Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[graphican]

Thats Cherry Picking. What about Joining Indian Army? Police serves at a different level while Army defends or represents Federation. What about Kashmiri joining Indian Army? Total %age of Muslims in Indian army is just 3%. How many of that already under %age Muslims are from Kashmir?

 

[javaman]

Again a .

----------------------------------------------------

 

[jbond197]

You can believe in crap. You are an Indian after all.

As I said before, its India's internal matter; so don't worry. They are our people and we are giving them what they want the most i.e. "EMPLOYMENT" so that they don't get influenced by evil forces.
What can i say about you? For you anything not coming from Pakistani source like rupeenews is Crap. We can't help your conspiracy addicted minds.

 

[javaman]

Thats Cherry Picking. What about Joining Indian Army? Police serves at a different level while Army defends or represents Federation. What about Kashmiri joining Indian Army? Total %age of Muslims in Indian army is just 3%. How many of that already under %age Muslims are from Kashmir?

http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...army-selection-defying-threat-terrorists.html


India’s Kashmiri general inspires youth from state

 

[jbond197]

Thats Cherry Picking. What about Joining Indian Army?

Since you asked for it..

DAWN.COM | World | Kashmir youth risk lives to join military

Source is Pakistani so that somebody doesn't come again calling it a "Crap"

 

[Dr.Evil]

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'.

Who is stopping you from giving Independence to the kashmir area occupied by pakistan and make it an independent country.

Also pakistan has given away a part of the illegally occupied territory to another country as if its their " bap ki jhageer ".

If pakistan had really been truly to the word they would have done that long back and then talk about the Indian Kasmir.

 

[Dr.Evil]

These kashmiri people will teach a lesson to the paid terrorists and their henchmen.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Still a policy, not a rule. Or are you now saying that policy and rule are same. The accession of Princely states happened in accordance to Sec 6(1) of India Act, 1935, which reads:

A State shall be deemed to have acceded to the Federation if His Majesty has signified his acceptance of an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof....​

But did the 1935 Act even apply, since British paramountcy no longer applied - theoretically then there were no 'rules' governing the accession of the State of Kashmir. 'His majesty' was not accepting the instrument of accession in the case of J&K, the Governor General of India was.

But if we are to leave that gray area and go with 'policy', then quite clearly 'policy and promises' of plebiscite, as clearly indicated by the Governor General of India's comments (and also those of the Prime Minister of India, Nehru) were violated by India.

True, according to law Junagadh belonged to Pakistan once the IoA was accepted by Pakistan. But, Pakistan was incapable of intervening and ensure security within and of the state. That is why India was asked to intervene. So responding to a crisis situation, on request, no less, was not against International Law. Far from being an 'invasion'.

That is a unilateral determination on the part of India, similar to its intervention decades later in East Pakistan - stoking rebellion and destabilizing a territory and then using the weakest of pretexts and no real engagement with the nation exercising sovereignty over the territory to wage war, invade and occupy said territories.

Did India gain sanction from the UN or any other international body to legitimize its military actions against the sovereign State of Pakistan under the pretext of 'crises'? No it did not, therefore Indian actions in Junagadh have no legitimacy and no legality and the State was illegally invaded and occupied.

The IoA, the signed one, is in public domain. Why do you expect others to drip feed you? Anyway there it is:

An image of the IoA is in the public domain - I was referring to the original document itself being vetted for authenticity.

Secondly, Jinnah was staunchly against any plebiscite in any State. To him the opinion of the ruler was final. To Nehru, however, plebiscite was important, in case of conflict.

Yet the State of Pakistan accepted the UNSC resolutions calling for plebiscite in the case of J&K, as did the State of India, which as you and I have both pointed out, looked to 'plebiscite' in determining final status and accession as a matter of policy, and yet it was the Indian State that chose to unilaterally violate its commitments internationally and on a bilateral level with the people of Kashmir.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If atrocities are being comitted in Kashmir we accept it all ,but yes no matter what however tyrannical yu think our rule is ,it is here to stay ,to that I agree as some of the bad habits which we learned from our new friend Israel I suppose

That is precisely the moral bankruptcy I was referring to earlier - the Nazis had a similar lack of qualms about their methods in preserving and extending the 'glory of their nation' - Indians such as you are in pretty depraved company in terms of mindset then.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India rejected UNSC resolution after 1965. Nothing stopped Pakistan from fulfilling its own responsibility before that.

India's position, of rejecting plebiscite, came about much earlier than 1965:

V.K. Menon UN Security Council (763 Meeting, 23 January, 1957):
With Pakistan's intransigence, and passage of time, the offer lapsed and was overtaken by events

"I wish to make it clear on behalf of my Government that under no circumstances can we agree to the holding of a plebiscite in Kashmir"​

Representative of India (M.C. Chagla) UN Security Council (1088 meeting, 5 February 1964):

"Any plebiscite today would by definition amount to questioning the integrity of India. It would raise the issue of secession - an issue on which even the United States fought a civil war not so very long ago. We cannot and will not tolerate a second partition of India on religious grounds"​

​

Nehru:

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."

