Possible Solution of Kashmir issue...Your Opinion

[Joe Shearer]

Oh cut it out 1948 wasnt the last resolution passed,tere were many resolutions that came after that.. . And do u know the resolutions were to be implemeneted when both the parties in question agreed on the terms.

True.

So if Pakistan did not want to agree to the UN Resolution's terms, why does she and her representatives keep talking about it? Either you agree to it, or you set your own terms. You can't have both, can you?

Here,


"After hearing Indian and Pakistani representatives, the U.N Security Council passed its first resolution (Resolution 38) on Kashmir Conflict on January 17, 1948, calling India and Pakistan to exercise restraint and ease tensions. Three days later, on January 20, the Security Council passed another resolution (Resolution 39), creating the United Nations Commission for Indian and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate the dispute and mediate between the two countries.


Led by Britain and the United States, the U.N Security Council passed another resolution (Resolution 47) on April 21, 1948, which enlarged the membership of the UNCIP from 3 to 5 , called for cessation of hostilities between India and Pakistan, withdrawal of all Pakistani troops and tribesmen and bulk of Indian troops(except for a minimal number required for maintaining law order),allowing return of refugees, release of political prisoners and holding of a U.N supervised Plebiscite in the (Princely)State of Jammu and Kashmir to determine the aspirations of her people. The Plebiscite was to be held by a U.N appointed Plebiscite administrator. The U.N Security Council passed another resolution on June3, 1948, which reaffirmed the previous resolutions and asked the UNCIP to proceed to the "disputed areas" to carry out its mission as stated under Resolution 47 of April 21, 1948.


The UNCIP reached the Indian sub-continent in July 1948 and after deliberations with Indian and Pakistani leadership, produced a proposal, which called for an immediate ceasefire and a truce agreement between India and Pakistan, withdrawal of all Pakistani tribals and nationals and bulk of India's troops. India rejected the proposals on the basis of the argument that the proposal did not opportune any blame on Pakistan-which India considered as the aggressor in Kashmir- whereas Pakistan rejected the plan as the Interim administration of Valley of Kashmir and the territories that had fallen under Indian control had been assigned to Sheikh Abdullah's control. Sheikh Abdullah, who had become the Prime Minister of the autonomous J&K State on March 5, 1948, was considered by Pakistan as India's ally and by implication could influence the plebiscite in India's favour. Pakistan also rejected the agreement on the ground that it was supposed to withdraw all its forces from the State whereas India was allowed to retain some of its troops to maintain order, which could potentially lead to coercion or intimidation of voters by Indian forces to influence the outcome of the proposed plebiscite.

False.

India never rejected any part of the resolution 48, which was the operative one.

As you have recorded yourself, Pakistan, on the other hand, did.

On August 14, 1948, the UNCIP submitted proposals to the Indian and Pakistani governments, which for the first time contained an acknowledgment from Pakistan about the presence of its troops in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The proposal envisioned the withdrawal of Pakistani troops and nationals and bulk of Indian troops from the State, subsequent to their withdrawal the administration of the territory was to be run by the Commission.

On December 11, 1948, the UNCIP laid out a new set of proposals that elaborated on the question of Plebiscite in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. As per the proposals "The question of accession to India or Pakistan was to be decided by a free and impartial plebiscite, which was contingent upon having a cease-fire".


The two countries accepted the cease-fire plan and allowed the U.N to observe the ceasefire from January 1, 1949.The ceasefire-line "went through the western part of Jammu and the eastern part of Poonch, leaving the capital city of Poonch on the Indian side of the line, then crossed the Jhelum River at a point west of Uri and made a large sweep following the valley of the Kishinganga River. From there, it proceeded to Kargil, which also remained on the Indian side, and then north-west to the Chinese border. Hunza, Gilgit, Baltistan, Chilas, the great part of Poonch, and the smaller part of Jammu remained in control of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir".


