Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

^^^So that means if tomorrow if India carries out surgical strikes in Pak administrated Kashmir and then captures it in response to Pak reataliation...India will be fully within rights to do since it is a disputed territory and no plebiscite has been carried out there??

 

[toxic_pus]

And no, as argued by me on those threads, without a convincing counterargument by you (IMO, you may disagree) there was no condition upon Pakistan to withdraw unilaterally unless satisfied with the outcomes of negotiations.

Will leave it here, with a rejoinder, that Pakistan's withdrawal was not conditioned upon its satisfaction with the outcomes of negotiation.

'Pakistan troops are to begin to withdraw in advance of the Indian troops and their withdrawal is not conditioned on Pakistan's agreement to the plan of the Indian withdrawal.' (para 242)

'That Resolution does not suggest that Pakistan should be entitled to make her withdrawals conditional upon the consultations envisaged between the Commission and the Government of India...' (para 243)

[UNCIP's 3rd report, prepared by Mr Robert van de Karchove]​

The 'assurance', that para 243 talks of is an assurance that UN, not India, was to give to Pakistan and was to be incorporated in the mechanism of withdrawal, which had to be to the satisfaction of UN, not Pakistan. That is the reason why India agreed to removal of troops in stages, so as to 'to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities'

 

[toxic_pus]

What fairy tale of the UN resolutions are they telling you guys in Kashmir that Pak has to evacuate.

BOTH countries have to minimize their presence in Kashmir.


http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc23dec52.htm

What selective memory the Indians have... We are keeping less people, taking a big risk with India's 3 times larger force even with this minimization.

Do you have a clue how 'armed force' was defined in Frank Graham's 4th report, to which the resolution makes reference?

You are doing no one any favour holding 'less people' in Kashmir. You are supposed to be not there at all.

 

[Awesome]

^^^So that means if tomorrow if India carries out surgical strikes in Pak administrated Kashmir and then captures it in response to Pak reataliation...India will be fully within rights to do since it is a disputed territory and no plebiscite has been carried out there??

First of all its only India that doesn't agree to a plebiscite, making every single thing that India does, breathes, lives, dies, farts, all illegal - it makes India the bad guy. We start with this assumption in all things about Kashmir.

India has no basis of keeping Kashmir other than through force.

But with that said, Pakistan has never shied away from a fight and all your "decisive action" threats (vajpayee) and "surgical strike" threats (MMS), all have been met eyeball to eyeball and you're welcome to try any misadventure.

 

[toxic_pus]

More hypocrisy and double standards, ignoring India's own military invasion of the 'sovereign States' of Junagadh and Hyderabad.

Except that infiltration into the sovereign state of Kashmir happened long before India's entry into Junagadh. And why did India enter Junagadh? Because the ruler of the state had abandoned the state leaving it leaderless, into the throes of chaos. Hyderabad happened in 1948.

The 1965 infiltration of J&K cannot be considered an infiltration of the 'sovereign State of India' since the State is disputed territory and India never fulfilled the condition of plebiscite that accompanied the accession.

No resolution was ever passed declaring it a disputed territory. Instrument of Accession explicitly gave India the right to look after the security of the State.

India couldn't fulfill the condition for plebiscite because of Pakistan's perfidy.

 

[Awesome]

Do you have a clue how 'armed force' was defined in Frank Graham's 4th report, to which the resolution makes reference?

You are doing no one any favour holding 'less people' in Kashmir. You are supposed to be not there at all.

We're taking a risk since we're trying to secure the freedom of the Kashmiris. It is YOU who has been rejected and will be rejected in a UN administered plebiscite thats why you're too afraid to go ahead with it.

Armed forces is ALL armed forces and that interpretation should be left up to the UN, not to you and me. Haha now India is going to reinvent English words to justify not manning up and seeing what Kashmiri people want in a UN administered plebiscite.

 

[toxic_pus]

It is selective quotations - in the thread I mentioned his own quotes made clear that Pakistan was under no compulsion to withdraw unilaterally, and in fact his argument ended up being reduced to one in which he was blaming Pakistan for 'intransigence' in the negotiations that led to the failure to demilitarize and therefore the failure to implement the UNSC resolutions.

The argument that Pakistan 'violated the UNSC resolutions' by not withdrawing is nothing but an Indian canard to find some justification for their own refusal to implement the UNSC resolutions.

That post was to counter your canard that demilitarization was tripartite affair, making Pakistan a negotiating member. Mr Robert van de Karchove's report makes it clear that it was bipartite negotiation between UN and India.

De-contextualization appears to be second nature.

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

First of all its only India that doesn't agree to a plebiscite, making every single thing that India does, breathes, lives, dies, farts, all illegal - it makes India the bad guy. We start with this assumption in all things about Kashmir.

India has no basis of keeping Kashmir other than through force.

But with that said, Pakistan has never shied away from a fight and all your "decisive action" threats (vajpayee) and "surgical strike" threats (MMS), all have been met eyeball to eyeball and you're welcome to try any misadventure.

"India not agreeing plebiscite" is not the topic we are debating.

Clearly in Pakistan there is a consensus that because India had not carried out plebiscite, it had a just cause in attacking Kashmir..but then Pakistan must also accept its converse, that India has a just cause to take Kashmir by force, since it is a disputed territory.

