Pakistan Using Heavy Shells - a First Since Ceasefire Agreement: Sources

[Areesh]

There were no referendums in any princely state in either India or Pakistan except in Junagarh. By that logic Bahawalpur should also be disputed territory - it was a princely state and the process of integration was not democratic?

Also, what happened in Balochistan? Can you enlighten us please, oh fountain of all knowledge about our region?

Yes, you can count this as having accepted your challenge. Let us discuss DEMOCRACY.

Looks like not only you skipped your history classes you also never bothered to read history on internet. That is the reason that I can think of this garbage post.

 

[Saahil84]

Lets see, lessons ... Make sure you have well established logistical lines of support to the front lines and that the opposing side should not be given an excuse to escalate a localized conflict into full war. In India and Pakistan's situation, the trigger would almost always be occupation of territory that is currently administered by the other.

So check, check and check in terms of 'lessons learned'.


Because we were anticipating your whiny tantrums and media hysteria about 'PAKISTAN USING 120MM MORTARS FOR THE FIRST TIME BLAH BLAH BLAH WA WA WA!'


Under Modi 'winning' is represented by the ability to issue, and amount of, jingoistic statements and threats to double, nay triple, nay quadruple kinetic responses from the Indian military, for Modi fans at least.

So long as Modi or some BJP minister issues random statements, in a thundering, confident and aggressive voice about how 'Pakistan has been taught a lesson it will never forget', the BJP fan-base will be content.

They ignore the obvious issue that this is the umpteenth 'lesson that Pakistan will never forget' statement issued by various BJP ministers since they came into power. I mean, was it meant to be a whole lecture series that is still going on?



What happened in Bahawalpur? The ruler was favorably disposed towards Pakistan and acceded to Pakistan. Kalat's ruler took some more convincing but eventually he officially acceded to Pakistan as well, despite Afghanistan's involvement in stoking terrorism/insurgency in Kalat around that time.

Also, the Indian government has made repeated international commitments to hold a referendum in J&K, several as part of her commitment to implement the UNSC Resolutions on J&K, so attempting analogies between Bahawalpur/Kalat and J&K is a flawed exercise from the outset.

Yes, the ruler of Bahawalpur was favourably disposed towards Pak, just as Hari Singh became after he realized what Pak Army regulars dressed as tribesman were doing to his state. So if favourable disposition is the yardstick then let it be so.

What did India agree to in '48? In Part III of the UN resolution it says that the future of J&K will be decided according to the will of the people. But the very next part of the sentence says that it is rests upon the acceptance of the truce agreement. Part IIA1 clearly states that since the presence of Pakistani troops in J&K constitutes a material change in the situation, Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops. Part IIA2 further states that Pakistan will try its best to ensure that tribesmen and Pak nationals withdraw from Kashmir. Pakistan has, to date, done neither of the two. The UN resolution cannot be enforced till Pakistan does what it is obligated to do under the resolution. The ball was always in our court. It is just that we never chose to see it that way.

The chronology of the resolution clearly depicts that our own obligations, which we never fulfilled, came first. Everything else was contingent upon that. Our best case scenario is agreeing that after all these years it doesn't matter and accept the LOC as the final resolution.

By the way, the resolution also implicitly shows that the Pakistani government had lied about the role of the Pak army in the entire episode. Why do we hold others to a yardstick which we ourselves are not bound by?

Looks like not only you skipped your history classes you also never bothered to read history on internet. That is the reason that I can think of this garbage post.

Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish...there, I said it thrice. Surely I win!!!

India's history books say otherwise, and so do most neutral accounts, you should read more.

 

[Areesh]

Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish...there, I said it thrice. Surely I win!!!

India's history books say otherwise, and so do most neutral accounts, you should read more.

I have read history and unlike you I have read it from neutral sources. What you have said above is nothing but garbage and is flawed since you like bharatis have presented a half poorly cropped version of history.

Your comparison of Bahawalpur and Khan of Kalat is bogus since both of them weren't committing a genocide of their own people when they signed accession to Pakistan. As for your bullsh!t claim that Pakistan needs to withdraw troops from AJK to fulfill requirement of UN resolutions since it was India itself that allowed Pakistan to keep troops in AJK as per Karachi agreement.

So if you really are not a bharati hiding behind Pakistani and Chinese flags and want to talk about history then start your history with events that happened before tribal invasion of Kashmir since without that history would be incomplete and your comparisons with Bahawalpur and Baluchistan would be illogical and nonsense since state sponsored genocides didn't happen in those states.

