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

[FNFAL]

You must have lost your job to an Indian ...so I am sorry for this. If Donald Trump gets elected, he's going to put an end to all this H1B human trafficking by Indian companies, the way Obama wanted .. I agree. Your companies make more money from India than we do from yours. You ban Human Reosurce, which we have abundant and we ban Capital resource. You will loose more than us bro...so stop threatening this to us.

Of all Country in the world, You should not preach anything to us. Before reading our history, you should learn your history.

You could do a shit when we made your client state in two parts. The country you are cheering, had hosted your enemy no. 1 for long and has killed more americans than any other country in the world ....but looking at your sympathy, I doubt your patriotism for your so called country.

Hes a desi american- of pakistani descent. Dont let the flags fool you

 

[Not So Good]

You must have lost your job to an Indian ...so I am sorry for this. If Donald Trump gets elected, he's going to put an end to all this H1B human trafficking by Indian companies, the way Obama wanted .. I agree. Your companies make more money from India than we do from yours. You ban Human Reosurce, which we have abundant and we ban Capital resource. You will loose more than us bro...so stop threatening this to us.

Of all Country in the world, You should not preach anything to us. Before reading our history, you should learn your history.

You could do a shit when we made your client state in two parts. The country you are cheering, had hosted your enemy no. 1 for long and has killed more americans than any other country in the world ....but looking at your sympathy, I doubt your patriotism for your so called country.

Buddy he is Pakistani living in murika
You are certainly new in this zoo

 

[IBRIS]

Indian army deliberately put their mortar firing posts very close to civilian homes when Pakistan rangers fire in retaliation on same direction some time civilian came under fire.

Your uninformed artillery battery don't know a Damn thing about fire locating radar. That's why they fire blindly. Its like shooting blanks and praying it would do some damage. Sadly it's the people you think who are your brethrens.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The fact that you are not unbiased can be made out by the double-standards of advocating a plebiscite in Kashmir while attempting to discredit a similar exercise somewhere else. People do notice these things. I will make a detailed reply to your last detailed response. But after that, let us not waste each other's time any more on something that you intend to argue about like an amateur provocateur, secure in the knowledge that you will not be called out for absurdities and double-standards on a rigged forum.

How is this a 'rigged forum'? Have you been prevented from voicing your opinions? Have your posts been edited or censored? Have dozens of Pakistanis ganged up on you during the course of our discussion on this thread, as Indian posters tend to do in the Indian section or on Indian forums?

You've had complete freedom to articulate your point of view and substantiate your arguments, and instead you're choosing to hide behind weak excuses like 'I'm not preparing a brief, just trust me, this is how lawyers would do it', and now even paranoid delusions about 'rigged forum and double standards'.You're going 'off the rocker' a little here and sound paranoid after having your arguments refuted and being asked for specifics to support your contentions. Stop being absurd and freaking out over nothing other than someone being very specific and diligent in countering your arguments and asking you to do the same when restating yours.

And there is no 'double standard' over Junagadh. Junagadh legally acceded to Pakistan, the accession was accepted by Pakistan and therefore it was Pakistani territory by September 1947. India carried out an act of unprovoked military aggression in blockading, invading and annexing Pakistani territory in 1947 (which also debunks the myth of India being a peaceful State that has never initiated conflict or unprovoked military aggression). The purpose behind pointing out India's illegal invasion of Junagadh was to highlight the fact that India had clearly demonstrated that it would carry out unprovoked military aggression against Pakistan (or other States) to expand her territory.

When you combine India's illegal invasion of Junagadh with India's actions in invading and occupying Hyderabad, after stoking communal violence and massacres, with even Indian Army soldiers participating covertly, there is no question that India is contemporary South Asia's first and foremost 'Greedy State'. These events are important because they provide context and justification for Pakistan's actions, and why Pakistan was against ceding military superiority to India (in terms of troop level proposals developed within the UNSC framework on demilitarization) beyond a certain point.

 

[MilSpec]

@AgNoStiC MuSliM I am not sure what the issue is about the heavy shells, is there anything in the book that says otherwise?

 

[Saahil84]

How is this a 'rigged forum'? Have you been prevented from voicing your opinions? Have your posts been edited or censored? Have dozens of Pakistanis ganged up on you during the course of our discussion on this thread, as Indian posters tend to do in the Indian section or on Indian forums?