 

[toxic_pus]

A political leader's rambling, perhaps for pushing a particular political agenda, cannot be taken as the the motivation or justification for the position of the State on disputes that existed long before his time in power and continue to exist after his demise.

And yet its these political leaders that give direction to a state.

If you so desire I can quote Sir Zafarulla Khan's response to UN representative about how Pakistan viewed Kashmir. (That would require some digging though)

Nothing illustrates that fact better than Jinnah's vision of Pakistan as a Muslim majority State with, in essence, secular laws, and the direction that Pakistan actually took. That point is further illustrated by the ideological direction Zia took Pakistan in, and the recent removal of the title 'President' from his name in Pakistani history.

Kashmir will fall into our lap like a ripe fruit - Jinnah, August 1947 [Pakistan - Eye of The Storm by Owen Bennett Jones]

That's how Jinnah took Kashmir for granted. If you must know he was dead against plebiscite in Kashmir, since the formula for accession of Princely States was pronounced. He didn't give two hoots to the opinion of people of Kashmir and openly claimed that Maharaja's decision would be final. On 1st Nov, 1947 he blatantly refused Mountbatten's proposal to go for plebiscite in Kashmir, Junagadh and Hyderabad.

How he wanted to build Pakistan is in complete contrast to how he wanted to acquire Kashmir.

The only thing selective quotations of statements by political leaders do is to offer more skewed justification for a distorted agenda of hate-mongering and vilification of Pakistan by people like yourselves and Vsdoc - much like the canard about 'vengeance for East Pakistan'.

Yes of course. Ignorance is bliss and anybody pulling those blinkers away is a hatemonger. What else can you do other than shooting the messenger.

No messenger no message.

 

[toxic_pus]

First of all its only India that doesn't agree to a plebiscite, making every single thing that India does, breathes, lives, dies, farts, all illegal - it makes India the bad guy. We start with this assumption in all things about Kashmir.

India has no basis of keeping Kashmir other than through force.

Keep repeating that for another 10,000 times and it still won't be true. Only 9,999 times more to go.

Given that UN resolution requires Pakistan to withdraw from occupied Kashmir, where even the local administration was to be run by 'local authority' under direct supervision of UN, it is aptly clear who UN viewed as illegal occupier of Kashmir.

What you assume about Kashmir is irrelevant.

But with that said, Pakistan has never shied away from a fight and all your "decisive action" threats (vajpayee) and "surgical strike" threats (MMS), all have been met eyeball to eyeball and you're welcome to try any misadventure.

India never tried any 'misadventure' in Kashmir. India never will.

 

[Awesome]

Keep repeating that for another 10,000 times and it still won't be true. Only 9,999 times more to go.

Given that UN resolution requires Pakistan to withdraw from occupied Kashmir, where even the local administration was to be run by 'local authority' under direct supervision of UN, it is aptly clear who UN viewed as illegal occupier of Kashmir.

What you assume about Kashmir is irrelevant.

India never tried any 'misadventure' in Kashmir. India never will.

It requires EVERYBODY to withdraw, I've just posted the UN resolution

Read all the resolutions, not just one of them

 

[Awesome]

"India not agreeing plebiscite" is not the topic we are debating.

Clearly in Pakistan there is a consensus that because India had not carried out plebiscite, it had a just cause in attacking Kashmir..but then Pakistan must also accept its converse, that India has a just cause to take Kashmir by force, since it is a disputed territory.

Who says India is not attacking us anyway? India is attacking in all parts of Pakistan whereas Pakistan focuses on Kashmir. TTP is testament of India terrorism against Pakistan

Nothing about India is just when it comes to Kashmir since it has backed off India's plebiscite. Everything done against India in Kashmir is just.

 

[toxic_pus]

We're taking a risk since we're trying to secure the freedom of the Kashmiris. It is YOU who has been rejected and will be rejected in a UN administered plebiscite thats why you're too afraid to go ahead with it.

You are not trying to secure 'freedom of the Kashmiris'. You are just trying fulfill your territorial ambitions. The world no longer buys that horse$hit.

And it was Pakistan which did everything to muddy the waters during the time, claiming 'parity' and redefining 'local authority'.contrary to how it was envisaged by the UN. The pre-conditions were not fulfilled and so there was no plebiscite. After your naked violation of Cease Fire agreement in 1965, India was no longer bound by any UN resolution.

Armed forces is ALL armed forces and that interpretation should be left up to the UN, not to you and me. Haha now India is going to reinvent English words to justify not manning up and seeing what Kashmiri people want in a UN administered plebiscite.

Just as I thought. You are clue less about how 'armed forces' was defined by Frank Graham. If you knew you would have deciphered the reason why India didn't agree to his proposal.

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

Who says India is not attacking us anyway? India is attacking in all parts of Pakistan whereas Pakistan focuses on Kashmir. TTP is testament of India terrorism against Pakistan

TTP

I would have still, understood if you had mentioned BLA but TTP ..the same organisation which was ready to abandon its fight against the Pak govt and ready to join fight against India.

It is same as India blaming Pakistan for Maoist insurgency.

 

[toxic_pus]

It requires EVERYBODY to withdraw, I've just posted the UN resolution.

Not really.

But then again, if you had read not only the resolutions, but also the debates at UNSC, background reports, communiques etc. you wouldn't be saying this.