Modi spoke India’s mind over CPEC

[Areesh]

Please stop obfuscating the issue and clutching at straws. Here's what the Resolution says....

View attachment 327784

So brother, it's not only tribesmen who are still occupying parts of P0K but the Pak Army (Pakistani Nationals) too which had entered the state for the purpose of fighting and which was led by Brig Akbar Khan who invaded J&K in Operation Gulmarg in 1947. Or do you consider the PA not be Pak nationals? Are they from Mars?

Brother kindly take some time to refute the famous Indian lies about UN resolution.

@Azlan Haider

 

[Hellfire]

@Pulsar

Have posted 6 questions

https://defence.pk/threads/the-kashmir-dispute—the-faultlines-by-dr-m-k-teng.440732/page-3

Ask them to first answer them sequentially.

 

[Mirza Jatt]

Yes, you'll become the next major power by mortgaging your territory & letting someone else build a logistics corridor.

the best post... this reminds me of some idiot who claimed in a video that once CPEC is complete, the drains will flow with gold in Pakistan and here they are already claiming Pakistan to be next super power due to this CPEC. I honestly pray that this CPEC is over soon and then the reality come in front.

 

[SrNair]

Nice joke man. Aren't 42 day continuous curfew is enough to show you how much Kashmiris hate india.


I smell a butt hurt.

Of Course ,You are written off all of your nations industry to Chinese and so we have butthurt .Funny logic.

 

[Pulsar]

@Pulsar

Have posted 6 questions

https://defence.pk/threads/the-kashmir-dispute—the-faultlines-by-dr-m-k-teng.440732/page-3

Ask them to first answer them sequentially.

Excellent riposte to the jingoism and half baked knowledge of some of our esteemed Pakistani friends here! They have this inveterate habit of clutching at straws to defend the indefensible. They'll have no answers to your questions!

Another question that they've tried to obfuscate and never really got around answering is:

In spite of the Standstill Agreement signed by Pakistan and the Maharaja, what prompted the Pakistan Army aided by tribals who were mostly from the Abottabad region of Pakistan to invade Kashmir in 1947? This was Operation 'Gulmarg' under Brig Akbar Khan. No answer! But they keep up the monotonous charade that it was India that invaded Kashmir!

Goebbels' famously said that “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” And our Pakistani friends are doing just that!

 

[Hellfire]

Excellent riposte to the jingoism and half baked knowledge of some of our esteemed Pakistani friends here! They have this inveterate habit of clutching at straws to defend the indefensible. They'll have no answers to your questions!

Another question that they've tried to obfuscate and never really got around answering is:

In spite of the Standstill Agreement signed by Pakistan and the Maharaja, what prompted the Pakistan Army aided by tribals who were mostly from the Abottabad region of Pakistan to invade Kashmir in 1947? This was Operation 'Gulmarg' under Brig Akbar Khan. No answer! But they keep up the monotonous charade that it was India that invaded Kashmir!

Goebbels' famously said that “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” And our Pakistani friends are doing just that!

Just the beginning. Am not going further till I work it out with people I was engaging. Stuck at work, hence, nonsensical short posts till I get free time.

Next, you will notice that majority want Kashmiris to have freedom. Yet a few days back their PM said "Kashmir banega Pakistan" ask them to clarify that.

Cheers.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Brother kindly take some time to refute the famous Indian lies about UN resolution.

@Azlan Haider

@Pulsar

The 'terms' of the UNSC Resolutions in Kashmir require an agreement between India, Pakistan and UNSC appointed mediators on demilitarization. There is no requirement for a unilateral and unconditional withdrawal upon Pakistan.

As for the Indian claim that "Plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan refused to withdraw it's forces", this Indian claim, just like many other Indian claims, is not accepted by anyone outside India.


