Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nowhere close to refusing to honor the resolutions period, which is India's current position, and has been for several decades.
However, Pakistan remains committed to the underlying principle of Kashmiris determining their destiny through a plebiscite, whereas India does not.
Pakistan has not willfully refused to implement the resolutions, so no, Pakistan is not on that list.
Perhaps I should have put better punctuation in there ... 'Pressure India to implement its commitments and pressure India to negotiate with Pakistan on how to arrive at the goal of plebiscite'.
Nothing in the resolutions suggests 'defunctness' based on whether an insurgency occurred or not, in fact, the resolutions remain valid until replaced by new resolutions or the resolution of the dispute between the concerned parties.
Pakistan does have the moral high ground - we stand for giving the Kashmiris the right to self-determination per the UNSC resolutions and the commitments to them of plebiscite by India and Pakistan, whereas India stands for occupation of J&K and a refusal to let Kashmiris decide their future as India herself committed to.
And you continue to point out why Pakistan has the high moral ground by continuing to willfully declare India's intent to violate its commitment to the UNSC and the Kashmiri people, the commitment of plebiscite.
The excuse of a 'weak government' is a poor excuse. Even if one assumes the PA calls the shots instead of the GoP, why would the GoP not coordinate with the PA on negotiations with India and why would any proposal not amenable to the PA even be put forward? After all, as you pointed out, the PA as an institution backed Musharraf's peace efforts and proposals, which were some of the most significant for decades.
India is doing little to indicate it is interested in resolving the dispute, as indicated by the following statement:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...an-insists-kashmir-territorial-dispute-5.html
So what exactly are you threatening Pakistan with by suggesting 'nothing will change'?
India appears to have indicated 'nothing will change' all on its own.
Oh but JuD is a charitable organization - is it not?!?! Never seen the Red Cross or Salvation Army talk about taking over a region by force.
Nonsense, as has been pointed out to you before.First, refusing to withdraw your citizens and tribesmen, then constitutionally incorporating Northern Areas leaving it in a limbo, then ceding territory to China, then blatantly violating the cease fire agreement in 1965.
Those holy UN resolutions became defunct in 1965. Thank Ayub for that.
As the language of the resolution clearly indicates, the withdrawal of regular and irregular forces was contingent upon negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN appointed commission, and rightly so, since the militarization of the conflict meant that one side could attempt to seize control in case of a unilateral, unconditional withdrawal by the other.TRUCE AGREEMENT
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 be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the 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.
(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.
On April 2, 1956, he himself had made statements at a press conference, which suggested that he had, indeed, ruled out a plebiscite. A question was put to him: "An inference has been drawn that you do not want now any plebiscite to be held in Kashmir. Is it correct?" Nehru replied: "Largely so; I shall explain myself. What I have said was that we have tried and discussed the question of plebiscite for six or seven years, but the preconditions have not been fulfilled. Meanwhile, other things have taken place, like the military aid etc., which have increased tremendously the difficulties of this problem. It is not that I am not willing to discuss this problem still further. But as a practical person I say this leads to a blind alley. We have, therefore, to discuss it from another point of view in regard to conditions that have arisen now and try to come to an agreement."
Offer of a settlement on the basis of the ceasefire line was the logical corollary. Nehru made this offer while addressing a public meeting in New Delhi on April 18, 1956. "I am willing to accept that the question of the part of Kashmir which is under you should be settled by demarcating the border on the basis of the present ceasefire line. We have no desire to take it by fighting."
Nehru's legacy in foreign affairs
Pakistan has been 'hammering at the issue', at the UN and at any international forum it gets a chance to.Yes. That's something Pakistan should be hammering at over and over in the U.N. and bilaterally. Instead we have either Pakistani plots for conquest (according to Ms. Bhutto) and/or this terrorism stuff. All of which serves to make Pakistan look bad and India look good internationally. (Furthermore, Pakistanis choose not to perceive that many Kashmiris don't want such violence.)
Fair enough.Let's save the off-topic stuff for another thread.
I have already indicated how UN resolutions did not in fact call for a unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan, and instead called for negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN commission to determine the details of the withdrawal, so the Pakistani refusal to withdraw cannot be considered a violation of the resolutions since conditions on withdrawal acceptable to both sides were never arrived at.The point is that Pakistan has violated the UNSC resolutions on several occasions.
I think Pakistan has moved towards the option of having an 'independent Kashmir' as one solution:True, unless they want a country of their own.
