Terror and impunity in Kashmir

[M. Sarmad]

hmm... India is a signatory to the UNSC resolutions on kashmir, thus has been in agreement since the resolution was signed and with every subsequent resolutions. If india was in disagreement there would be no resolution.

Here is the resolution (resolution 98)

"4. Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3,000 and 6,000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line and between 12,000 and 18,000 armed forces remaining on the India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952;"




....... However, India refused to reduce its troop number down to 18,000. It claimed it needed 24,000 troops. Pakistan had already agreed to reduce its troop numbers to 3,000-6,000. This is what halted the process......

Sino-Pakistan Frontier Agreement - 1963 | Page 3

 

[MilSpec]

Here is the resolution (resolution 98)

"4. Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3,000 and 6,000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line and between 12,000 and 18,000 armed forces remaining on the India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952;"




....... However, India refused to reduce its troop number down to 18,000. It claimed it needed 24,000 troops. Pakistan had already agreed to reduce its troop numbers to 3,000-6,000. This is what halted the process......

Sino-Pakistan Frontier Agreement - 1963 | Page 3

Post source,, none of your sources work. Also this seems to be a proposal, not a resolution.
edit dont bother , found it

 

[MilSpec]

Here is the resolution (resolution 98)

"4. Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3,000 and 6,000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line and between 12,000 and 18,000 armed forces remaining on the India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952;"




....... However, India refused to reduce its troop number down to 18,000. It claimed it needed 24,000 troops. Pakistan had already agreed to reduce its troop numbers to 3,000-6,000. This is what halted the process......

Sino-Pakistan Frontier Agreement - 1963 | Page 3

For resolution 98, the United nation recognises that India and pakistan both do not agree to the demilitarization terms, how did you come to the conclusion that it was India that disagreed... especially when it was pakistan that initiated the hostilites to begin with.

In 1962, the Kashmir Question was again debated in the U.N Security Council. However, it failed to pass a resolution in view of a Soviet veto, which discouraged the UNSC from pursuing the Kashmir question thereafter.
The last UNSC resolution (307) that dealt with Kashmir was passed in the wake of the India–Pakistan war of 1971, where Kashmir was not at the centre of the conflict between the two countries. The resolution could be passed only after India had declared a unilateral ceasefire. UNSC's attempts to pass resolutions during the 1971 war were blocked by a Soviet veto and with the signing of the Shimla Peace Accord between India and Pakistan in 1972, which laid stress on “bilateral solutions to the Kashmir issue,” the U.N involvement in Kashmir was in reality dead.

 

[M. Sarmad]

and with the signing of the Shimla Peace Accord between India and Pakistan in 1972, which laid stress on “bilateral solutions to the Kashmir issue,” the U.N involvement in Kashmir was in reality dead.

This argument has no legal basis and it has been refuted by UN representatives on a lot of occasions :

These UN resolutions are still valid, even though India has made many efforts to declare them‘dead’, particularly after the signing of the Simla Agreement on July 3, 1972. The Indian argument is based on Article (ii) of the agreement, which states: ‘that the two countries are resolved to settle differences by peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.’ However, it may be noted that the said Article in no way implies that either party has agreed to give up the UN option. In fact it follows Article (i) of the Simla agreement, which asserts the relevance of the UN principles when it states: ‘that the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.’ Moreover, this Indian claim has been refuted by various UN representatives who, on several occasions, have clarified that, only a bilateral agreement, which solves the problem, would legally supersede the numerous existing UN resolutions on that dispute. Also, in the absence of any fundamental change in the circumstances, the UN resolutions can become invalid only when the UN Security Council declares them null and viod. For example in 1956, the then UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjold, had clearly stated that ‘the UN decision is valid until it has been invalidated by the organ which took it. ......In April 1990, the UN Representative, Francis Guiliani, clarified: ‘a bilateral agreement, which solved the problem, would supersede the resolution aimed at solving the issue. However, as long as the problem remained, the resolutions would remain in effect regardless of when they were adopted. Thus, the manipulated elections to the Jammu and Kashmir State Assembly, often cited by India as the expression of the will of the people of Kashmir, cannot replace the international consensus which endorses impartial plebiscite under the UN auspices,

For resolution 98, the United nation recognises that India and pakistan both do not agree to the demilitarization terms, how did you come to the conclusion that it was India that disagreed... especially when it was pakistan that initiated the hostilites to begin with.

Indian attempts to declare Pakistan an "aggressor" in Kashmir had failed in 1948 , .... We did not initiate the hostilities . And at least now you have realized that Pakistan did not withdraw its troops as India and Pakistan could not agree to the demilitarization terms ..... Ball is not in Pakistan`s court as you always claim ........India halted the process , not Pakistan ;

The London Economist stated that "the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [the Kashmiri people]...has been obstructing a holding of an internationally supervised plebis-cite."


Sir Owen Dixon, the United Nations Representative to the UNCIP, reported to the Security Council that,

"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled."

 

[SarthakGanguly]

The basic funda is this -

In the order of priorities -
i. Reduction of Pakistani troops.
How did Pakistan escape that? - They were smart. Apart from regulars, the presence of the irregulars helped cover up a gray area.

ii. Reduction of Indian troops.

iii. Plebiscite.

Point (i) never happened. End of story. Instead what did Pakistan do? Operation Gibralter.

Secondly and more importantly - India has never and will never care for UN resolution on any part of its internal affairs. Of course, the entire world may get furious about it, but they can do nothing about it. Of course, other than going to war with India.

So it boils down to the basic thing - the only way Kashmir is getting out of India is for India to cease to exist. As long as India exists, the tricolor will fly atop Srinagar. Pakistan also knew this from the very beginning. Which is why they also tried (and continue to try) using force or extra legal means. That is what it all boils down to.

Sorry, but that has been and will remain Indian policy - irrespective of the type of Government gains power at the Center.

I and you can do nothing about them, yaar. Other than helping people improve their lives in our own ways.

Like they say - In war, I will be the enemy you will kill my friend (or vice versa)
That's why the avatar of mine sums it up.

 

[MilSpec]

This argument has no legal basis and it has been refuted by UN representatives on a lot of occasions :








Indian attempts to declare Pakistan an "aggressor" in Kashmir had failed in 1948 , .... We did not initiate the hostilities . And at least now you have realized that Pakistan did not withdraw its troops as India and Pakistan could not agree to the demilitarization terms ..... Ball is not in Pakistan`s court as you always claim ........India halted the process , not Pakistan ;

The London Economist stated that "the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [the Kashmiri people]...has been obstructing a holding of an internationally supervised plebis-cite."


Sir Owen Dixon, the United Nations Representative to the UNCIP, reported to the Security Council that,

"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled."

Dot really carewhat a newspaper says, the resolution committee doesn't say any such thing.