You've had complete freedom to articulate your point of view and substantiate your arguments, and instead you're choosing to hide behind weak excuses like 'I'm not preparing a brief, just trust me, this is how lawyers would do it', and now even paranoid delusions about 'rigged forum and double standards'.You're going 'off the rocker' a little here and sound paranoid after having your arguments refuted and being asked for specifics to support your contentions. Stop being absurd and freaking out over nothing other than someone being very specific and diligent in countering your arguments and asking you to do the same when restating yours.

And there is no 'double standard' over Junagadh. Junagadh legally acceded to Pakistan, the accession was accepted by Pakistan and therefore it was Pakistani territory by September 1947. India carried out an act of unprovoked military aggression in blockading, invading and annexing Pakistani territory in 1947 (which also debunks the myth of India being a peaceful State that has never initiated conflict or unprovoked military aggression). The purpose behind pointing out India's illegal invasion of Junagadh was to highlight the fact that India had clearly demonstrated that it would carry out unprovoked military aggression against Pakistan (or other States) to expand her territory.

When you combine India's illegal invasion of Junagadh with India's actions in invading and occupying Hyderabad, after stoking communal violence and massacres, with even Indian Army soldiers participating covertly, there is no question that India is contemporary South Asia's first and foremost 'Greedy State'. These events are important because they provide context and justification for Pakistan's actions, and why Pakistan was against ceding military superiority to India (in terms of troop level proposals developed within the UNSC framework on demilitarization) beyond a certain point.

Hari Singh Signs an instrument of accession, which is meaningless because Pakistan wanted a plebiscite but signing Junagarh's instrument of accession against the will of the people means that India did wrong? Bravo!!! Fantastic!!!

As for Hyderabad, the Indian government did not "stoke" tensions, the Razakaris in Hyderabad massacred the Hindu population of Hyderabad, thereby providing the immediate reason for entry of Indian troops. Read something else apart from propaganda for a change.

Refusing to agree to another's argument is not the same as having refuted it. You can keep saying "show me proof, I don't agree, you are wrong" all you want. You disprove nothing in this manner. I could also simply say "you are wrong" and be done with it, in fact what you are proposing is so ridiculous that I could even do so in good conscience, but its against my principles. I have conceded several points to you for the simple reason that I know that it doesn't affect my larger argument one bit, you cannot even do that because when someone makes a disingenuous argument, they never know whether conceding something inadvertently will make it all come down like a house of cards. You do not even understand the crux of our own argument, which makes you say "I don't believe you" and "you are wrong" to everything I say.

And yes, this is a rigged forum, I have seen several instances where members who do incisive analysis are banned because one can clearly see the slant of their arguments is not as per the agenda of this forum. Dimwits who blindly post ten words followed by twenty silly emoticons are retained in this forum, so long as they don't write something inconvenient. For that matter, you think this is my first time on this forum do you? I have my own experience

As for Hyderabad, the Indian government did not "stoke" tensions, the Razakaris in Hyderabad massacred the Hindu population of Hyderabad, thereby providing the immediate reason for entry of Indian troops. Read something else apart from propaganda for a change.

To anyone else reading this, I do not intend to inflame opinions along communal lines. It is a fact that had to be mentioned given the circumstances. The violence by the Razakars, as well the as the Indian response after they entered Hyderabad, were both atrocious. Like all the violence surrounding Partition, it was senseless, and bestial. I just wish that such things hadn't happened, at least that they never happen again.

 

[Saahil84]

Correct, they are recommendations and principles that India and Pakistan committed to, pending agreement on the details of both demilitarization and plebiscite. India has reneged on he international commitments made multiple times, and refuses to even engage in negotiations over those principles any longer, whereas Pakistan continues to adhere to her international commitments.

Multiple UNSC Resolutions made clear what the framework of these discussions was to be - primarily, negotiations towards an agreement on the details of a demilitarization plan. The Indian government's participation in such negotiations would only occur if they recognized that the UNSC Resolutions required a UN mediated agreement on demilitirization, acceptable to all sides, prior to any withdrawal. The argument here is over the claim that the UN Resolutions require Pakistan to withdraw all 'combatants' unconditionally. If that was the case, the UNSC had no reason to set up UN Commissions and send UN representatives to negotiate the details with India AND Pakistan, and India had no reason to accept or participate in UNSC sanctioned discussions that undermined the claim that 'Pakistan was required to withdraw unconditionally'.