Keep this in mind in case in you think you are some expert on history. What you are presenting are famous bharati lies and we have comprehensive counters for all of them. And also change your flags. We already have had enough of you bharati false flaggers.

 

[Saahil84]

I have read history and unlike you I have read it from neutral sources. What you have said above is nothing but garbage and is flawed since you like bharatis have presented a half poorly cropped version of history.

Your comparison of Bahawalpur and Khan of Kalat is bogus since both of them weren't committing a genocide of their own people when they signed accession to Pakistan. As for your bullsh!t claim that Pakistan needs to withdraw troops from AJK to fulfill requirement of UN resolutions since it was India itself that allowed Pakistan to keep troops in AJK as per Karachi agreement.

So if you really are not a bharati hiding behind Pakistani and Chinese flags and want to talk about history then start your history with events that happened before tribal invasion of Kashmir since without that history would be incomplete and your comparisons with Bahawalpur and Baluchistan would be illogical and nonsense since state sponsored genocides didn't happen in those states.

Keep this in mind in case in you think you are some expert on history. What you are presenting are famous bharati lies and we have comprehensive counters for all of them. And also change your flags. We already have had enough of you bharati false flaggers.

A3 and B1 of Karachi Agreement clearly state that it applies to Part I of the UN resolution, and not Part II; in fact Part III, which we base all our claims upon, is not even mentioned in the Agreement. You are selectively mentioning parts to suit your purpose. I don't make silly claims like being an expert - it is much easier to refute distortions with facts.

A3 and B1 of Karachi Agreement clearly state that it applies to Part I of the UN resolution, and not Part II; in fact Part III, which we base all our claims upon, is not even mentioned in the Agreement. You are selectively mentioning parts to suit your purpose. I don't make silly claims like being an expert - it is much easier to refute distortions with facts.

As for genocide, who is to decide that? Many people consider Baluchistan to be a classic example thereof. I don't think our decades long fake moral high ground fools or convinces anyone in the world any longer, except the same fanatics who are vilified in this very forum when they attack Pakistan in their violent frenzy.

Fact of the matter is that both Kashmir and Baluchistan has been militarily occupied, they cannot exist as independent entities, and the people there don't really have much of a worldview to understand their own significance. Both places have been reduced to economic oblivion by violence and isolation, and the central government in both countries is now forced to subsidize their existence, despite the enormous economic potential. If anyone can point out any major reason as to why we keep silent on the Baloch issue and jump up and down on a daily basis about Kashmir, I will stand corrected.

It is not that the contributors in this forum are fools, One can easily observe that there are several intelligent, well-read and well-meaning people who post here. Most of them are fully conversant with what our Army has done in Balochistan. But I guess too many of us have been co-opted into this culture of lies and deceit, maybe unwittingly. This has gone on for far too long.

 

[qcninja]

That will mean war in which India the oh so powerful shoopa Powah cannot win..
Because we like wars and enjoy a fight.

We too have no dearth of mentals like you and naved. Our side mentals too love wars and fight and blood.

If PA is using 120mm Mortar then there is a reason for that and it is heavy damage of civilian houses with unknown Civilians injured of dead as India is also using heavy firepower, Pakistani media is not covering this deeply but they reported yesterday that all Ambulances of Kotli District (which is big & important city AJK) have been called in to Nakyal area. I hope PA use laser guided shells this time for precision strikes.

Laser guided must be better.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, the ruler of Bahawalpur was favourably disposed towards Pak, just as Hari Singh became after he realized what Pak Army regulars dressed as tribesman were doing to his state. So if favourable disposition is the yardstick then let it be so.

Sure, and the rulers of Bahawalpur and Kalat offically acceded to Pakistan, but unlike India and J&K, there was no international commitment to conduct a plebiscite as part of UNSC Resolutions recognizing J&K as an international territorial dispute between 2 parties. So again, there is no analogy to be made between Kalat/Bahawalpur and J&K.

What did India agree to in '48? In Part III of the UN resolution it says that the future of J&K will be decided according to the will of the people. But the very next part of the sentence says that it is rests upon the acceptance of the truce agreement. Part IIA1 clearly states that since the presence of Pakistani troops in J&K constitutes a material change in the situation, Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops. Part IIA2 further states that Pakistan will try its best to ensure that tribesmen and Pak nationals withdraw from Kashmir. Pakistan has, to date, done neither of the two. The UN resolution cannot be enforced till Pakistan does what it is obligated to do under the resolution. The ball was always in our court. It is just that we never chose to see it that way.