But again, even the old position of sticking to the UNSC resolutions that called for a choice between India and Pakistan, which India denies the kashmiris after years of promising it to them, places Pakistan on a higher moral ground than India."There has been no change in our foreign policy. We want an independent Kashmir. We want the Kashmir issue to be resolved in accordance with the wishes of the people," Basit told newsmen in Islamabad.
'Independent Kashmir' will ensure peace in South Asia: Pak - Express India
What about it? Is Pakistan a signatory to the treaty?How about the NPT?
Its time to assess the situation realistically. India will not allow any interference in Kashmir and its not like anyone's in a hurry to pressure us in the first place.
Nonsense, as I pointed out through Nehru's comments earlier, India had already embarked on the road of 'not furthering negotiations' and trying to have the LoC turned into the IB before Operation Gibraltar.Ok.
Kashmir, UN Security Council Resolution 80
"3. Requests the two Governments to take all necessary precautions to ensure that (heir agreements
regarding the cease-fire shall continue to be faithfully observed, and "calls upon them to take all
possible measures to ensure the creation and maintenance of 'an atmosphere favourable to the
promotion of further negotiations;"
The insurgency has created an atmosphere that is unfavorable to the furthering of negotiations for the foreseeable future.
We can go in circles forever.
It is wiser to address the strategic concerns of both parties rather than whip a dead horse. The resolutions are defunct. A new approach is needed.
See Foreign Office comments above.What if the Kashmiris decide they want their own state? What does Pakistan stand for then?
Workable solutions besides a single plebiscite in the entire state have been proposed, I still see no sign from the Indians of moving away from the status quo.Like I said, instead of wasting time trying to up one each other, we should focus our efforts on looking for real, workable solutions. We will never see an end to the dispute until and unless everyone's concerns are addressed.
Once again, focus on the issue. At this point it doesn't really matter as to who has the moral high ground or who did what, a situation exists and a feasible solution (i.e one that coherently addresses the concerns of all parties) must be found.
See foreign office comments above, and Pakistan's position of allowing the Kashmiris to exercise self-determination to chosee which nation they wish to be a part of is a far better and 'moral' position than the Indian position of militarily occupying and subjugating the Kashmiris, raping their women and torturing and massacring its residents for speaking out for their rights.Once again with the moral high ground. Let's make something clear here, Pakistan does not support Kashmiri freedom, it backs a resolution that forces them to accede to either India or Pakistan.
The resolutions are relevant since they support a moral and representative solution to the resolution of the J&K dispute - allowing the people to exercise their right of self-determination to choose which nation they wish to be a part of.What good is your so called 'moral high ground' if the majority of Kashmiris aren't interested in joining either nation? how is this decades old resolution relevant to our time?
Musharraf had power by virtue of being the COAS - any COAS would enjoy similar authority, though obviously not as much as Musharraf given he was also Chief Executive of the country. But my point is that the Indian pretext of not negotiation because they do not know who to negotiate with is flawed since the GoP will coordinate with the PA on sensitive issues like Kashmir, so any negotiations with the GoP will likely also be approved by the PA.Musharraf was a military dictator, he had the power and the means to push through a resolution which is why the PA backed him in the first place. With him gone and Zardari's popularity in the gutter it is unlikely that the GoP will be able to do the same.
False.
"Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon said He called for adopting creative approaches to settle issues with China and Pakistan".
On the contrary, Pakistan is the one looking to resolve the dispute, evidenced by the 'out of the box' proposals forwarded by Musharraf and the back channel dialog on them that almost led to a breakthrough.India wants to put an end to the dispute, you just have to come around to the idea. Lets see how things turn out in the next 4 years or so.
I'm no one to threaten anyone with anything. All I'm saying is that Pakistan will gain nothing by nurturing these so called 'freedom fighters'. Violence isn't going to help anyone, not us, not you and certainly not the Kashmiris.
So Agno, a couple of thoughts here..I have already indicated how UN resolutions did not in fact call for a unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan, and instead called for negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN commission to determine the details of the withdrawal, so the Pakistani refusal to withdraw cannot be considered a violation of the resolutions since conditions on withdrawal acceptable to both sides were never arrived at.
The other point on which Pakistan is criticized is the attempt to spark a rebellion in Kashmir in 1965. As I pointed out in my response to Toxic, Nehru's comments and actions clearly indicate that it was India that had already determined that it would not seek to grant the Kashmiris the right to self determination, and would prefer the status quo of the LoC as a border. Pakistan's resort to covert means to instigate a rebellion was a response to the Indian violation of her commitment to the UNSC resolutions and the right to plebiscite for the Kashmiris.