You misunderstood my point completely - as I explained in the paragraph above, I'm arguing that the UNSC resolutions do not place any requirement of an unconditional and unilateral withdrawal upon Pakistan. The UNSC Resolutions and UNCIP Resolutions and Reports make clear that any withdrawal is subject to the details of withdrawal being agreed upon between India, Pakistan and UN Representatives. India's participation in the multiple negotiations established by the UNSC validate Pakistan's position (of not being under any requirement of withdrawing unilaterally and unconditionally) by virtue of explicitly accepting the principle (at the time) of 'agreeing to a framework withing which a final settlement is binding on both', as you said in your first sentence. If India hadn't agreed to the 'framework', it would not have participated in the multiple negotiations established by the framework, and it is the 'framework within which a final settlement is binding on both' that debunks the argument that the UNSC Resolutions require Pakistan to withdraw unilaterally and unconditionally.

In fact, even if India did not agree with the framework, the fact that the UNSC set up multiple rounds of UN Commissions and UN Representative led missions to develop agreement over the general principles of demilitirization and plebiscite, clearly establishes that the intent behind the UNSC Resolutions from the beginning was to 'establish a framework within which agreement over the details of demilitirization and plebiscite could be reached' - again, a vindication of the Pakistani position that no unconditional and unilateral withdrawal is required of her.

This passage of yours is irrelevant to the specific point being discussed, of whether the UNSC Resolutions require Pakistan to withdraw unconditionally and unilaterally.

Lie or 'tactical omission', if the misrepresentation by Pakistan was indeed so grievous, the UNSC was free to strengthen the language in her subsequent resolutions against Pakistan, yet the subsequent resolutions only further establish and detail a framework within which agreement on the details of demilitarization and plebiscite need to be reached.

You can tarnish Pakistan's actions as much as you want, but the facts are that the UNSC did not see things the way you do, as is clear from the language of the UNSC Resolutions and UNCIP reports subsequent to the first UNSCR on J&K.

Pakistan did not contest the need for a full withdrawal of irregular forces to be validated prior to an Indian demilitarization, so this argument is a straw man. Pakistan's disagreements with some proposals were over the massive superiority in conventional government controlled forces that India would be allowed to keep deployed in the valley compared to Pakistan's.

I'm not going to trust you - you did an excellent job of restating my arguments, but you've offered nothing in the way of a rebuttal of those arguments other than saying 'this is how a lawyer would quote it' - I see no 'havoc' being created here by my reasoning, certainly none that you've pointed out so far.

There is no 'legal absurdity' here, just a desire on your part to read the text out of context, chopped up into pieces that support the Indian point of view on your part. The statement in 2.A(1) was the acceptance in principle of Pakistan withdrawing her troops - it did not specify when or how that withdrawal were to take place, and the context and conditions applicable to the statement in 2.A(1) was very clearly established in the opening lines of Part II, "both the Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their representatives and the Commission."

The introduction to Part II set up the framework for negotiations, and provided clear context that everything stated in Part II of the UNCIPR was subject to a final agreement on the details, and therefore my interpretation of Part II.B(1) clearly flows within the context established by the opening lines of Part II. What would be absurd would be to cling solely to the language of 2.A.(1), ignoring what came before and after.

What exactly about the above do you not understand? Pakistan confirms that it has managed (by force, dialog or both) to secure the withdrawal of irregular forces, which the UN Commission would confirm (and was free to introduce proposals on how best to confirm the withdrawal prior to reporting it to India), after which the withdrawal of regular forces, on both sides, begins in accordance with the details of the Truce Agreement settled upon by all sides.

I never questioned that.

Then what exactly are you arguing with me for - you yourself claimed earlier that, "Actually, since the issue is whether there is a unilateral pre-condition on Pakistan to withdraw, what we need to see is whether there are other words around which show otherwise", and now you've essentially accepted my position.

Because the framework the UNSC had set up required agreement by both parties - it did not consider the possibility of one party's obstructionism as a means of delaying resolution until such time as the status quo could be argued to be the most feasible option, and it probably didn't have the votes to push through a resolution censuring India.

Pakistan's disagreement over troop levels that gave India more than a significant advantage were based on military rationale, and Indian tactics of illegally sparking communal violence, invasion and occupation of the territory of sovereign States such as the Pakistani territory of Junagadh and the State of Hyderabad. India's demands during negotiations that she be recognized as solely having the legal ability to deploy forces throughout disputed J&K in case of violence and threats of instability.To any rationale individual this was clearly a setup to replicate the events of Junagadh and Hyderabad and have Indian forces step into the Vacuum left by withdrawing Pakistani forces, hence the need to maintain, at least, a defensible posture with limited Indian military troop superiority.