The only unilateral requirement placed upon Pakistan is that of ensuring the withdrawal of Pakistani tribesmen. Section 2(A) of UNSC Resolution 47 then places a simultaneous condition upon India (once the process of withdrawal of tribesmen has been confirmed):

2. The Government of India should:
(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council's resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order;​

Pakistan has fulfilled the unilateral requirements placed upon it by UNSC Resolution 47 - the tribesmen have been withdrawn - the requirement of 'withdrawal of Pakistani Nationals not resident in the State' does not have to be fulfilled until the requirement placed upon India of developing a plan of withdrawal of her forces with the UN commission is fulfilled.

What has not occurred, despite subsequent resolutions and multiple UNSC Commissions and Rapporteurs appointed to negotiate between India and Pakistan, is that 'Indian plan for withdrawing their own forces from J&K'. That plan had to be agreed upon and put in place once the process of withdrawal of tribesmen had been confirmed (not completed). The process of withdrawal of tribesmen was completed decades ago, and India has constantly played the role of an obstructionist and refused to agree to any feasible withdrawal plan proposed by Pakistan or the UN Commissions and Rapporteurs appointed by the UNSC.

The ball is in India's court, in terms of taking the next steps to fulfill the requirements of the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir.

 

[shaheenmissile]

We too have no dearth of mentals like you and naved. Our side mentals too love wars and fight and blood.


Laser guided must be better.

Yeah we all know what happened of #56inchchest .
And the pigeon

 

[ravindra1455]

can anyone tell me how much a heavy mortar shell costs.
on google price are as below

120mm E-1 Standard $10760 or about 677880 ind rupee
if pakistan fire 100 shell which may cost about 67788000/-
for killng some innocent kashmiri people.

find on http://www.pmulcahy.com/PDFs/heavy_weapons/mortars.pdf

 

[Saahil84]

Sure, and the rulers of Bahawalpur and Kalat offically acceded to Pakistan, but unlike India and J&K, there was no international commitment to conduct a plebiscite as part of UNSC Resolutions recognizing J&K as an international territorial dispute between 2 parties. So again, there is no analogy to be made between Kalat/Bahawalpur and J&K.

The only unilateral requirement placed upon Pakistan is that of ensuring the withdrawal of Pakistani tribesmen. Section 2(A) of UNSC Resolution 47 then places a simultaneous condition upon India (once the process of withdrawal of tribesmen has been confirmed):

2. The Government of India should:
(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council's resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order;​

Pakistan has fulfilled the unilateral requirements placed upon it by UNSC Resolution 47 - the tribesmen have been withdrawn - the requirement of 'withdrawal of Pakistani Nationals not resident in the State' does not have to be fulfilled until the requirement placed upon India of developing a plan of withdrawal of her forces with the UN commission is fulfilled.

What has not occurred, despite subsequent resolutions and multiple UNSC Commissions and Rapporteurs appointed to negotiate between India and Pakistan, is that 'Indian plan for withdrawing their own forces from J&K'. That plan had to be agreed upon and put in place once the process of withdrawal of tribesmen had been confirmed (not completed). The process of withdrawal of tribesmen was completed decades ago, and India has constantly played the role of an obstructionist and refused to agree to any feasible withdrawal plan proposed by Pakistan or the UN Commissions and Rapporteurs appointed by the UNSC.

The ball is in India's court, in terms of taking the next steps to fulfill the requirements of the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir.

I think while you are arguing in good faith, you are missing the woods for the trees.

What you have quoted is but a small part of the conditions for resolution, not the sine qua non. Why I say so? Because it has been Pakistan's position that regardless of the fulfillment of other terms, India must implement the terms that we wish.

I will divide my response into three parts: in the first part I will address the UN Resolution that Pakistanis cite: Resolution 47. In the second part, I will address the resolution dated 13th Aug 1948 of the UN Commission appointed to resolve the Kashmir issue: which Indians keeps citing. In the third part, I will deal with the Karachi Agreement of 1949, which was randomly mentioned by a non-professor in BS in a recent post here.

R47 was intended to be the basis for the dialogue between the two countries, and not the sum of it, as we in Pakistan seem to believe. About the part that you have quoted, yes, it says that once Pakistan removes its nationals and tribesmen, India should proceed with the plebiscite. Now two things happened, Pakistan did not withdraw, and India hardened its stance and said that Pakistani withdrawal is a pre-condition. That part you highlighted, you have understood it wrongly. It did not mean that the non-regulars fighting on the Indian side needed to withdraw. It meant that all Pakistanis withdraw from entire J&K. Of course, our government argued along the same lines as you, which was rejected by the Indians. They said that Pakistan had not complied, so no plebiscite. This confusion became the basis for the second resolution that I will talk about in the next part.

