This is because you are making an erroneous statement that Res 47 is irrelevant after subsequent UN resolutions. When the case is exactly opposite……… Hence the most substantive part of UN resolutions is contained in RES 47 and not in subsequent resolutions, which were merely to allow mechanism for plebiscite and therefore needed to reflect political situation on ground.
I must admit, ignorance has its benefits. Now I am beginning to understand the exasperation that GoI representatives must be feeling everytime they talk to the head-in-the-air separatists. If Res 47 is indeed relevant, then all the negotiations at UN are void in the first place, because all those negotiations revolved around those two resolutions in general and resolution of 13th Aug, 1948 in particular. Sir Owen Dixon, Dr Frank Graham, Dr Joseph Korbel, to name a few, were all idiots.
Res 47 is redundant because;
(Part A of this resolution was replaced by Part I & II of res of 13th Aug, 1948):
- It doesn’t recognize the fact that PA was directly fighting in Kashmir and hence, there is no provision for cease fire. Res of 13th Aug, 1948 has a specific part (Part I) for cease fire.
- It doesn’t require PA to withdraw, but instead, requires India to reduce its troops to a minimum. Res of 13th Aug, 1948 requires complete withdrawal of PA.
- It requires that the Commission and Plebiscite Administrator shall decide where to place Indian troops. Res of 13th Aug, 1948 doesn’t require so, for obvious reasons.
- It is silent about provocative military build-up on Pakistan’s side of Kashmir, a key point because that permitted Pakistan to fortify its position in Kashmir at the peril of Indian position. Res of 13th Aug, 1948 requires both India and Pakistan to ‘refrain from taking any measures that might augment the military potential of the forces under their control’.
- It doesn’t require any military observer to be stationed in Kashmir. Res of 13th Aug, 1948 appointed military observers, called UNMOGIP, on both sides. They continue to be so appointed.
- It doesn’t require Pakistan to hand over administration of P0K to any ‘local authority’, a key point because it is considered as recognition that Pakistan has no role to play in the administration of P0K. Res of 13th Aug, 1948 requires Pakistan to do so, after its complete evacuation.
(Part B of this resolution was replaced by Part III of res of 13th Aug, 1947 and res of 5th Jan, 1949)
- Res of 13th Aug, 1948 and 5th Jan, 1949 require that plebiscite be held, only and only if and when the demilitarization is completed. Demilitarization required complete withdrawal of PA. There is no such provision in res 47.
- It requires that Plebiscite Administrator be appointed by Secretary-General of UN without giving India any opportunity to be heard. Res of 5th Jan, 1947 requires Secretary-General to make such appointment only on recommendation of the Commission. That gives India an opportunity to express its opinion on the matter of appointment of the Administrator.
- It gives Plebiscite Administrator extra-constitutional power (e.g. to direct the State of India where to place its Army in Kashmir) and hence places him above the State. Res of 5th Jan, 1947 binds him to the constitution by the specific words, ‘The Plebiscite Administrator shall derive from the State of Jammu and Kashmir the powers he considers necessary for organizing and conducting the plebiscite……’
- Etc. etc. etc.
Without referring to the many more nuanced differences, one can see that the basic import of Res 47 was severely altered, modified and in most cases reversed, rendering it superfluous. However, Part of the resolution (not contained in Part A and B of the resolution) that appointed UNCIP continues to hold.
Subsequent UN resolutions were in fact passed to devise methods to achieve the plebiscite as promised in RES 47.
Res 47 itself provided a very detailed mechanism for holding plebiscite. Since it was based on a wrong premise that PA was not involved, everything that followed became void ab initio. This was rectified in those two resolutions after taking into consideration of PA’s involvement.
All these subsequent resolutions are therefore rooted in political conditions on ground and that is why language changes from "SHOULD" to "MAY" because in absence of any military pressure from UN that is the only language that UN could have talked .
That is a laughable explanation. UN was well aware of its military ability when it passed Res 47. The reason why change occurred is because of the realization that India, alone can’t hold a plebiscite under the existing condition without active co-operation of Pakistan.
If this is how the separatists are going to argue, then GoI can sleep easy.
PAKISTAN ARMY TAKING ON INDIA 