Sir Owen Dixon, the UN appointed official mediator, reported to the Security Council that,

"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Para 52 of Document S/1971)


The London Economist stated that "the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [the Kashmiri people]...has been obstructing a holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite. From this the world opinion can only conclude that India really has no confidence that the vote would go in its favour" The Economist (London), Feb 18, 1950



Sir Owen Dixon was the UN appointed official mediator, he blamed India for halting the process. But the Indians say that he was biased against India. This, however is not true.Sir Owen Dixon didn't view many of Pakistan's actions in Kashmir as legally justified. And it was not him only. As per UN Resolution of August 13, 1948, India agreed to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission. But that agreement was never reached and that was what halted the process. And therefore the commission didn't ask Pakistan to withdraw its forces. Pakistan agreed to the UN proposals on demilitarization. But India rejected them.


From 1949 to 1952 eleven proposals were made which India rejected. Pakistan was even prepared to pull out its troops in favor of the UN troops irrespective of the Indian reaction to such a proposal and told the UN that it made no conditions.

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


. Since 1949, it has become evident that India refuses to agree to demilitarization in any form or sequence so as to permit a free and impartial plebiscite.


. This refusal first presented itself as a matter of interpretation of the 13 August and 5 January resolutions.


. India argued that Parts II and III were contingent upon implementation of Part 1. Therefore, there was no question of implementing Parts II and III or the 5 January resolution which dealt with the plebiscite.

. Pakistan contended that Part I had been met, and that it was time to proceed with demilitarization under Part II, to prepare for implementation of the 5 January resolution.



. Disagreement arose over the method by which the withdrawal of Pakistani and Indian troops would be synchronized


. In an effort to break this deadlock, on August 26, 1949, the Commission proposed arbitration regarding the issues raised relating to Part II of the 13 August resolution.


. The arbitrator was to decide the questions according to equity and his decision was to be binding on the parties.


. Pakistan accepted the proposal, but India rejected it." On August 13, India also rejected a similar proposal for arbitration by President Truman and British Prime Minister Attlee.


. On December 17, 1949, the Security Council asked its President, General A.G.L. McNaughton of Canada, to meet with India and Pakistan to settle the outstanding issues."" McNaughton met informally with the parties to search for a mutually satisfactory basis for dealing with the questions at issue.

In general, Pakistan accepted McNaughton's proposals, but India did not.' A Security Council resolution based on these proposals, adopted on March 14, 1950, was similarly rejected by India.



. In reports to the Security Council in 1952, U.N. Representative Dr. Frank P. Graham noted that the principal points of difference between the parties continued to be the quality of forces each should maintain after demilitarization and the time when the plebiscite administrator should assume his duties


. From 1949 to 1952 eleven proposals (for demilitarization) were made which India rejected. Pakistan was even prepared to pull out its troops in favor of the UN troops irrespective of the Indian reaction to such a proposal and told the UN that it made no conditions.


And you still expect the UN to blame Pakistan and not India ?


Now read what Sir Owen Dixon had said. Do you get it now ?


. The Indian claim that Plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan refused to withdraw its forces, in the face of this clear and irrefutable evidence, is patently an attempt to deceive the world.



.The Latin maxim "Nullus oommodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" (No advantage may be gained from one’s own wrong) means in Kashmir context that India cannot frustrate attempts to create conditions ripe for a troop withdrawal and ceasefire in order to avoid carrying out its obligations to hold a plebiscite.

 

[Areesh]

@Pulsar

The 'terms' of the UNSC Resolutions in Kashmir require an agreement between India, Pakistan and UNSC appointed mediators on demilitarization. There is no requirement for a unilateral and unconditional withdrawal upon Pakistan.

As for the Indian claim that "Plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan refused to withdraw it's forces", this Indian claim, just like many other Indian claims, is not accepted by anyone outside India.