 

[Donatello]

Very good job by Pakistan Army/Rangers.

This is what you will get Indian people if you don't seek to stop BSF's stupid LOC violations and killings of innocents.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think while you are arguing in good faith, you are missing the woods for the trees.

What you have quoted is but a small part of the conditions for resolution, not the sine qua non. Why I say so? Because it has been Pakistan's position that regardless of the fulfillment of other terms, India must implement the terms that we wish.

I will divide my response into three parts: in the first part I will address the UN Resolution that Pakistanis cite: Resolution 47. In the second part, I will address the resolution dated 13th Aug 1948 of the UN Commission appointed to resolve the Kashmir issue: which Indians keeps citing. In the third part, I will deal with the Karachi Agreement of 1949, which was randomly mentioned by a non-professor in BS in a recent post here.

R47 was intended to be the basis for the dialogue between the two countries, and not the sum of it, as we in Pakistan seem to believe. About the part that you have quoted, yes, it says that once Pakistan removes its nationals and tribesmen, India should proceed with the plebiscite. Now two things happened, Pakistan did not withdraw, and India hardened its stance and said that Pakistani withdrawal is a pre-condition. That part you highlighted, you have understood it wrongly. It did not mean that the non-regulars fighting on the Indian side needed to withdraw. It meant that all Pakistanis withdraw from entire J&K. Of course, our government argued along the same lines as you, which was rejected by the Indians. They said that Pakistan had not complied, so no plebiscite. This confusion became the basis for the second resolution that I will talk about in the next part.

I understand that you are composing the second part of your response, but I need to point out a couple of critical mistakes in your first part before you build upon them in the second and third.

First, I have not claimed that UNSCR 47 is the 'end all' of the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir. In fact, in prior debates I have referenced UNSCR's passed after 47 far more, since they strengthen the Pakistani position further.

Second, the text of the UNSCR 47 that I highlighted is clear - it references ONLY verification of start of the withdrawal of the tribesmen as a fulfilment of the unilateral requirements placed upon Pakistan, at which point the requirement for India to agree to a plan of withdrawal with the appointed UN Commission has to take place. If the requirement was to 'verify the start of the withdrawal of both tribesmen AND Pakistani Nationals', the language would have mirrored the first paragraph. In addition, the initial reference to 'Pakistan agrees to withdraw its forces' is an acceptance of the principle taht, it is not a time-bound requirement from the UNSC nor is it a time-bound commitment from Pakistan.

Pakistan started and finished the withdrawal of tribesmen, but India never agreed to the various UN Commission and UN rappeurteur proposals on establishing a plan of withdrawal of Indian forces in J&K. The obstructionism and failure to proceed with implementation of the remaining requirements is therefore the responsibility of India.

 

[Saahil84]

I understand that you are composing the second part of your response, but I need to point out a couple of critical mistakes in your first part before you build upon them in the second and third.

First, I have not claimed that UNSCR 47 is the 'end all' of the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir. In fact, in prior debates I have referenced UNSCR's passed after 47 far more, since they strengthen the Pakistani position further.

Second, the text of the UNSCR 47 that I highlighted is clear - it references ONLY verification of start of the withdrawal of the tribesmen as a fulfilment of the unilateral requirements placed upon Pakistan, at which point the requirement for India to agree to a plan of withdrawal with the appointed UN Commission has to take place. If the requirement was to 'verify the start of the withdrawal of both tribesmen AND Pakistani Nationals', the language would have mirrored the first paragraph. In addition, the initial reference to 'Pakistan agrees to withdraw its forces' is an acceptance of the principle taht, it is not a time-bound requirement from the UNSC nor is it a time-bound commitment from Pakistan.

Pakistan started and finished the withdrawal of tribesmen, but India never agreed to the various UN Commission and UN rappeurteur proposals on establishing a plan of withdrawal of Indian forces in J&K. The obstructionism and failure to proceed with implementation of the remaining requirements is therefore the responsibility of India.

You are right about the dissonance between 1A and 2A insofar that the words Pakistani Nationals is present in the former but not the latter.

