilateral issue between China, India and Pakistan.

Why not add the british crown and sikh empire as well

 

[surmabhopali]

Send them with lands also.

Thar desert just tharpakar ke bagal me , chalega ?

 

[Saudang]

Wrong, UN resolution 80 says both India Pakistan need to withdraw military forces to hold the plebiscite. No where does it say India need to keep a minimum of forces to maintain security, etc.

refere to UN Resolution 47 which says that pakistan to withdraw all its tribsman and tribal and India to keep minimum forces to maintain law and order

Resolution 47 (1948) /

digitallibrary.un.org

 

[TopGun786]

Thar desert just tharpakar ke bagal me , chalega ?

Yes.

 

[AA_]

Please stop with these idiotic arguments. Why are you and other Pakistans such pus*ies. Don’t you morons understand that this world only understand force. The rule of law only applies to the strong and their citizens, for the rest of us, it’s rule of the jungle. The bindu Hindu dotheads clearly understand this fact while you natural born cowards go begging to the UN, the West, and Martians to get the ugly subhumans to come to an agreement whereas the enemy is sharpening his tools - literally and metaphorically - building up a large war machine under the guise of fighting china and preparing his ugly subhuman people mentally by installing a map of a “United South Asia” in his parliament. They are increasingly becoming brazen and even demanding what more. Theyre very specific and focused on us. The Indians activity here increased post 03/2022 NCV and it’s being directed by their Intel services to mentally break Pakistan before the final assault. I swear on everything holy, if I had the opportunity, I’d round the defeatists, the corrupt, and sellouts before I will tackle the bindus in Kashmir. Nothing is worse than a defeatist mindset which many of you have displayed this August 14 openly talking shit on your country and joining in with the savages across the border whose primary goal is to eradicate Pakistan and Pakistanis and capture lands that he thinks belongs to him. Wake up!

 

[El Sidd]

Why not add the british crown and sikh empire as well

Chinese won't let the King intervene.

India can give up the spot on the trilateral table to Khalistan council.

More progressive approach is solving the problem bilaterally between China and Pakistan.

 

[Skimming]

Send them with lands also.

When Hindus and Sikhs were driven out from Pakistan in 1947, did you send their properties?

 

[Maira La]

India will never hold plebicisite in Kashmir, we are not GB and Kashmir is not Scotland...as simple as that.

Makes sense. Scotland is not occupied territory, Kashmir is.. as simple as that.

 

[TopGun786]

When Hindus and Sikhs were driven out from Pakistan in 1947, did you send their properties?

Yes.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Pakistanis try and sell the narrative which is convenient to them. They never bring out many other underlying aspects, in which they blatantly violated the UN resolutions and also lied through their teeth.

- They told UN, that only, irregulars were fighting in J&K. When the five member UN commission landed in Paksiatn, they were informed that 3 brigades of PA were also actively fighting in Kashmir. They misled the UN initially, by telling a white lie. Sensing that they would be caught with their pants down, they told the truth to the commision. Had Paksiatn told the facts to the UN to start with, the UN may have approached the issue differently and more negatively against Paksiatn, for being an aggressor. Imagine, Paksiatn got an entire resolution passed by telling white lies but didn‘t honour the same resolution. PKaistan has been using this lie of irregulars fighting against India every now and then. 1965 and 1999 are examples of these lies. World is fed up of such serial liars.

- The UN resolution 47, was very clear in laying down the terms of troop withdrawal. It clearly said that Paksiatn needs to withdraw first. But Paksitan didn’t do it and kept dithering. Why didn’t they follow the resolution and kept waiting? Because it didn’t suit them? And now they are crying. The term used for this is - crocodile tears.

- General A. G. L. McNaughton submitted a report which was accepted and passed as resolution 80. It required both the countries, to remove forces simultaneously. India didn’t implement it, the same way Paksiatn didn’t implement resolution 47.

- Later on, 1971 happened and both the countries signed the Simla agreement. It clearly laid out the requirement to solve all pending issues bilaterally. What was Paksiatn thinking while singing that agreement?