Sir Owen Dixon, the UN appointed official mediator, reported to the Security Council that,

"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Para 52 of Document S/1971)


The London Economist stated that "the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [the Kashmiri people]...has been obstructing a holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite. From this the world opinion can only conclude that India really has no confidence that the vote would go in its favour" The Economist (London), Feb 18, 1950



Sir Owen Dixon was the UN appointed official mediator, he blamed India for halting the process. But the Indians say that he was biased against India. This, however is not true.Sir Owen Dixon didn't view many of Pakistan's actions in Kashmir as legally justified. And it was not him only. As per UN Resolution of August 13, 1948, India agreed to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission. But that agreement was never reached and that was what halted the process. And therefore the commission didn't ask Pakistan to withdraw its forces. Pakistan agreed to the UN proposals on demilitarization. But India rejected them.


From 1949 to 1952 eleven proposals were made which India rejected. Pakistan was even prepared to pull out its troops in favor of the UN troops irrespective of the Indian reaction to such a proposal and told the UN that it made no conditions.

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


. Since 1949, it has become evident that India refuses to agree to demilitarization in any form or sequence so as to permit a free and impartial plebiscite.


. This refusal first presented itself as a matter of interpretation of the 13 August and 5 January resolutions.


. India argued that Parts II and III were contingent upon implementation of Part 1. Therefore, there was no question of implementing Parts II and III or the 5 January resolution which dealt with the plebiscite.

. Pakistan contended that Part I had been met, and that it was time to proceed with demilitarization under Part II, to prepare for implementation of the 5 January resolution.



. Disagreement arose over the method by which the withdrawal of Pakistani and Indian troops would be synchronized


. In an effort to break this deadlock, on August 26, 1949, the Commission proposed arbitration regarding the issues raised relating to Part II of the 13 August resolution.


. The arbitrator was to decide the questions according to equity and his decision was to be binding on the parties.


. Pakistan accepted the proposal, but India rejected it." On August 13, India also rejected a similar proposal for arbitration by President Truman and British Prime Minister Attlee.


. On December 17, 1949, the Security Council asked its President, General A.G.L. McNaughton of Canada, to meet with India and Pakistan to settle the outstanding issues."" McNaughton met informally with the parties to search for a mutually satisfactory basis for dealing with the questions at issue.

In general, Pakistan accepted McNaughton's proposals, but India did not.' A Security Council resolution based on these proposals, adopted on March 14, 1950, was similarly rejected by India.



. In reports to the Security Council in 1952, U.N. Representative Dr. Frank P. Graham noted that the principal points of difference between the parties continued to be the quality of forces each should maintain after demilitarization and the time when the plebiscite administrator should assume his duties


. From 1949 to 1952 eleven proposals (for demilitarization) were made which India rejected. Pakistan was even prepared to pull out its troops in favor of the UN troops irrespective of the Indian reaction to such a proposal and told the UN that it made no conditions.


And you still expect the UN to blame Pakistan and not India ?


Now read what Sir Owen Dixon had said. Do you get it now ?


. The Indian claim that Plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan refused to withdraw its forces, in the face of this clear and irrefutable evidence, is patently an attempt to deceive the world.



.The Latin maxim "Nullus oommodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" (No advantage may be gained from one’s own wrong) means in Kashmir context that India cannot frustrate attempts to create conditions ripe for a troop withdrawal and ceasefire in order to avoid carrying out its obligations to hold a plebiscite.

Excellent as always.

 

[Thomas M]

Indians are passive aggressive and to trust them would always be fatal..be it political or professional life...as their culture goes moo pe ram ram baghal ma churi...

And Pakistan belongs to saints.

No wonder every top valued UN designated terrorists either surface, get arrested or killed inside Pakistan (OBLand Mulla Masoor etc. to be named a few). But all still Members of UN can trust Pakistan, they are more than trustworthy. LOL

 

[Pulsar]

@Pulsar

The 'terms' of the UNSC Resolutions in Kashmir require an agreement between India, Pakistan and UNSC appointed mediators on demilitarization. There is no requirement for a unilateral and unconditional withdrawal upon Pakistan.

As for the Indian claim that "Plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan refused to withdraw it's forces", this Indian claim, just like many other Indian claims, is not accepted by anyone outside India.