Which brings us to the second part: the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolution dated 13 August 1948. Let me point out that there are several other UN resolutions in this regard, as well as the UN proposals that you have rightly mentioned. The reason I am dealing with this particular resolution is that a) India claims it is the most important resolution as it circumscribes what was vaguely stated in R47 in actual terms, and b) I am yet to find anything in the other resolutions that are responsible for the schism in positions that exist today.

I will deal with the UN Commission resolution dated 13 August 1948 in chronological order. I hope you are able to appreciate my point. The chronological order is important because we cannot simply pick whatever part we feel like to suit our convenience. Each part is conditional upon the implementation of the part preceding it. I guess the UNSC understood us quite well, which is why it mentioned even this basic norm of interpretation within the resolution itself.

Part I is the ceasefire order. Without that, none of the subsequent parts would apply. Both parties implemented that.

Part II deals with the framework within which a valid truce agreement was to be worked out. This is the most important part of the resolution, by the way. IIA1 states that, and I quote "As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State." Notice, it does not say Pakistan is supposed to withdraw its troops from wherever it wants while maintaining positions in whichever part of Kashmir it fancies as its own. It calls for withdrawal from all of J&K.

Secondly, the words Pakistani Nationals that you rightly said were omitted in 2A is now back in. IIA2 states, and I quote “The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.” It is obvious that the UN had stopped buying our version by then.

Now the important part: IIB1 states, I quote “When the commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2, hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.” The game had totally changed. There is now an unambiguous requirement on Pakistan’s part to totally withdraw militarily from J&K as a condition precedent for India to act. Pakistan has not withdrawn to this date.

Part III is a watered down re-iteration from R47: "The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the truce agreement, both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured." Once again, it is all contingent upon Pakistan withdrawing. Also, note the change in tone - this is a consistent feature throughout. Upon realizing that Pakistan is not going to withdraw and India is not going to act on the plebiscite, the UN is trying to get out of the situation by obfuscating an earlier, clearer position.

I must add here, though, that the resolutions themselves are very poorly drafted. No self-respecting lawyer would allow such inconsistencies, revisions and open-ended language to subsist, especially when the stakes are so high. But then how would they know at that time how high the stakes would eventually become?

 

[Saahil84]

Now coming to the Karachi Agreement of 1949. I don’t understand how and why Areesh from LaLa Land had his Eureka moment that this is the clincher. And yes, you may go ahead and accuse me of generalizing, but this sort of immature cock talk is typical of our South Asian culture.

The purpose of this agreement was simply to establish a ceasefire line under the on-going dialogue, and nothing else. It is clearly stated in A2: “That the United Nationals Commission for India and Pakistan in its letter stated that "The meeting will be for military purposes; political issues will not be considered," and that "They will be conducted without prejudice to negotiations concerning the truce agreement". Furthermore, A3 states:... "The cease-fire line is a complement of the suspension of hostilities, which falls within the provisions of Part I of the resolution of 13 August 1948 and can be considered separately from the questions relating to Part II of the same resolution".

This means, dear Areesh, wild accuser from nowhere, that the demarcation had nothing to do with the conditions stated in Part II of the prior resolution. Please try to wrap your childish conspiratorial head around that one (Agnostic please ignore my ramblings about Areesh, it is not directed at you. I mean only as much harm and malice as he does).

Finally, there is the small matter of binding nature. Now this is an open question actually. Kofi Annan rather casually stated that R47 is not binding as it was under Chapter VI and not Chapter VII of the UN Charter. But in the Namibia Advisory Opinion (1971), the ICJ did opine that all UN resolutions are binding. There is also the reverse case to consider – that all resolutions are non-binding until the US decides otherwise!!!

PS: It is not my case that India has a watertight case and we have none. There is ample evidence that both sides made goof-ups along the way. One can always argue that Pakistan’s official position that the issue should be resolved in terms of all resolutions it deems favourable to itself. The Indians have a similar case. Will the Pakistani Army withdraw from Azaad Kashmir (how is it Azaad in any case?)? If not, then how do we keep a straight face when we say that the Indians should de-escalate, given their historic experience of what we do if there is an insufficient buildup?

We should ask questions of ourselves, instead of pointing fingers all the time.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Didn't know Indians have started to fly? when did that happen?

yeah and pigs fly!

 

[Uzair Shafiq [Босс]]

Two Indian copters intrude into Pakistan - thenews.com.pk
Again India kills another Pakistani Citizen and a cow mata (and injured a dozen) Mean while we killed an Indian soldier in retaliatory fire forcing them to empty there posts :3