Gist - PKaistan lied to the world about it’s regular troops not fighting in Kashmir. UN took a softer stance because of this white lie.
- Paksiatn didn’t implement resolution 47 and remove it’s troops first.
- Same way, India didn’t implement resolution 80.
- 1971 changed the scenario completely and made all previous declarations/ resolution etc defunct.
- In the same spirit of lies and betrayal by our friends, India repealed article 370 and made everything before that, completely defunct. Now, there is no scope of any talks whatsoever. Both nations had more than 7 decades to talk and resolve the matter. Most of the time, Paksiatn stabbed India in the back, but always blamed India for no headway. Now that option is also out of the equation.

It would be honourable, if even one of our friends could accept their failures and lies in this regard. The word is “honourable”.

• India, in an attempt to deceive the world, seeks to fasten on Pakistan a responsibility to withdraw troops from Jammu and Kashmir unilaterally and unconditionally, by quoting out of context a certain provision of UN Commission’s resolution of 13 August 1948, that is, Part 11, paragraph A.I.

• While doing so, India deliberately suppresses the other paragraphs of Part II. 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 reciprocal obligations of the two sides as to the modalities of demilitarization, have been persistently sought to be confused by India over the past 70 years almost as to mislead the world into believing that the obligation of withdrawal devolves on Pakistan unilaterally. A reference to the provisions of Part II of the resolution of 13 August, 1948 and the elucidations given by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan to the Government of Pakistan, established beyond any possibility of dispute the reciprocal nature of the undertaking given by the two sides to withdraw their armed forces from the state of Jammu and Kashmir

Indians refused to accept any demilitarization plan proposed by the UN (they rejected eleven such plans) and hence Truce Agreement could not be concluded. So, the Commission never notified Pakistan to begin withdrawing its forces. Pakistan had made it clear to the UN that it was ready to withdraw its troops as soon as the Commission notified it, Pakistan went a step further and told the UN that it was ready to withdraw its troops in favor of UN troops regardless of Indian reaction to such a proposal ...


There's a reason for which the UN appointed official mediator (i.e Sir Owen Dixon) blamed India and not Pakistan for halting the process ...


Pakistan stands ready to conclude a truce agreement with India, even today ...

 

[Azadkashmir]

no kashmiri wants to become dalit under india living in slums.

 

[VkdIndian]

suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.

Told to you by the the Establishemnt?

by quoting out of context a certain provision of UN Commission’s resolution

Out of context? A UN resolution that clearly laid down the requirements for plebiscite is out of context?

India over the past 70 years almost as to mislead the world into believing that the obligation of withdrawal devolves on Pakistan unilaterally.

Paksiatn misled the world and the UN by claiming that it’s regular uniformed forces weren’t engaged in the Kashmir war. The liars accepted participation of it’s regular forces, only after the UN commision reached Paksiatn. How convenient?

Paksiatn has been shameless in telling lies about the same thing of non-regular forces fighting in Kashmir again and again. 1965 and 1999 being the two major of them.

Then it violated the UN order of status quo and launched Operation Gibraltar in 1965. How can one even think of demading India to follow UN resolution, but keep violating it themselves.

Then your nation stabbed India in the back when India tried to start work on a treaty in 1999 and launched Kargil.

India decided to move the goal posts much later by occupying Siachen and then repealing 370.

India has given enough opportunities in last 76 years to your nation to sit across a table and find a solution.

Time to put a stop to it and go our own ways. India doesn’t want anymore negotiations since paksiatn has shown it’s true colours time and again.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Out of context? A UN resolution that clearly laid down the requirements for plebiscite is out of context?

Yes, the UN resolutions did indeed clearly lay down the requirements for the plebiscite.

First, a Truce Agreement had to be concluded/reached which was supposed to govern the withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani troops ... Its details were to be made public, and then the withdrawal would have followed.


But the Indian representatives didn't agree with the UN Commission on the "terms and conditions" of the withdrawal (maximum number of troops, stages of withdrawal, etc.) therefore the Commission didn't notify the Pakistani representatives and no withdrawal took place.


The Indian representatives did not accept any demilitarization plans proposed by the UN Commission (India rejected 11 such plans, Pakistan rejected none), therefore no Truce Agreement could be concluded.

Pakistani representatives on the other hand had not only accepted those plans but also made it clear to the Commission that they were ready to begin withdrawing their troops as soon as the Commission notified them.

Do you get it now ??