Pakistan cannot take Kashmir to ICJ: Sushma Swaraj

[Taimoor Khan]

So Pakistan army is not Pakistan Citizen ? And what about those Punjabis that are settled there to dilute Kashmiri population?
Kuch bi... Kachin se bhi

If you know the background of 1948 kashmir war and who fought who then, you will understand this statement written in UN resolution. This is NOT referring to Pakistan army. Army is NOT civilian.

This Indian argument that since Pakistan army hasn't vacated AJK, the resolution is void, that is just utter non sense.

It is not enough to be satisfied that You met the requirements.
You also have to convince the UN commission, that You did.

We are up for it, the fact the UN peace keepers are still present on Pakistani side of LOC but they have been thrown out by India on their side. Question is , ARE YOU READY?

Bottom line is, your original argument is utter nonsense where the UN resolutions clearly states the requirements, which have been meet. Pakhtoon tribes and non Kashmiries Pakistanis who fought in 1948 war left the region straight after ceasefire.

There is nothing left to discuss further.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

If you know the background of 1948 kashmir war and who fought who then, you will understand this statement written in UN resolution. This is NOT referring to Pakistan army. Army is NOT civilian.

This Indian argument that since Pakistan army hasn't vacated AJK, the resolution is void, that is just utter non sense.



We are up for it, the fact the UN peace keepers are still present on Pakistani side of LOC but they have been thrown out by India on their side. Question is , ARE YOU READY?

Bottom line is, your original argument is utter nonsense where the UN resolutions clearly states the requirements, which have been meet. Pakhtoon tribes and non Kashmiries Pakistanis who fought in 1948 war left the region straight after ceasefire.

There is nothing left to discuss further.

If they have been met, it would not be hard to show that the UN has accepted
that Pakistan met their obligations.

 

[StraightShooter]

Excellent job by Sushma ji here.

Now if Pakistan does not take Kashmir to ICJ, it would lose its face and strengthen Indian position.

If Pakistan takes it to ICJ, Then Pakistan and China has to vacate land under their control. There is a very remote chance that Pakistan may but China will never as It gives a damn to ICJ. So this would mean Pakistan position would be weakened again courtesy its BFF China.

 

[scorpionx]

If you know the background of 1948 kashmir war and who fought who then, you will understand this statement written in UN resolution. This is NOT referring to Pakistan army. Army is NOT civilian.

This Indian argument that since Pakistan army hasn't vacated AJK, the resolution is void, that is just utter non sense.



We are up for it, the fact the UN peace keepers are still present on Pakistani side of LOC but they have been thrown out by India on their side. Question is , ARE YOU READY?

Bottom line is, your original argument is utter nonsense where the UN resolutions clearly states the requirements, which have been meet. Pakhtoon tribes and non Kashmiries Pakistanis who fought in 1948 war left the region straight after ceasefire.

There is nothing left to discuss further.

In a country, a man in uniform and a man who is not, both have the same nationality. When UN says all Pakistani nationals to vacate Kashmir, it means both military and civilian population.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

In a country, a man in uniform and a man who is not, both have the same nationality. When UN says all Pakistani nationals to vacate Kashmir, it means both military and civilian population.

The reference is for those Pakhtoons tribals and common Pakistani nationals who went to kashmir fighting the Indian Army alongside Pakistan army. They have been facilitated back to mainland by Pakistan army soon after the cease fire. Hence all conditions meet. Its now for India to come to its terms of holding plebicite. learn the history, Pakistan army are guarantor of peice in that region to ensure India is kept in check. They don't have to vacate Azad Kashmir or neither required.

 

[scorpionx]

The reference is for those Pakhtoons tribals and common Pakistani nationals who went to kashmir fighting the Indian Army alongside Pakistan army. They have been facilitated back to mainland by Pakistan army soon after the cease fire. Hence all conditions meet. Its now for India to come to its terms of holding plebicite. learn the history, Pakistan army are guarantor of peice in that region to ensure India is kept in check. They don't have to vacate Azad Kashmir or neither required.

Sorry sir, you are ignoring UNCIP's resolution of 13th August. Part B para 1 read " when the commission shall have notified the Govt of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals have withdrawn..and further that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the state of J &K, the Govt of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission."

 

[Fledgingwings]

MAAI SUSHMA is very possesive about her JAHEZ.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Sorry sir, you are ignoring UNCIP's resolution of 13th August. Part B para 1 read " when the commission shall have notified the Govt of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals have withdrawn..and further that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the state of J &K, the Govt of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission."

READ from own UN website.

Page 4

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/47(1948)

Where does it mention about Pakistan army? It's foolish to even think about Pakistan army will move out of AJK with Indian Army in huge numbers facing right across LOC. Withdrawal has to be at the same time from both side for plebicite to happen.

 

[M. Sarmad]

It is not enough to be satisfied that You met the requirements.
You also have to convince the UN commission, that You did.

If they have been met, it would not be hard to show that the UN has accepted
that Pakistan met their obligations.

Tribesmen/Pakistani Nationals had withdrawn by Feb 1949 and the UN commission was convinced that Pakistan had met the first requirement (that's why no UN Resolution passed by the Security Council after that makes any mention of Tribesmen/Pakistani Nationals) .. After that, In March 1949, the UN appointed a Plebiscite Administrator for J&K. And in April 1949, UNCIP formulated a program of demilitarization and issued a schedule for withdrawal of troops ....


The disagreement was on 'terms' of withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani Regular troops (and on what stage the Azad Kashmir Forces were to be disbanded and disarmed). Pakistan agreed to withdraw all Pakistani troops from Kashmir as soon as schedule of withdrawal of bulk of Indian forces was communicated. But India didn't accept any demilitarization plan, so, no 'schedule' was communicated to Pakistan by UNCIP and therefore no "withdrawal" took place.


India had rejected all demilitarization plans proposed by the UN (at least eleven such proposals were made ). Pakistan on the other hand not only accepted the UN demilitarization plans, it 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.


Pakistan Prime Minister Sir Feroz Khan Noon had gone as far as openly declaring in September 1957 that his country was prepared to withdraw every solider from Kashmir in order to meet all Indian objections and facilitate the demilitarization process in comprehensive manner. But the Indian's won't accept any demilitarization plan ....... And yet the Indians have the audacity to blame Pakistan ????



No wonder Sir Owen Dixon, the UN appointed official mediator, had blamed India (and not Pakistan) for halting the process. He reported to the Security Council:

"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)

Sorry sir, you are ignoring UNCIP's resolution of 13th August. Part B para 1 read " when the commission shall have notified the Govt of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals have withdrawn..and further that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the state of J &K, the Govt of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission."

Yes, India agreed to start withdrawing the bulk of its forces when Pakistani troops were "being withdrawn". The withdrawal of forces had to take place in a synchronized manner on both sides of LoC. But India didn't accept any demilitarization plan and therefore no "withdrawal" took place. 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.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Tribals/Pakistani Nationals had withdrawn by Jan 1951 and the UN commission was convinced that Pakistan had met the first requirement. That's why no UN Resolution passed by the Security Council after Jan 1951 makes any mention of Tribals/Pakistani Nationals. The disagreement was on withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani Armed Forces. India rejected all demilitarization plans proposed by the UN (at least eleven such proposals were made ). Pakistan on the other hand not only accepted the UN demilitarization plans, it 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.


Sir Owen Dixon, the UN appointed official mediator, had blamed India (and not Pakistan) for halting the process. He reported to the Security Council:

"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)

Nice jaw breaking reply. These bhakts need some education.