Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[schneider]

India accepted the condition of plebiscite as part of the Instrument of accession as well as under the UNSC resolutions, so to argue that 'J&K is not disputed' flies in the face of what India and the UN has already agreed to.

and what are those conditions kindly light up.

The UNSC resolutions AND the condition of plebiscite under the Instrument of Accession, both accepted by India and Pakistan - that basis. As for resettlement, no one has argued against resettlement or not tracking and taking into account the votes of the Pandits, or for that matter the million or so Kashmiris from AK settled in Europe, especially the UK.

As for 'stop violating the ceasefire', that occurs just as much from your side, so Indians certainly have no room to be pointing fingers on that count, and as for any other progress, as soon as India indicates that it will stop reneging on its pledge to allow the Kashmiris to exercise self-determination and move towards ending its occupation.

No plebiscite unless until terrorism is stopped and invader leaves the land!!!

above is the answer of my question to you.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is no such condition in the Instrument of Accession.

Under the rules governing accessions there is, hence the Indian decision to hold a referendum in Junagadh after its forces invaded and occupied it despite the accession of the Nawad to Pakistan. Mountabtten's comments in accepting the Instrument of Accession further confirm that.

...provided certain conditions are fulfilled.

Can't fulfill conditions when India blatantly rejects and refuses to implement the UNSC resolutions, despite committing to them when they were passed.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

and what are those conditions kindly light up.

The condition of plebiscite, as pointed out in my post you responded to ...

No plebiscite unless until terrorism is stopped and invader leaves the land!!!

above is the answer of my question to you.

BS and the usual Indian verbal gimmickry and dissemblance - there was no 'terrorism' when Nehru and India chose to unilaterally move away from implementing the UNSC resolutions in the fifties and annex IoK.

 

[civfanatic]

now that's gay..

[[/IMG]

No this is gay

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Their is no such thing as Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Nobody knows anything about it. It doesn't exist on this earth. Does it exist on mars?

Exactly - we can't be 'occupying' it when we are committed to the resolution of the dispute in accordance with the wishes of the people of the territory of J&K, through plebiscite, as outlined in the UNSC resolutions.

The nation that blatantly refuses to allow plebiscite and rejects the UNSC resolutions and right of plebiscite that it committed to is the one doing the 'occupation'.

 

[schneider]

Under the rules governing accessions there is, hence the Indian decision to hold a referendum in Junagadh after its forces invaded and occupied it despite the accession of the Nawad to Pakistan. Mountabtten's comments in accepting the Instrument of Accession further confirm that.

Why did your Forces Invade kashmir???? what were your Intentions??? When there was already a stand still???

Can't fulfill conditions when India blatantly rejects and refuses to implement the UNSC resolutions, despite committing to them when they were passed.

Invader has setelled in kashmir after 1948, we will not accept any conditions or any plebiscite.

Plus recently Kashmir had elections and majority of people gave their votes. Had it been against the Government of India, no one would have even came out of the house!

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

The condition of plebiscite, as pointed out in my post you responded to ...


BS and the usual Indian verbal gimmickry and dissemblance - there was no 'terrorism' when Nehru and India chose to unilaterally move away from implementing the UNSC resolutions in the fifties and annex IoK.

Yes but Pakistan did invade Kashmir in 47 and then again in 65..so now you can't ask India for a plebiscite.

 

[schneider]

Exactly - we can't be 'occupying' it when we are committed to the resolution of the dispute in accordance with the wishes of the people of the territory of J&K, through plebiscite, as outlined in the UNSC resolutions.

The nation that blatantly refuses to allow plebiscite and rejects the UNSC resolutions and right of plebiscite that it committed to is the one doing the 'occupation'.

Then why you call it a disputed territory. Because as per the geographical and historical boundary Kashmir extends till your Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, the Northern areas!!!!

 

[schneider]

Yes but Pakistan did invade Kashmir in 47 and then again in 65..so you can't ask India for plebiscite.

That's the Point!!!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes but Pakistan did invade Kashmir in 47 and then again in 65..so you can't ask India for plebiscite.

The plebiscite outlined in the UNSC resolutions as a means to resolve the Kashmir dispute was agreed to after the 1948 war, and India had already reneged on its commitment to hold a plebiscite (and moved to annex the occupied territories officially) before the 1965 war, so you cannot blame the Indian decision to renege on its commitment to the international community, to Pakistan, and above all to the Kashmiris (to allow a plebiscite to determine final status) on either one of the two issues you mentioned above.

---------- Post added at 03:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ----------

Then why you call it a disputed territory. Because as per the geographical and historical boundary Kashmir extends till your Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, the Northern areas!!!!

Because it is an unsettled dispute ...

 

[toxic_pus]

Under the rules governing accessions there is...

No. There is none.

...hence the Indian decision to hold a referendum in Junagadh after its forces invaded and occupied it despite the accession of the Nawad to Pakistan.

India's decision to hold referendum in Junagadh had nothing to do with any rule. It was pursuant to India's own policy that people of the state should vet any accession decided by the Ruler, in case where there was an apparent conflict of interest.

And, India didn't invade Junagadh. Shahnawaz Bhutto, the dewan of Junagadh had formally requested India to take over the law and order situation in Junagadh, on 8th Nov, 1947 before he fled to Pakistan. IA marched into Junagadh accordingly, on 9th Nov, 1947.

Mountabtten's comments in accepting the Instrument of Accession further confirm that.

As I said, there is nothing in the body of the Instrument that says the it is being accepted on any condition that the finality would be decided by referendum. Mountbatten's reply was in accordance to India's policy that people of the state should get to decide on the finality of any accession in case of any conflict of interest.

Can't fulfill conditions when India blatantly rejects and refuses to implement the UNSC resolutions, despite committing to them when they were passed.

India's responsibility arises once Pakistan has fulfilled it's own.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Plus recently Kashmir had elections and majority of people gave their votes. Had it been against the Government of India, no one would have even came out of the house!

Lie to yourself all you want, but were you truly confident of Kashmiri loyalty to India, you would not still be refusing to hold a neutral plebiscite in Kashmir.

 

[schneider]

The plebiscite outlined in the UNSC resolutions as a means to resolve the Kashmir dispute was agreed to after the 1948 war, and India had already reneged on its commitment to hold a plebiscite (and moved to annex the occupied territories officially) before the 1965 war, so you cannot blame the Indian decision to renege on its commitment to the international community, to Pakistan, and above all to the Kashmiris (to allow a plebiscite to determine final status) on either one of the two issues you mentioned above.

That's why you invaded it in 1999 again!

Because it is an unsettled dispute ...

You are creating dispute not Indians!

 

[schneider]

Lie to yourself all you want, but were you truly confident of Kashmiri loyalty to India, you would not still be refusing to hold a neutral plebiscite in Kashmir.

why should we hold plebiscite??? Because Pakistan invaded it 3 times??
you are joking!!!

 

[owcc]

Lie to yourself all you want, but were you truly confident of Kashmiri loyalty to India, you would not still be refusing to hold a neutral plebiscite in Kashmir.

Whatever we say here ground reality wont change.There will never be a plebiscite in Kashmir,the kashmir under Indian control will remain with India unless someone with a bigger gun than India coms along to interfere in the issue.Rather than wasting resources discussing an issue both India and Pakistan must concentrate on its on internal matters.

Its easy to be EMOTIONAL but much harder to be PRAGMATIC