Sir Owen Dixon, the UN appointed official mediator, reported to the Security Council that,

"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Para 52 of Document S/1971)


The London Economist stated that "the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [the Kashmiri people]...has been obstructing a holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite. From this the world opinion can only conclude that India really has no confidence that the vote would go in its favour" The Economist (London), Feb 18, 1950



Sir Owen Dixon was the UN appointed official mediator, he blamed India for halting the process. But the Indians say that he was biased against India. This, however is not true.Sir Owen Dixon didn't view many of Pakistan's actions in Kashmir as legally justified. And it was not him only. As per UN Resolution of August 13, 1948, India agreed to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission. But that agreement was never reached and that was what halted the process. And therefore the commission didn't ask Pakistan to withdraw its forces. Pakistan agreed to the UN proposals on demilitarization. But India rejected them.


From 1949 to 1952 eleven proposals were made which India rejected. Pakistan was even prepared to pull out its troops in favor of the UN troops irrespective of the Indian reaction to such a proposal and told the UN that it made no conditions.

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


. Since 1949, it has become evident that India refuses to agree to demilitarization in any form or sequence so as to permit a free and impartial plebiscite.


. This refusal first presented itself as a matter of interpretation of the 13 August and 5 January resolutions.


. India argued that Parts II and III were contingent upon implementation of Part 1. Therefore, there was no question of implementing Parts II and III or the 5 January resolution which dealt with the plebiscite.

. Pakistan contended that Part I had been met, and that it was time to proceed with demilitarization under Part II, to prepare for implementation of the 5 January resolution.



. Disagreement arose over the method by which the withdrawal of Pakistani and Indian troops would be synchronized


. In an effort to break this deadlock, on August 26, 1949, the Commission proposed arbitration regarding the issues raised relating to Part II of the 13 August resolution.


. The arbitrator was to decide the questions according to equity and his decision was to be binding on the parties.


. Pakistan accepted the proposal, but India rejected it." On August 13, India also rejected a similar proposal for arbitration by President Truman and British Prime Minister Attlee.


. On December 17, 1949, the Security Council asked its President, General A.G.L. McNaughton of Canada, to meet with India and Pakistan to settle the outstanding issues."" McNaughton met informally with the parties to search for a mutually satisfactory basis for dealing with the questions at issue.

In general, Pakistan accepted McNaughton's proposals, but India did not.' A Security Council resolution based on these proposals, adopted on March 14, 1950, was similarly rejected by India.



. In reports to the Security Council in 1952, U.N. Representative Dr. Frank P. Graham noted that the principal points of difference between the parties continued to be the quality of forces each should maintain after demilitarization and the time when the plebiscite administrator should assume his duties


. From 1949 to 1952 eleven proposals (for demilitarization) were made which India rejected. Pakistan was even prepared to pull out its troops in favor of the UN troops irrespective of the Indian reaction to such a proposal and told the UN that it made no conditions.


And you still expect the UN to blame Pakistan and not India ?


Now read what Sir Owen Dixon had said. Do you get it now ?


. The Indian claim that Plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan refused to withdraw its forces, in the face of this clear and irrefutable evidence, is patently an attempt to deceive the world.



.The Latin maxim "Nullus oommodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" (No advantage may be gained from one’s own wrong) means in Kashmir context that India cannot frustrate attempts to create conditions ripe for a troop withdrawal and ceasefire in order to avoid carrying out its obligations to hold a plebiscite.

Azlan bhai, Dixon was just a representative of the UN and his recommendations were not supposed to be binding on either India or Pakistan.

Secondly to put it in a nutshell, the UN Resolution was the basis for a plebiscite and not recommendations of various committees. Part 2 of the Resolution very clearly lays down that Pakistani tribals not resident of J&K as well as all Pakistani nationals used for the purpose of fighting will withdraw as a first step. Here....

And.....Hear this carefully..