I didn't miss anything - I I clearly stated in my earlier post that without a truce agreement interpretations of 'ongoing withdrawal' could be interpreted to mean anything, and the examples I gave were to further establish the fact that the withdrawal was subject to an agreement on the details. You're attributing arguments to me that I did not make.

I have accepted no ambiguity and you have established no such thing.

The Pakistani government is on record committing to a withdrawal in the UNSC, in accordance with the UNSC framework that calls for an agreement on the details of the withdrawal negotiated under said UNSC framework - it doesn't get any more 'officially on record' than that.

As explained earlier, the UNSC, if it considered Pakistan's 'misrepresentation' regarding the presence of her troops in J&K to be unacceptable, have addressed the issue in subsequent UNSC Resolutions in a manner that outright demanded an unconditional and unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan, period. Instead, it chose to create a framework under which India, Pakistan and the UN were to negotiate a agreement on the details of a verifiable demilitirization leading to a plebiscite, a framework that was accepted by all sides at the time.

It does not, as explained earlier. Again, since a government cannot be expected to have control over all irregulars, it stands to reason that the State may have to resort to both non-violent and violent means to ensure compliance. The use of violence by the State to ensure that irregulars comply with the requirement to withdraw requires the use of government armed forces. Therefore the logical absurdity is to argue that a government 'use its best endeavors to ensure withdrawal of an irregular force', when the government does not have a military that would give it's 'best endeavors' the teeth to ensure said compliance by irregulars. The UNSC and UNCIP knew exactly what it was proposing because a staged withdrawal, with government troops the last to leave, would be the only way to ensure that the GoP had the ability to influence irregulars.

The series of events were negotiations and agreement on the details of demilitirization, that India sabotaged and obstructed by placing unreasonable demands, as detailed earlier.

Actually, Indian rejected the earlier proposal of 5000 fewer troops on her side, even though that would have still left her with a significant numerical advantage over Pakistan. Pakistan compromised on several occasions, with the troop discrepancy continuing to increase in favor of India each time India rejected a proposal and a new one was presented. At some point Pakistan had to draw the line and it justifiable did so. The obstructionism was on the Indian side - why did India reject the earlier proposal with 5000 fewer troops on the Indian side, even though India would have still had a significant numerical advantage?

Irrelevant to the point being argued, on whether Pakistan was required to unilaterally and unconditionally withdraw from J&K by the UNSC Resolutions, which I have clearly explained to not be the case, as Pakistan has argued.


I see a bunch of articles and a reference in some books to this alleged 'removal from the list of the UN disputes', but there is absolutely no reference to a UN published list of disputes that Kashmir was allegedly 'removed from'. One can't 'remove a dispute from a list' if said list doesn't even exist to begin with.

Please provide a reference to a UN site/source that provides a list of disputed territories, as recognized by the UN.

You write:

Correct, they are recommendations and principles that India and Pakistan committed to, pending agreement on the details of both demilitarization and plebiscite. India has reneged on he international commitments made multiple times, and refuses to even engage in negotiations over those principles any longer, whereas Pakistan continues to adhere to her international commitments.

The UNSC concluded its mediated talks on troop withdrawal after the collapse of the 12-point proposal. Since then, the UN has only intervened when the issue of ceasefire has arisen, like in ’65 and ’71. India has always cooperated on the issue of ceasefire. If the UN has not initiated another round of talks on withdrawal, then India cannot reject what is yet to be proposed, can it?

And yes, you are right, Pakistan can only adhere to her international commitments where there are none – in this case regarding negotiations that have not even taken place. Apart from that, Pakistan has violated its international commitments towards not being a menace to the world by proliferation of terrorism and WMDs more than any other country in the world. It has also breached its commitments of not being an aggressor on more than one occasion. Apart from that minor issue, you are right.

You write:

Multiple UNSC Resolutions made clear what the framework of these discussions was to be - primarily, negotiations towards an agreement on the details of a demilitarization plan. The Indian government's participation in such negotiations would only occur if they recognized that the UNSC Resolutions required a UN mediated agreement on demilitirization, acceptable to all sides, prior to any withdrawal.

The primary (immediate) motive of the Indian government was to secure a ceasefire. The ceasefire line itself was agreed upon in the Karachi agreement. So the India side were to do what exactly according to you – walk out on the negotiations in which the first step was the ceasefire that they were equally concerned about? And how does Indian involvement in the negotiations show that the Pakistani/your position is correct? How did you make that jump? Your reasoning goes like this “So the Indians were involved in the discussions all along and since everyone knows our position is correct so by being involved in the discussions the Indians endorsed the correctness of our position”. But where did you prove your position to be correct in the first place?

