More things change, more they remain same.
The Truce Agreement does talk of bilateral mechanism, but only between India and UN. Pakistan had no role in it. Part II/B(1) reads:
When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission
Nehru, while seeking clarifications on the resolution of 13th Aug, 1948, had sought to identify the parties to the negotiation concerning demilitarization. He wrote to Joseph Korbel, the Chairman of the Commission, on 20th Aug, 1948 (UNCIPs 1st Report):
...the paramount need for security is recognized by the Commission, and the time when the withdrawal of Indian forces from the State is to begin, the stages in which it is to be carried out and the strength of Indian forces to be retained in the State, are matters for settlement between the Commission and the Government of India. (para 4)
Joseph Korbel, wrote back, on 25th Aug, 1948, confirming Nehrus interpretation (UNCIPs 1st Report):
The Commission requests me to convey to Your Excellency its view that the interpretation of the Resolution as expressed in paragraph 4 of your letter coincides with its own interpretation...
Pakistan, too had sought clarification on this very issue. Joseph Korbel, in his letter to Zafarulla Khan, dated 3rd Sept, 1948, stated (UNCIPs 1st Report):
As regards paragraphs B 1 and 2 of Part II, the Commission, while recognizing the paramount need for security of the State of Jammu ad Kashmir, confirms that the minimum strength required for the purpose of assisting the local authorities in the observance of law and order, would be determined by the Commission and the Government of India. The Commission considers that it is free to hear the views of the Government of Pakistan on the subject.
In other words, India was neither obliged to negotiate with Pakistan nor to share information about demilitarization with anyone other than UN Commission. Neither did Pakistan have any right to dictate terms and conditions for its own withdrawal or seek information from India, or perhaps even from UN, about India's withdrawal.
The Commission had on several occasions, clarified, that Pakistan had to completely withdraw from the occupied part. The evacuated land was then to become UN's concern and Pakistan had absolutely no role to play in it (not even in the subsequent plebiscite). Pakistan's argument, based on its flawed premise, was in complete contradiction with the Commissions clarifications. For example, UNCIPs 3rd Report states:
...the Resolution [
], as has been pointed out, draws a distinction between the withdrawal of Indian and Pakistan forces. Pakistan troops are to begin to withdraw in advance of the Indian troops and their withdrawal is not conditioned on Pakistan's agreement to the plan of the Indian withdrawal. (para 242)
To summarise, (a) negotiations regarding demilitarization was a bipartite affair between India and the UN, where Pakistan had no role to play, and (b) Pakistan's withdrawal was unconditional, unilateral and non-negotiable.
___________________________
End Note:
UNCIPs 1st Report was prepared by Mr Alfredo Lonazo, representative of Columbia and is dated 22, Nov, 1948. Commissions chairman was Mr Joseph Korbel.
UNCIPs 3rd Report was prepared by Mr Robert van de Karchove, representative of Belgium and is dated 9 Dec, 1949. Commissions chairman was Mr Hernando Semper.