 

[M. Sarmad]

Azlan bhai, Dixon was just a representative of the UN and his recommendations were not supposed to be binding on either India or Pakistan.

Secondly to put it in a nutshell, the UN Resolution was the basis for a plebiscite and not recommendations of various committees. Part 2 of the Resolution very clearly lays down that Pakistani tribals not resident of J&K as well as all Pakistani nationals used for the purpose of fighting will withdraw as a first step. Here....

View attachment 327847

India itself took the matter to the UN, didn't it ? The UN didn't declare Pakistan an aggressor state, nor did it hold Pakistan responsible for halting the process. It was India which didn't let a plebiscite take place in Kashmir. Read the previous post again.

As for the binding nature of the UN Resolutions and India's chapter VI mantra:


The UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir are neither "Unenforceable" nor "Non-binding" ... You, just like many other Indians (and some Pakistanis too), have fallen victim to the false Indian State Propaganda on Kashmir. Let me explain:



1) UN maintains that "NO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CAN BE DESCRIBED AS UNENFORCEABLE."


2) There always has been a general inability of the Permanent Five to agree upon imaginative and expansive applications of Chapter VI ... In Somalia, the Security Council deployed the UN's first operation, UNOSOM I, in mid-1992 to separate warring combatants and help delivery of humanitarian relief ....

UNOSOM I entered and operated without invoking Chapter VII

Further Reading: http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/6/1/1305.pdf



3) India approached UN under Chapter VI of the UN charter , BUT the decision taken by UN reflected that its resolutions were not based exclusively on this chapter .... The resolutions , apart from chapter VI , are based upon other chapters , including chapter VII

The fact that there does not exist any provision for the deputing of UN peace keeping mission under chapter VI makes it obvious that UN resolutions were not exclusively based on chapter VI .... The interim measures which included cease fire and deputation of United Nations Military Observer Group were based on Article 40 of chapter VII ...

Besides chapter VI and VII , UN resolutions are based on other chapters also(i.e Article 1 , Chapter I (2) and Article 55 , Chapter IX) ...

^^ And this is not my personal opinion. That is Rosalyn Higgins' opinion on 'Kashmir Resolutions and under which chapter they were passed' .. Source: 'Higgins, Rosalyn. United Nations Peace Keeping 1946-67: Documents and Commentary. London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1970. (349-51)

(Rosalyn Higgins is an expert on International Law; a Doctor of Juridical Science. She has served as a Judge in the International Court of Justice for fourteen years (and was elected President in 2006). Her competence has been recognised by many academic institutions, having received at least thirteen honorary doctorates)




4) While a recommendation under Chapter VI by itself "may not" be binding, this is not the case in the Kashmir dispute. Here, the parties have consented to be bound by the resolutions of 13 August and 5 January. (13 M. WHITEMAN, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 360 (1968).



5) The UNSC Resolutions endorsed a binding agreement between India and Pakistan reached through the mediation of UNCIP, that a plebiscite would be held, under agreed and specified conditions. A letter dated December 23, 1948, from India's Secretary-General of the Ministry of External Affairs to the Representative of UNCIP, stated that the Indian Prime Minister's acceptance of the 5 January resolution was conditioned on Pakistan's acceptance of the resolution. By this letter, India consented to be bound by the resolution of 5 January and, through this, the resolution of 13 August as well. (Aide Memoire No. 1, Letter Dated 23 December 1948 From the Secretary General of the Ministry of External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations of the Government of India to Mr. Alfredo Lozano, Representative of UNCIP at 23, U.N. Doc. S/1196 (1949)




6) Self-Determination as a Binding Rule of International Law

Four instances may inform the principle of self-determination with a legal dimension.