On January 5, 1949, the United Nations came up with a new plan for a plebiscite. To address Pakistan's fears that the Plebiscite outcome may be influenced in India's favor by Sheikh Abdullah-who was seen as close to Indian P.M. Nehru and had been appointed as the interim head of J& K administration-and the limited Indian troops which were meant to maintain law and order during the plebiscite, the U.N proposed that the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be under the full control of the Plebiscite Administrator. The Plebiscite administrator was to enjoy quasi-sovereign powers over the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The proposal was rejected by the Indian side, which maintained that the State had become a part of the Indian Union."

Tell me appointment of sheikh abdullah as pleb administrator is false ,a lie?

Yes.

It is false, a lie.

Nowhere in your own quoted passage did it mention Sheikh Abdullah as the Plebiscite Administrator.

Obviously, your knowledge of English is weaker than your knowledge of the facts.

Now, going by the passages that you yourself have cited, what do you have to say, since each and every one of your own arguments is in tatters?

You mentioned that there was more than one Resolution on the subject. I had all along mentioned Resolution 48. When the conditions for maintaining its provisions had been frustrated by one side holding out, where was the question of further resolutions?

@Joe Shearer

This is something that I have pointed out before. Most Pakistanis, whether here or elsewhere seem unwilling to engage in a "workable" solution on Kashmir or even Siachen. They seem to simply not be able to go beyond their stated reasons, no articulation of why a proposal might find acceptance with India (realistic) & what the alternative proposal may be, what is in it for India & why India should consider doing that.

They bring nothing to the table except their demands which essential is based on the hope of getting something for nothing.

That is the behaviour of children.

Some of them think that if they keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again, somehow it will become the truth, and everything will go their way.

Nope they were Hindu dictators that's how we Muslims of Kashmir remember them

I take it that you include Mirpuris among the "Muslims of Kashmir".

How did Mirpur and the Poonch territories get to be part of Kashmir, other than through the instrument of the Dogras?

@Bang Galore

Their standards get worse and worse every year. These two babes in the wood don't even have the ability to read through what they are copying and pasting, and seem to be under the illusion that in some mysterious alchemy, it bears out what they have been saying.

Weird.

 

[PDF]

Do you know the UN referendum mandates Pakistan to vacate Pakistani Kashmir ? And there is already Shimla Agreement on top of that.
Wishing for the best is one thing, but the reality has to be accounted for too.

As T.S. Elliot once said, "Between the idea and the reality, falls the shadow."

Yes I know and want both countries to follow them. I am convinced that we should do it no matter what bitterest decisions we have to made. It is best for the well being if the Kashmiris.
The problem lies in having different ideologies. India does not accept Two Nation theory. Nevertheless,
Even if we or you get the other part of Kashmir, we will have to face alot of problems. For example Very easy scenario for spies.etc

 

[Maarkhoor]

India annexed many small nations and succeeded but fail to understand that Kashmiri people wont accept any non-muslim ruler they revolt against dogra they supported Pakistan movement but Hari Singh conspire with India and Lady mountbaton's affair with Nehru makes the situation worse for Kashmiri people but they are determined to get independence from today's Dogras and Inshallah they will succeed.

 

[Bang Galore]

@Bang Galore

Their standards get worse and worse every year. These two babes in the wood don't even have the ability to read through what they are copying and pasting, and seem to be under the illusion that in some mysterious alchemy, it bears out what they have been saying.

Weird.

Yeah, it's been like that. Which is why I asked for your company for however long we manage to stay here. The people who you could have a discussion with don't post as much. @Icarus was a rare presence on this thread, most here don't bother to read & they think that they somehow are the only repositories of all knowledge on such issues and that no one else here has ever thought about it.

This is not really a debate, they are not looking at anything you post. They simply don't want to engage.

 

[Zibago]

True.

So if Pakistan did not want to agree to the UN Resolution's terms, why does she and her representatives keep talking about it? Either you agree to it, or you set your own terms. You can't have both, can you?



False.

India never rejected any part of the resolution 48, which was the operative one.

As you have recorded yourself, Pakistan, on the other hand, did.



Yes.

It is false, a lie.

Nowhere in your own quoted passage did it mention Sheikh Abdullah as the Plebiscite Administrator.

Obviously, your knowledge of English is weaker than your knowledge of the facts.

Now, going by the passages that you yourself have cited, what do you have to say, since each and every one of your own arguments is in tatters?