And I mentioned the words immediate because you shouldn’t use that as an excuse to conclude that the Indians were not serious about the entire plan as laid out in the two resolutions we have been discussing. Do you have any proof of anything said by an Indian representative that they didn’t want a solution? Not wanting the solution that Pakistan wants is not the same as not wanting an solution at all.

The argument here is over the claim that the UN Resolutions require Pakistan to withdraw all 'combatants' unconditionally. If that was the case, the UNSC had no reason to set up UN Commissions and send UN representatives to negotiate the details with India AND Pakistan, and India had no reason to accept or participate in UNSC sanctioned discussions that undermined the claim that 'Pakistan was required to withdraw unconditionally'.

You are shifting goalposts here. The argument was not on withdrawal of “all combatants unconditionally”. The argument was on whether or not the language in Resolution dated Aug 13, 1948 a) clubbed together the withdrawal of Pakistani troops with that of irregulars; b) whether the words “being withdrawn” in themselves meant that the entire process could chug along without actual withdrawal of Pakistani troops.

Yes, Indian involvement in the negotiation showed that they agreed to the framework. So what is the framework that we are talking about? You claim that the framework is that a) there is no unilateral unconditional requirement on Pakistan to withdraw, b) that the issue of withdrawal, which was the pre-condition for plebiscite, had to be mutually agreed upon under the aegis of the UNSC. As for the first point, saying that the words in Part II B (1) do not put an onus of withdrawal on Pakistan is a fool’s errand. You have solely focused on it in the manner you wish. You have deliberately ignored Part II A (1), that I have mentioned earlier, which specifically calls for withdrawal of Pakistani troops as it is a change in the material situation, as if it is of no consequence. Where is the corresponding obligation in the resolution upon India to do the same? Even in Part II B (1), the Commission is supposed to notify India that Pakistani irregulars and troops have withdrawn. Why does it not mention that Pakistan needs to be informed as well about the corresponding Indian withdrawal?

Now, I had already agreed with your reasoning that despite the onus of withdrawal being upon Pakistan, the language of Part II B (1) seems to suggest that “complete” withdrawal of Pakistani troops is not required under the provision. That is self-evident. Yet, the same provision clearly states that the government of India is to be notified of the complete withdrawal of irregulars and the ongoing withdrawal of troops, at which point it was to begin its own withdrawal in agreed stages. What you have done here is actually quite neat, I must admit. In order to get out of the self-evident nature of the provision, you have conflated an obvious point, about the Pakistani withdrawal being ongoing, with a very tenuous one, that this showed that there is no unconditional requirement of Pakistani troop withdrawal at all.

The issue here is the stages of action as per the language of Part II, the stages are as follows:

Stage 1 - Full withdrawal of Irregulars - along with Partial withdrawal of Pakistani troops
along with - Simultaneous negotiation and demarcation of ceasefire line
along with - Negotiation on levels of troops to be maintained by both countries

Stage 2 - Verification by Commission

Stage 3 - Notification to India about withdrawal of all Pakistani irregulars and ongoing withdrawal of Pakistani troops to agreed levels

Stage 4 - Indian withdrawal to agreed numbers

Stage 5 - Plebiscite

What you have done is emphasized the points of “all” and “unconditional”, instead of focusing on the stages set out. India engaged in discussions as per the stages set out. Now what had transpired, was that we had not even reached the end of Stage 1 of the roadmap. Talks collapsed at the stage of what troop levels were to be maintained by both countries. Keeping that in mind, stages 2-5 were not possible. Unless both sides could agree on the troop numbers. Now why are you making it an issue of did India agree with the framework, etc. etc.? When the simple issue is, where did the negotiations collapse? They collapsed because the parties could not agree on numbers. Without that agreement, Pakistan could not have withdrawn down to the requisite number. You are treating the words about the commission notifying about the Pakistani withdrawal to India as if they don’t exist, but they do exist. So post-notification, India would have reduced its number as per agreement. But how would India have done all that if there was no agreement? You talk as if the plebiscite was right across the corner. We had not even reached the end of stage 1. Even if I was to concede to you the point that the requirement of withdrawal on India and Pakistan was simultaneous, without any agreement on the number, how could things have gone forward?

