bandit
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,265
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
So why do most Indians regurgitate the same biased history?
Seemingly many Pakistanis carry on with their biased versions about a lot many other things. I however, would refrain from assuming.
What preconditions? I pointed out to you that the resolutions in fact called for 'negotiations' on the issue of withdrawal, and that subsequent resolutions overrode previous ones and removed the point about a unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan.
At the very least you have to refute my point about the condition of 'withdrawal of Pakistani forces' being subject to negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN appointed commission and rapporteurs. The latter point of whether India 'cherry picked' only one very early resolution out of the many that were passed (becoming more detailed as time progressed) I'll attempt to address next.
The point is Pakistan needed to remove its forces before India could move to the next part of the resolution...Agreed?
Now Pakistan had a lot of time to move its forces back and then squarely blame India for reneging on its commitments. However Pakistan chose to hold on to the land which highlighted its intentions.
Now you say that the countries had to negotiate, but please tell me what could have Pakistan discussed about withdrawing its forces from Kashmir with India. You claim higher moral grounds but Pakistans actions do not justify them based on that India prevented you from withdrawing forces.
I am not mistaken sir, you have no clue about the commitment made by your nation's leadership to the UNSC resolutions, or refuse to see it to push a flawed and distorted narrative.
See Nehru's quotes below and note the dates:
We had given our pledge to the people of Kashmir, and subsequently to the United Nations; we stood by it and we stand by it today. Let the people of Kashmir decide. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Statement in the Indian Parliament, 12 February 1951).
We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, 2 January 1952).
But so far as the Government of India are concerned, every assurance and international commitment in regard to Kashmir stands. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (Statement in the Indian Council of States; 18 May 1954).
All statements reiterating India's commitment to the UN, and all in the fifties and one in 1954, when the resolution delineating the UN preferred troop levels for both India and Pakistan had been passed in 1952.
Nehru made the statements based on what the 1948 resolution had called for.
About the underlined part above, how do you expect India to accept a change in the original spirit of the resolution to which India agreed to and which clearly framed Pakistan as the aggressor? You of course hold that dear to yourself as it strengthens your position.
You cannot cherry pick one resolution, that you think supports your POV, out of the many that were passed, since subsequent resolutions override the past ones. The desire to reject the other resolutions is like a thief rejecting a higher courts decision against him.
The same way you chose to ignore the roiginal resolution for 4 years for withdrawing the troops.
Please see above and my point about you needing to refute my argument on troop withdrawal
I fail to see what your point was there, or how I was distorting facts. Please elaborate.
.
The contingency for plebiscite was in 1948, and your point about mutual removal of troops is from different resolutions, which as I explained is not acceptable to India as it equates Pakistans position with it on Kashmir.
.
There was no alliance with the West at that time, nor can you conclusively argue that all UNSC members were in cahoots to 'rig' the UNSC resolutions - that's an absurd conspiracy theory.
Russia abstained from the voting. Obviously in support of India.
And no you do realize you dont need all members of the UNSC in cahoots for that, just one would have done, USA.
.
*The Security Council voted on this resolution on 23-12-1952 with the following result:-
In favor: **Brazil, **Chile, China, France, **Greece, **Netherlands, **Turkey, U.K. and U.S.A.
Against: None.
Abstaining: U.S.S.R.
** Non-Permanent Members of the Security Council, .
.
The Pakistani Army's entrance into Kashmir occured after the IA's entrance. The Tribal invasion occurred after the Mharajah's atocities against his own people when they rose up in rebellion against him - in that sense the Tribal invasion in support of the people of Kashmir against a brutal dictator was the right thing to do.
Now now, lets not be naive shall we, its well documented that Pakistan supported the Tribals. Jinnah even bragged that the Tribals would back out on his single command. Now what does it say about Pakistans intentions at that time. This non-state actor excuse is really getting lamer by the minute.
After all, how do Indians classify their nation's own intervention in East Pakistan by supporting and arming violent rebels?.
Lets not digress shall we, I'll refrain.
.
I have already pointed out to you that the entity that India approached for arbitration ruled that the territory was disputed, the means of resolution was plebiscite, and that withdrawal was to be done through negotiations and subsequently ruled that withdrawal would not be bilateral. India's personal opinion does not matter -the neutral entity and arbiter ruled that a unilateral withdrawal was not feasible - India's position was wrong, and she failed to convince the UNSC of it.
Sir please note that appenix VI mentions that
.
India agreed to cease fire with effect from 1st Jan: 1949 after some assurances were given to it during the course of discussions and correspondence with the UN Commission for India and Pakistan. One of the assurance given was that the plebiscite proposal shall not be binding upon India if Pakistan does not implement Part I and Part II of the resolution of August 13, 1948..
Subsequently it changed the terms, we really are under no compulsion to follow an arbiters rulings who changes terms after the pact and the neutrality of which is questionable anyways. Please try to read the soviet representatives accusation of US and UK interfering in Kashmir and stating that the constituent assembly shall decide on Kashmir in January 1952. It is obvious sides had been taken on Kashmir by then.