You mentioned that there was more than one Resolution on the subject. I had all along mentioned Resolution 48. When the conditions for maintaining its provisions had been frustrated by one side holding out, where was the question of further resolutions?



That is the behaviour of children.

Some of them think that if they keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again, somehow it will become the truth, and everything will go their way.



I take it that you include Mirpuris among the "Muslims of Kashmir".

How did Mirpur and the Poonch territories get to be part of Kashmir, other than through the instrument of the Dogras?

@Bang Galore

Their standards get worse and worse every year. These two babes in the wood don't even have the ability to read through what they are copying and pasting, and seem to be under the illusion that in some mysterious alchemy, it bears out what they have been saying.

Weird.

Yes they were not part of Kashmir before dogra Raj but we mirpuris and poonchian Muslims (also Muslims of other regions of jnk) were living like slaves and second class citizens and even cow slaughter carried the death sentence,only Hindus celebrate dogra Raj over jnk to us it was a tyrants raj

 

[Shamain]

True.

So if Pakistan did not want to agree to the UN Resolution's terms, why does she and her representatives keep talking about it? Either you agree to it, or you set your own terms. You can't have both, can you?



False.

India never rejected any part of the resolution 48, which was the operative one.

As you have recorded yourself, Pakistan, on the other hand, did.



Yes.

It is false, a lie.

Nowhere in your own quoted passage did it mention Sheikh Abdullah as the Plebiscite Administrator.

Obviously, your knowledge of English is weaker than your knowledge of the facts.

Now, going by the passages that you yourself have cited, what do you have to say, since each and every one of your own arguments is in tatters?

You mentioned that there was more than one Resolution on the subject. I had all along mentioned Resolution 48. When the conditions for maintaining its provisions had been frustrated by one side holding out, where was the question of further resolutions?

Oh my bad not administrator ,the interim head of the state. That was my fault. But the point stands.

Why u are mentiining resolution 48 only. If u are so hyper abt resolutions of 48 then why nehru is the one who refused to implement april 21 resolution??
U keep coming back to september resolution. And i had read the interim report of sep resolution.per that report the commission's job was to implement the resolution upon the agreement of both the parties. When pakistan expressed her discontent before the commission regarding the terms that she did not agree upon ,the commissiin proposed to look into further solutions ,it was then ur gov that had totally refused to budge. Hence, the agreement had come down to only ceasefire part of the resolution.

if pakistan's discontent with sep resolution is such an issue then we have similar issues with nehru not holding up the resolution passed in april.
Again as i said u cant play so clever and run with the point that in 48 india had agreed but why pakistan raised issues because before that and after that resolutiin several resolutions were passed that india had refused to abide by.

And if uhurl around ur idiotic argument that why pakistan had issues with some terms of sep resolution whislt india agreed on it then pakistan can also argue on similar lines abt april resolution.

U are behaving as if the entire resolution and agreeing to its terms is only abt india. If india is satisfied it shud be implemented ,if not , then not,

And just cut out the nonsense, if disagreement over sep 48 resolution was the end of it then why uno mission had passed more resolutions in the future? All those resolutions are shared on uno's site.

Yes they were not part of Kashmir before dogra Raj but we mirpuris and poonchian Muslims (also Muslims of other regions of jnk) were living like slaves and second class citizens and even cow slaughter carried the death sentence,only Hindus celebrate dogra Raj over jnk to us it was a tyrants raj

Under the rule of zainul abideen ,the kingdom of kahsmir had included modern day poonch and entire ajk.

Read abt kingdom of kashmir in 800ad . Many of these parts were with kashmir kingdom then broke away ,later brought together by zain ul abidin. Then came under other jagirdaar's rule.


And yea so what if these areas were merged together by dogra? Ppl were living under oppression and wanted freedom.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes they were not part of Kashmir before dogra Raj but we mirpuris and poonchian Muslims (also Muslims of other regions of jnk) were living like slaves and second class citizens and even cow slaughter carried the death sentence,only Hindus celebrate dogra Raj over jnk to us it was a tyrants raj

Then why do you want to be part of Kashmir? Why do you claim to be Kashmiri Muslims? According to your statement above, you were nothing of the sort; you were 'Mirpuris' and 'Poonchian Muslims' and 'also Muslims of other regions of J&K'. NOT Kashmiri Muslims. Now that you have your part in your own control, if Pakistan allows you even to sneeze without permission, what business do you have with Kashmir and with Kashmiri Muslims?