The negotiations were primarily stalled on troop levels and the withdrawal conditions. The UN, through its commission, endorsed the proposal of 3000 troops on the Pakistani side and 18000 on the Indian side. Pakistan agreed, India did not.So Agno, a couple of thoughts here..
1. If the negotiations that needed to be completed before the plebiscite never got completed, then how can the said plebiscite be done?
Pakistan did not have to 'deduce' anything - the comments you yourself posted of Menon and others (in the other thread), along with Nehru's comments above, quite clearly indicate that India had determined it would not hold a plebiscite. Pakistan's attempt to try and instigate a rebellion was in the face of existing Indian refusal to implement the resolutions, and an attempt to force India to do so.2. In 1965, if Pakistan deduced that India is not going to hold the plebiscite and tried to achieve that through alternate means and failed, then today Pakistan has no moral (and definitely not legal) ground to ask India to fulfil the so called committment. That died along with the attempt to incite the rebellion..
At the end of the day, as per you, we did something bad, you tried to avenge it by force and failed. Now you can not go back to square zero and start all over again with the plebiscite theory.
It's a simple enough question. I just want to know why invade an independent country and then ask for its independence?
Even then, at the end of the day, the negotiations never got completed and who stonewalled will be another he said, she said.. I am sure if someone googles it, he will find a contradicting indian stance on why negotiations failed because of pakistan...The negotiations were primarily stalled on troop levels and the withdrawal conditions. The UN, through its commission, endorsed the proposal of 3000 troops on the Pakistani side and 18000 on the Indian side. Pakistan agreed, India did not.
The Indian excuse was that it wanted a full withdrawal of Pakistani forces - think about that without an Indian bias for a second. In a military conflict, why would any nation expect the other to unilaterally withdraw and leave open the possibility of the land being negotiated over to be occupied by the other side?
The core of the UN resolutions was that the dispute would be resolved through plebiscite, the demilitarization of the State was in order to allow the Kashmiris to vote in an atmosphere free of the threat of coercion and force from the military of either side. IMO India deliberately stonewalled these negotiations because she had no intent of conducting a plebiscite.
.
Pakistan did not have to 'deduce' anything - the comments you yourself posted of Menon and others (in the other thread), along with Nehru's comments above, quite clearly indicate that India had determined it would not hold a plebiscite. Pakistan's attempt to try and instigate a rebellion was in the face of existing Indian refusal to implement the resolutions, and an attempt to force India to do so.
So Pakistan does have moral ground to call for the implementation of the resolutions despite operation Gibraltar, it was the Indians that decided not to implement the resolutions years before Op. Gibraltar took place.
The usual rubbish.Nonsense, as has been pointed out to you before.
UNSC resolution :http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc13aug48.htm
As the language of the resolution clearly indicates, the withdrawal of regular and irregular forces was contingent upon negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN appointed commission, and rightly so, since the militarization of the conflict meant that one side could attempt to seize control in case of a unilateral, unconditional withdrawal by the other.
I stand corrected. Northern Areas actually have no status. Neither is it part of Pakistan not is it part of ‘Azad Kashmir’. Limbo is however a correct observation.Second, Pakistan has not incorporated Gligit-Baltistan into its constitution as Pakistani territory - that it did not do so in fact was the subject of a lot of criticizm from the people of the region. Pakista has therefore not tried to unilaterally change the status of the territory as India did by incorporating j&K into its constitution as an Indian State.
A lame and equally pathetic excuse.Third, yes, Pakistan did indeed try and spark a rebellion in J&K, but only because it had become increasingly clear that India had little interest in allowing the Kashmiris to determine their future through a plebiscite. So while the attempt to spark an insurgency can be termed a violation of the ceasefire agreement, it is far less serious than the Indian violation of the right to self-determination for the Kashmiris, which is the bed-rock principle of the UNSC resolutions.
[...]
And Nehru had indicated long before 1965 that India would violate its commitment to a plebiscite:
When a party to an agreement – which the Cease Fire Agreement was – willfully violates the terms and conditions of the said agreement, it no longer remains binding on the other party. The agreement becomes invalid. The Cease Fire agreement became invalid that way. Since all other subsequent resolutions were directly dependent on or connected to this Cease Fire agreement, those became defunct. Simple.The resolutions do not become 'defunct' with a ceasefire violation, they become defunct only when replaced with a new set of resolutions or a resolution of the dispute between the parties concerned.