(i) The principle of self-determination is binding upon the parties, whether they have adopted it as the basis or as a criterion for the settlement of a particular issue or dispute. In the peace treaties after World War I, and in the cases of Kashmir (after 1948), the Saar Territory (1955), and Algeria’s struggle for independence, the principle of self-determination was chosen as a basis for negotiation, and in the Agreement on Ending War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam (1973) the parties expressly recognized the South Vietnamese people’s right to self-determination.


http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873





7) The binding nature of these UN resolutions (as acknowledged by Indian officials)



Finally some quotes from Indian officials on Kashmir exemplifying their commitment to plebiscite rather than forced accession as history has found them do :-

We adhere strictly to our pledge of plebiscite in Kashmir; a pledge made to the people because they believe in democratic government; We don't regard Kashmir as a commodity to be trafficked in -Krishna Menon (Press statement in London, reported in the Statesman, New Delhi, 2nd August, 1951)

The Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible -Letter from Govt. of India to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, 11th September, 1951

I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken.
-Krishna Menon (Statement at UN Security Council, 24th January, 1957)

The resolutions of January 17, 1948 and the resolutions of the UNICP, the assurances given, these are all resolutions which carry a greater weight; that is because we have accepted them, we are parties to them, whether we like them or not. -Krishna Menon, (Statement at UN Security Council, 20th February, 1957)

These documents (UNCIP reports) and declarations and the resolutions of the Security Council are decisions; they are resolutions, there has been some resolving of a question of one character or another, there has been a meeting of minds on this question where we have committed ourselves to it. -Krishna Menon, (Statement at the Security Council, 9th October, 1957)


India believes that sovereignty rests in the people and should return to them. -Krishna Menon, (The Statesman, Delhi, 19th January, 1962)





Therefore, India is bound by word and deed to leave the future of Kashmir to the will of its people.

And.....Hear this carefully..

Read this carefully:

https://defence.pk/threads/christin...-of-trash-ive-seen.444780/page-4#post-8586944

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

First of all .We are really appreaciate the business tactics of China.You single handedly destroying whatever that remains in Pak industry .
Congratulations.

Did you read the recent Global Times ?
Even they are jumping up and down because of our GST .According to current statistics
we are the top one in FDI , after 2017 GST will implement.
Then you see the real meaning of FDI
Emotions are good but except Pakistan noother nations use emotional priorities for their policies.
Not even Chinese

Sour grape appreciation, tell me which country invest in India like China invest in Pakistan ? you guys are so envy to have similar deal but on one look India as future, but China see the great future ahead of Pakistan when this CPEC is completed that why Chinese government is willing to massive invest. And you can call us what so ever it suit you but India can only make lousy noise but empty handed.

 

[HAIDER]

Indians are passive aggressive and to trust them would always be fatal..be it political or professional life...as their culture goes moo pe ram ram baghal ma churi...

It's fact that it was damaging Pakistan very slowly. War on terror was blessing in disguise . It exposed everything.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

South Tibet? Where the fuk is it? If you're meaning Arunachal Pradesh, then it has absolutely nothing to do with your Han dynasty. It is and will always remain a state of the Indian Union. You can go crying to whomever you want to or climb the nearest pole. India is not Burkina Faso or a country in the SCS that you can bully. Don't forget the pasting the PLA got in 1967 at Nathula by the Indian Army when you tried to encroach into Indian territory. So don't try anything stupid.

Woo, I sense someone is anger and frustrated , you Indian like to live in denial when come to dispute territory with China and play deaf ear but be extreme sensitive like girld with come to claim Pakistan land..it's really a matter of laugh. And why we cry when we're the one who control the fate of this region with the mighty Brahmaputra river, each time we do something with that river, India is the first to cry LMAO ...And 1967 is just a fiction written by Indian to boost their moral after 1962 humiliation, if that can comfort you...we don't have any problem.

 

[Deepika Maheshwari]

indian sadist logic: Pakistan withdraw all their forces from Azad Kashmir while indian forces get to stay in iok

Exactly! UN is sadist because they created such a resolution which is not favorable to Pakistan! Thats why we give no shit to UN and their human rights commission. Now since Pakistan is inviting sadist UN fact finding committee to Azad Kashmir/GB, it makes them what? Masochist?