 

[third eye]

Then why do you want to be part of Kashmir? Why do you claim to be Kashmiri Muslims? According to your statement above, you were nothing of the sort; you were 'Mirpuris' and 'Poonchian Muslims' and 'also Muslims of other regions of J&K'. NOT Kashmiri Muslims. Now that you have your part in your own control, if Pakistan allows you even to sneeze without permission, what business do you have with Kashmir and with Kashmiri Muslims?

Cherry Picking my dear Sir

Notice the following :

1. At the root of it all is what Hari Singh ruled and signed off to India

2. No one claims Jammu or laddakh - only Kashmir, this love for fellow Muslims is poppy cock . The love they showed to Muslims in East Pakistan proved this line of argument to be hollow . On a side note, it also led to the undoing of the two nation theory.

3. They have Gilgit & Baltistan & want Kashmir too for the water it ensures them.

 

[nForce]

Yes I know and want both countries to follow them. I am convinced that we should do it no matter what bitterest decisions we have to made. It is best for the well being if the Kashmiris.
The problem lies in having different ideologies. India does not accept Two Nation theory. Nevertheless,
Even if we or you get the other part of Kashmir, we will have to face alot of problems. For example Very easy scenario for spies.etc

India may not accept two nation theory but surely accepts two nations ?

It's another thing that the theory became invalid the day the count of nations changed from two to three.

What you are suggesting should have been done within 1-2 years of passing the resolution. Now, it's way too late and practically improbable.

 

[Zibago]

Then why do you want to be part of Kashmir? Why do you claim to be Kashmiri Muslims? According to your statement above, you were nothing of the sort; you were 'Mirpuris' and 'Poonchian Muslims' and 'also Muslims of other regions of J&K'. NOT Kashmiri Muslims. Now that you have your part in your own control, if Pakistan allows you even to sneeze without permission, what business do you have with Kashmir and with Kashmiri Muslims?

You think we ajk,ian's are oppressed boy you are funny :-D
We didn't like dogras but we were part of the tyrants state
You seperately mentioned poonchis and mirpuris so I also mentioned them seperately

 

[PDF]

India may not accept two nation theory but surely accepts two nations ?

It's another thing that the theory became invalid the day the count of nations changed from two to three.

What you are suggesting should have been done within 1-2 years of passing the resolution. Now, it's way too late and practically improbable.

Two Nation theory never failed but lets not go any more deep.
And yes maybe its unpractical now but we should never lose hope. We might find a way out if we sit on one table which might also be impossible due to our nature.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Oh my bad not administrator ,the interim head of the state. That was my fault. But the point stands.

Why u are mentiining resolution 48 only. If u are so hyper abt resolutions of 48 then why nehru is the one who refused to implement april 21 resolution??

You didn't make only one mistake. You made a series of them.

For instance, you ask about the April 21 Resolution. Please read the terms. The Government of India completely agreed to it. It was Pakistan, according to the published Proceedings of the Commission, which refused to comply.

Read before you write.

U keep coming back to september resolution. And i had read the interim report of sep resolution.per that report the commission's job was to implement the resolution upon the agreement of both the parties. When pakistan expressed her discontent before the commission regarding the terms that she did not agree upon ,the commissiin proposed to look into further solutions ,it was then ur gov that had totally refused to budge. Hence, the agreement had come down to only ceasefire part of the resolution.

The Commission clearly placed on record that it had no jurisdiction to change the terms of the Resolution, or to interpret it other than the bare sense of it.

I have read the proceedings and cited it on PakDef, long before you were a member.

if pakistan's discontent with sep resolution is such an issue then we have similar issues with nehru not holding up the resolution passed in april.
Again as i said u cant play so clever and run with the point that in 48 india had agreed but why pakistan raised issues because before that and after that resolutiin several resolutions were passed that india had refused to abide by.