You have repeatedly used the reasoning that if the UNSC wanted to unilaterally impose an obligation on Pakistan to withdraw, then why did the UNSC not pass a resolution to that effect? The answer is quite simple actually. It was Pakistan which was not happy with the status quo. The UN, by not passing a resolution requiring India to come back to the negotiating table or accept the twelve-point proposal in toto, had, in effect, endorsed the Indian position. If the UN had agreed with your view, they would have passed a resolution saying the above, the fact that they didn’t means that they did think like me. I know, now you will simply discredit the “if UNSC thought so then why didn’t it....”line of argument.

You wrote:

Actually, Indian rejected the earlier proposal of 5000 fewer troops on her side, even though that would have still left her with a significant numerical advantage over Pakistan. Pakistan compromised on several occasions, with the troop discrepancy continuing to increase in favor of India each time India rejected a proposal and a new one was presented. At some point Pakistan had to draw the line and it justifiable did so. The obstructionism was on the Indian side - why did India reject the earlier proposal with 5000 fewer troops on the Indian side, even though India would have still had a significant numerical advantage?

So what are we left with? The question whether India deliberately obstructed by not agreeing to the lowest threshold Pakistan was willing for? There are two ways of looking at it: on facts, Pakistan had invaded first, and sent in irregulars. India had not. So if any country did have concerns on the issue, it was India, not Pakistan. Another way to look at it would be that since the matter was in the UN, both countries should have trusted the UNSC to be able to effectively monitor and control the situation qua the plebiscite. Even in that situation, why did Pakistan not trust the UNSC? How is India’s responsibility to trust the UNSC any greater than Pakistan’s?

I am not responding to all the points in your post. Most of them are your points of view which have nothing to do with the issue under discussion.

So, to sum up:

1) India was party to the negotiations as it was also keen on a solution to the issue, starting with restoration of peace through a ceasefire. To invade another country, and then to adduce its willingness to talk peace as evidence of authenticating once own position is far-fetched. The presumption that by merely proving that the Indians agreed to the framework, you are proving that they had agreed to the Pakistani position that the plebiscite needed to be held regardless of whether or not the troop numbers were agreeable to them is a convenient and bogus leap of logic.

2) The language of Part II is clear and unambiguous. Pakistan is to withdraw, India is to be notified of the (ongoing) withdrawal, at which point, it is to withdraw its troops down to the level that had been agreed upon during the (ongoing) Pakistani withdrawal, thereby paving the way for the plebiscite. Pointing out that it was merely a framework does nothing except try to obfuscate, and if it means that Pakistan’s obligation to withdraw is not binding, then neither is India’s to ensure a plebiscite, which comes lower down in the order of precedence.

3) If there was no agreement on the troop numbers, and the UNSC had seen it to mean a breach by India, it would have passed the appropriate resolutions to either bring it back to the table, or endorsed Pakistan’s position regarding a plebiscite. The UNSC did not do any such thing, thereby providing the ultimate proof that Pakistan’s withdrawal was a condition precedent to the plebiscite.

4) The failure to agree on the troop numbers was either a case of India’s experience in Kashmir, or a lack of faith by both countries in the UNSC mechanism. In either case, the fault lies altogether with Pakistan or at best upon both countries equally.

I see a bunch of articles and a reference in some books to this alleged 'removal from the list of the UN disputes', but there is absolutely no reference to a UN published list of disputes that Kashmir was allegedly 'removed from'. One can't 'remove a dispute from a list' if said list doesn't even exist to begin with.

Please provide a reference to a UN site/source that provides a list of disputed territories, as recognized by the UN.

Finally, on an unrelated note:

So if there is no written list that means there is no list? There is another way of looking at it, as Pskistan's envoy to the UN looked at it - that if there is no written list, and if the dispute is not being mentioned as an ongoing one, then it is no longer under consideration as an ongoing dispute. Hey, he could have simple called the UK envoy's bluff, right? By pointing out like you cleverly did that there is no such list. But the fact of the matter is, if it hasn't been mentioned, it is not on the agenda. Now two things could have happened, the UK envoy/General Assembly/UNSC could have clarified that oh we are so sorry, genuine mistake, it's still an ongoing dispute. Or it could have gotten mentioned as an ongoing dispute by the General Assembly/UNSC at a later point in time.

Now you are very fond of always asking for proof, aren't you? Now please show me some proof that either of the two things mentioned above actually happened. Mind you, Pakistan's unilateral mention of it at either venue does not count. Nor does any mention by the UN that it is an issue to be resolved bilaterally (without mention of the words "under the UNSC framework"). If you cannot adduce either evidence, then for a change just accept something instead of being a contrarian with no proof.