On Pakistan fulfilling its responsibilities, we have been over that several times already - negotiations between the UN India and Pakistan never reached a point where any side could start implementing its part of the bargain, so Pakistan was under no obligation to implement anything then, and especially not now given India's blatant rejection of the UNSC resolutions.

When India re-commits to the UNSC resolutions, we can re-start the process that ended without agreement, and hopefully arrive at a point where the resolutions can begin to be implemented by both sides. Till then the responsibility for non-implementation lies with India, since she unilaterally rejected the resolutions.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

How does it matter if you repent 40 yrs after the deed, is done..
however it would have been different if Pakistanis had risen against genocide in East Pak in 71 itself...then you would have had the moral justification criticize Indian deeds.

There is no credible evidence of a genocide having taken place in East Pakistan at the hands of the PA. Yes, atrocities were committed by both sides, civilians were massacred by both sides, but much of this was also not in the Pakistani media (what little of it there was) given the GoP's blackout on coverage at the time. In addition, events moved extremely fast, and the situation boiled over and ended with the Indian invasion and occupation of EP in less than a year.

On the other hand, Indians have had years to reflect upon the actions of the Indian State in occupying J&K, and years to contemplate the reports of Amnesty International HRW etc. on the atrocities committed in J&K, yet there are Indians on this thread who are perfectly at east justifying State tyranny, oppression and occupation in the name of 'nationalism', much, as I pointed out earlier, like the Nazis.

There is no excuse for Indians to hide behind when they blatantly defend the actions of the Indian State in IoK.

Well there were no forces, no human right violations, tyranny in Kashmir before 1989..before Pakistan started supporting armed militants to fuel secessionist movement in Kashmir..because of which India had to deploy security forces .

So indeed Pakistan is not part of the solution, but part of the problem.

Had India not reneged on its commitment and promise to the international community and Kashmiris to hold a plebiscite in J&K we would not have had need to resort to overt and covert means of resolving the dispute - the problem here is India and her refusal to allow the Kashmiris to exercise their right to self-determination, not Pakistan which stands in support of that right.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172 tacitly accepts India's stand regarding all outstanding issues between India and Pakistan and urges the need to resolve the dispute through mutual dialogue and does not call for a plebiscite.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 cannot be implemented since Pakistan failed to withdraw its forces from Kashmir which was the first step in implementing the resolution.[50] Now the resolution is obsolete since the geography and demographics of the region have been permanently altered.[51] The resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter.[18] Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII

The Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had unanimously ratified the Maharaja's Instrument of Accession to India and had adopted a constitution for the state that called for a perpetual merger of the state with the Union of India. India claims that this body was a representative one, and that its views were those of the Kashmiri people at the time.


All differences between India and Pakistan including Kashmir need to be settled through bilateral negotiations as agreed to by the two countries when they signed the Simla Agreement on 2 July 1972

Kashmir conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please read through Toxic and my discussion on the responsibilities of Pakistan in 'fulfilling conditions' here: http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/50672-1947-48-kashmir-war.html

And a similar discussion towards the end of the thread here:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/7904-kashmir-resolutions-explanations-10.html

 

[schneider]

Please read through Toxic and my discussion on the responsibilities of Pakistan in 'fulfilling conditions' here: http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/50672-1947-48-kashmir-war.html

And a similar discussion towards the end of the thread here:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/7904-kashmir-resolutions-explanations-10.html

I have read it

But i am not talking about what Jinnah did, what Nehru did, I am talking about UNSC.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172 tacitly accepts India's stand regarding all outstanding issues between India and Pakistan and urges the need to resolve the dispute through mutual dialogue and does not call for a plebiscite.
It clearly says No to any Plebiscite

why no to any Plebiscite is explained
here:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 cannot be implemented since Pakistan failed to withdraw its forces from Kashmir which was the first step in implementing the resolution.[50] Now the resolution is obsolete since the geography and demographics of the region have been permanently altered.[51] The resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter.[18] Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII



This means UNSC does not demands any Plebiscite its only Pakistan which demands Plebiscite.

 

[amit27]

USA has said kashmir is internal matter for India and Pakistan and UN these days is nothing more then a expensive lunch meeting.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I have read it

But i am not talking about what Jinnah did, what Nehru did, I am talking about UNSC.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172 tacitly accepts India's stand regarding all outstanding issues between India and Pakistan and urges the need to resolve the dispute through mutual dialogue and does not call for a plebiscite.
It clearly says No to any Plebiscite

Where does UNSC resolution 1172 'clearly say no to Plebiscite', or for that matter set aside/overrule the past resolutions on the Kashmir dispute?

why no to any Plebiscite is explained
here:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 cannot be implemented since Pakistan failed to withdraw its forces from Kashmir which was the first step in implementing the resolution.[50] Now the resolution is obsolete since the geography and demographics of the region have been permanently altered.[51] The resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter.[18] Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII

I recommended you read through those threads precisely to address these arguments.

This means UNSC does not demands any Plebiscite its only Pakistan which demands Plebiscite.

No such thing in UNSC resolution 1172.