Not one resolution passed before it, not the April 21 resolution, whose substantive terms are identical with the September resolution, except for an enlargement of the membership of the deliberating body, was obstructed by India. Read the proceedings of the Commission, and the record of the General Assembly. Until Resolution 48, there was no action suggested. The question of not acting on those earlier resolutions does not arise. The question of not acting on later resolutions is moot, because on a very simple matter, Pakistan refused to comply.

And if uhurl around ur idiotic argument that why pakistan had issues with some terms of sep resolution whislt india agreed on it then pakistan can also argue on similar lines abt april resolution.

U are behaving as if the entire resolution and agreeing to its terms is only abt india. If india is satisfied it shud be implemented ,if not , then not,

And just cut out the nonsense, if disagreement over sep 48 resolution was the end of it then why uno mission had passed more resolutions in the future? All those resolutions are shared on uno's site.

More resolutions?

Because Pakistan refused to budge on any one.

Under the rule of zainul abideen ,the kingdom of kahsmir had included modern day poonch and entire ajk.

Read abt kingdom of kashmir in 800ad . Many of these parts were with kashmir kingdom then broke away ,later brought together by zain ul abidin. Then came under other jagirdaar's rule.


And yea so what if these areas were merged together by dogra? Ppl were living under oppression and wanted freedom.

If that is so, then under Mughal rule, Kashmir was ruled from Delhi. So why not accept that Mughal rule was the yardstick?

You think we ajk,ian's are oppressed boy you are funny :-D
We didn't like dogras but we were part of the tyrants state
You seperately mentioned poonchis and mirpuris so I also mentioned them seperately

I would rather be funny than be ridiculous. Given a choice, no doubt you would agree too. Too bad you don't have a choice.

Now, if you are part of the tyrant's state, and that is the basis of your wanting to be together, surely your rulers had the right to dispose of their property - you?

That is what the position was once the British Crown withdrew; all the princes became sovereign. What right do you claim, under which law?

Two Nation theory never failed but lets not go any more deep.
And yes maybe its unpractical now but we should never lose hope. We might find a way out if we sit on one table which might also be impossible due to our nature.

I agree with you - in principle.

The fussing around that you see is an old man's irritation at people who can't put a simple argument together, who cite passages that prove themselves wrong, and who can't understand simple English.

The trouble is that discussions on this subject simply cannot be left to mindless jingoists.

I would really appreciate your expanding your views, on the other hand.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Bang Galore

I have classes till around 7. Bear with me. Nihil carborundum illegitimati.

 

[Zibago]

You didn't make only one mistake. You made a series of them.

For instance, you ask about the April 21 Resolution. Please read the terms. The Government of India completely agreed to it. It was Pakistan, according to the published Proceedings of the Commission, which refused to comply.

Read before you write.



The Commission clearly placed on record that it had no jurisdiction to change the terms of the Resolution, or to interpret it other than the bare sense of it.

I have read the proceedings and cited it on PakDef, long before you were a member.



Not one resolution passed before it, not the April 21 resolution, whose substantive terms are identical with the September resolution, except for an enlargement of the membership of the deliberating body, was obstructed by India. Read the proceedings of the Commission, and the record of the General Assembly. Until Resolution 48, there was no action suggested. The question of not acting on those earlier resolutions does not arise. The question of not acting on later resolutions is moot, because on a very simple matter, Pakistan refused to comply.



More resolutions?

Because Pakistan refused to budge on any one.



If that is so, then under Mughal rule, Kashmir was ruled from Delhi. So why not accept that Mughal rule was the yardstick?



I would rather be funny than be ridiculous. Given a choice, no doubt you would agree too. Too bad you don't have a choice.

Now, if you are part of the tyrant's state, and that is the basis of your wanting to be together, surely your rulers had the right to dispose of their property - you?

That is what the position was once the British Crown withdrew; all the princes became sovereign. What right do you claim, under which law?

What choice to be part of a Hindu state no thanks I think I'll pass

What do you mean by that?

Would it make a difference if I told you my roots are from a valley koshor speaking village near Srinagar

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Kashmir belongs to Pakistan, hindus need to accept the truth.

@Icarus