toxic_pus
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,852
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
First, Pakistan was sanctioned 6,000 troops, without armour. Second, Pakistan agreed because it had a huge number of armed and trained non-regular force, which included PA regulars as well. India would have been left grossly outnumbered, even on a proportionate basis.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.
India's demand was not out of line and was very much within the ambit of the Cease Fire agreement, which required Pakistan to withdraw its military (as well as citizens and tribesmen) completely from the occupied land. India demanded that after the demilitarization, 21,000 of her troops should be left in area, with armour, while Azad Kashmir would be left with a civil force of 4,000 troops of which 2,000 should be unarmed.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?
Pakistan on the other hand demanded that 4,000 troops shall remain on either side, but agreed a 'slight disparity in favour of India'.
As regards, why should another country unilaterally withdraw, well, because UN required that, and Pakistan had agreed in principle. The evacuated area was to be administered by a local authority under the auspices of the Commission.
A.3 of Part II of Truce Agreement:
Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.
Edited to Add:
The 'core' of the UN resolutions changed with passage of time. The 'core' of the Cease Fire agreement was to immediately cease hostilities. This is recorded in the explanatory notes to the resolution. That is why Part III of the Agreement merely mentions of plebiscite and doesn't expand on it. Later it shifted to holding of plebiscite. But Sir Dixon suggested that it was meaningless to discuss plebiscite before the pre-conditions to plebiscite were not dealt with, viz. withdrawals and de-militarization. Dr Frank Graham was appointed for this purpose, who submitted 5 reports on the issue of demilitarization. UN could never proceed beyond that. Plebiscite was never at the 'core' of any discussion.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 was equally responsible for 'stonewalling' the talks. Dr Graham in his 5th report notes:
'It appears obvious that India under the two resolutions has some larger responsibilities on her side of the cease-fire line than the local authorities have in the evacuated territory on the other side of the cease-fire line.' (Para 19)
Pakistan successfully scuttled that negotiation by quoting an incredibly low figure of 4,000 armed men on either side with 'slight disparity in favour of India', knowing well that India would disagree. When Pakistan finally agreed to the figure of 21,000 troops on Indian side and 6,000 troops on Pakistan's side, they had already raised and reinforced the Azad Kashmir force, which had become a mammoth size of '80,000' men.
Last edited: