The Kashmir Resolutions - Explanations

[haviZsultan]

I am just here to congratulate the Indians on their great achievements in Kashmir. What Indians have done for Kashmir I doubt all the world put together can do for it, dont you think so?

Gang rape (20-30 soldiers rape 1 woman), torture, tearing pregnant womens stomachs and killing unborn children, torturing people, arresting without reason, seizure of property, killing and genocide...

I mean this is obviously something to be proud of is it not? Some great achievements back there.

Wow brilliant work back there... .



Is there any INDIAN here who does not approve of these crimes and the occupation of Kashmir? I am just asking because its actually disloyalty to India is'nt it?

 

[smeaglegolum]

I am just here to congratulate the Indians on their great achievements in Kashmir. What Indians have done for Kashmir I doubt all the world put together can do for it, dont you think so?

Gang rape (20-30 soldiers rape 1 woman), torture, tearing pregnant womens stomachs and killing unborn children, torturing people, arresting without reason, seizure of property, killing and genocide...

I mean this is obviously something to be proud of is it not? Some great achievements back there.

Wow brilliant work back there... .



Is there any INDIAN here who does not approve of these crimes and the occupation of Kashmir? I am just asking because its actually disloyalty to India is'nt it?

You are simply exaggerating. You should also remember what you have done in E. Pakistan, a complete genocide, much worst than wtha is happened in kashmir. So don't open old wounds, just get going and think of present and future.

 

[haviZsultan]

You are simply exaggerating. You should also remember what you have done in E. Pakistan, a complete genocide, much worst than wtha is happened in kashmir. So don't open old wounds, just get going and think of present and future.

Thread is about Kashmir.

East Pakistan is here. Ask any bangladeshi and they will mention RAW quite a few times.

India doctrine was written by MBI Munshi about illegal RAW activities and brutality across the world. So internal genocide obviously exists jaisay Gujrat and Mumbai and Vadodra and etc. External genocide also exists where Indian agents are at work destabilising foreign lands. India has a huge gdp which can be spent on these heinous crimes and murder.

680 million were handed down to taliban actually. Here:

LAHORE, Pakistan—Three arrested members of a militant gang especially deputed by the so-called ‘Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan’ have disclosed that RAW has been funding suicide bomb attacks in Pakistan and that the Indian agency has funneled PKR 680 million through its contacts in the NDS, the Afghan secret agency.

The gang of three persons has brazenly admitted that they belong to a group of persons who had been deputed to ‘destabilize democratic Pakistan’ in order to create a confrontation with the Pakistani military. They were told to carry out their activities under the pretext of ‘enforcement of Shariah’ in the country.

Operators of the Federal Investigations Agency [FIA], a Pakistani intelligence agency, working beyond the call of their duty, came into contact with a source ready for a tip-off against a reward. The tip-off led to the arrest of Khurram Ishtiaq, Ghulam Mustafa and Shamim. The persons had been working under Qari Hussain, second-in-command to Baitullah Mehsud.

All of the three had been arrested on Aug. 13, 2008, while they were on the prowl for a target. The militants had been arrested ‘red-handed’ as they possessed complete suicide kits, including two jackets and 70 kilogram of explosives and detonators.

The accused were hardened militants and took a lot of time to break and make confessions. They revealed that Qari Hussain had been working to help three adjutants—Farukh Usman alias Shahjee, Tayyab alias Baba; Ustad, the trainer to destabilize the elected government.

Qari Hussain, the leader, prepares suicide bombers and dispatches them throughout Pakistan. He also manages funds for the splinter groups from RAW which works in collusion with the Afghan intelligence agency NDS.

Farukh Usman works as Qari’s deputy and runs the sub-setup to carry out attacks in Lahore and Punjab in general. He was the mastermind of suicide attacks on the FIA building, Naval War College, Model Town, Lahore High Court and PAF bus in Sargodha, investigations have revealed.

Tayyab alias Baba mainly deals with Rawalpindi/Islamabad. He was the man behind blasts at Aabpara Market and Marriott Hotel. The third person known only as Ustad is an expert at making bombs. He is said to be of Indian origin and he ‘works with a vengeance’. He is the man who leads suicide bombers to the marked site of the blast.

The investigation revealed that there are two sub-teams: three persons of one team work under Ustad. Two of the arrested persons—Shahmim Alam alias Sohail alias Kashif alias Uncle and Khurram Ishtiaq alias Ibrahim—have been active members of the TTP and worked under direct guidance of Ustad.

Shamim was the facilitator. His task was to distribute funds to suicide bombers at the behest of Qari Hussain and Tayyab alias Baba. Being educated and a well-dressed civilian-look-alike, he was assigned another important job of providing ‘reconnaissance of the target area’.

He possesses the canny ability of mixing up with urbanites. Khurram Ishtiaq alias Ibrahim is a well-trained militant. His job is to harbor suicide bombers at a secret venue until they are led to the area of operation to carry out the job. The third person of this setup, Sajid, is a resident of Ali Khel, Waziristan. It is not certain whether his services were ‘utilized’ and in what way this was done.

Another team which works under Farrukh Usman alias Shahjee includes Bablu, Rehan, Ghulam Mustafa alias Asif (the third arrested person) and Abdul Rahim. Bablu’s assignment is to provide explosives at the nick of time when the suicide bombers have been finally prepared to perform the ‘sacred feat’.

Ghulam Mustafa and Abdul Rahim, both diehard terrorists, serve as guards in the rear ensure that none of perpetrators develop cold feet at the last minute and try to escape. In that case, there is only one choice left and that too leads the would-be perpetrator to heavens.

Former boss of the FIA, Tariq Lodhi, had recommended a reward and commendation for the team that arrested these terrorists. But sources say the FIA new chief, Shoaib Suddle, turned it down on the grounds that agency operators just did their job and no reward should be given for performing a duty.

The team members disclosed that they had arrested two prime targets during the government of former President Pervez Musharraf and both had a head money of $5 million each but the reward money was shared by two other premier spy agencies instead of passing some of the reward money to the individuals who had arrested them on their own initiative.

The team has long been working on the militants but they got the culprits apprehended through a middleman who was ready to divulge more but “only if he was rewarded for the catch.”

 

[smeaglegolum]

This thread is about Kashmir Resolutions not about Kashmir atrocities. If you want to discuss open a new thread on it.

 

[roadrunner]

Alright, a bit of time for this.

On one hand we have the indisputable failure of the Pakistani side to honour its commitments. On the other side all we have is speculation as to what India would have done had Pakistan actually honoured its commitments.

Pakistan did not fail to honour its commitments. This has been proven to you through 1) the context of the UN resolution that showed the Pakistani forces did not have to withdraw in their entireity and 2) that Sir Owen Dixon stated that it was India that stalled the process. You have not produced one iota evidence that Pakistan stalled the process. Until you do, the statements, and the evidence that India had stalled the demilitarization process have been given.

In any case the UN resolutions are dead. If blame is to be assigned, then the blame goes to Pakistan.

UN resolutions do not cease to exist after 100 years. They cease to exist once a conflict is resolved, or when there is a bilateral agreement to change them - of which there has not been.

No - Pakistan and India have specifically agreed in the Simla agreement to solve the Kashmir problem (and in fact all problems) bilaterally. So there is no question of involving any other party, including the UN.

This is false. It is explicitly stated in paragraph 1 of the Simal Agreement that the UN Charter is to be followed. The exact text is here

"That the principles and purposes off the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the countries"

As you have mentioned in this post, the Simla agreement states that the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.

The mutual agreement by Pakistan and India that the Kashmir dispute be resolved bilaterally does not in any way contradict the UN Charter.

This is false. Article 103 of the UN charter states:

"In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail."

Simla Agreement is an international agreement. As the UN charter states, the UN resolutions take presidence over an international agreement when a conflict over that agreement arises - that has been the case in the Simla Accord since it has not worked.

In any final settlement, Pakistan will have to give the same treatment to the Northern areas as India gives to the valley.

The Northern Areas never were a part of Kashmir. They were forcibly annexed in the later years and added onto Kashmir.

But I will agree they should be given the vote along with the Kashmir Valley on who they want to join.

 

[Halaku Khan]

Alright, a bit of time for this.



Pakistan did not fail to honour its commitments. This has been proven to you through 1) the context of the UN resolution that showed the Pakistani forces did not have to withdraw in their entireity and 2) that Sir Owen Dixon stated that it was India that stalled the process. You have not produced one iota evidence that Pakistan stalled the process. Until you do, the statements, and the evidence that India had stalled the demilitarization process have been given.

Pakistani forces had to begin withdrawing, and the tribesmen had to be fully withdrawn and after that happened the UN was to provide a notification to India.

Since Pakistani forces did not even begin withdrawing, Pakistan was in violation of its commitments.

Dixon's words are pure speculation as to what India would have done had Pakistan actually honored its commitments.

UN resolutions do not cease to exist after 100 years. They cease to exist once a conflict is resolved, or when there is a bilateral agreement to change them - of which there has not been.

They remain on the books, yes. But any resolution becomes irrelevant when the context in which it was issued is no longer exists.

This is false. It is explicitly stated in paragraph 1 of the Simal Agreement that the UN Charter is to be followed. The exact text is here

"That the principles and purposes off the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the countries"



This is false. Article 103 of the UN charter states:

"In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail."

Simla Agreement is an international agreement. As the UN charter states, the UN resolutions take presidence over an international agreement when a conflict over that agreement arises - that has been the case in the Simla Accord since it has not worked.

The point is that there is no conflict between the UN Charter and the mutual agreement by Pakistan and India to resolve the Kashmir issue bilaterally. Nothing in the UN Charter forbids such a mutual agreement.

The Northern Areas never were a part of Kashmir. They were forcibly annexed in the later years and added onto Kashmir.

But I will agree they should be given the vote along with the Kashmir Valley on who they want to join.

They were a part of the princely state of J&K, which is what matters. The native people of that area should be given the vote. Obviously any demographic tampering by Pakistan should not be rewarded.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Halaku Khan, I think there's been a mistake, something's wrong with your flag. Please choose your appropriate flag. Also, I just wanted to say that I find your name interesting, Halaku Khan. I take it you are very emotional when it comes to muslims and islam?

 

[roadrunner]

Pakistani forces had to begin withdrawing, and the tribesmen had to be fully withdrawn and after that happened the UN was to provide a notification to India.

Since Pakistani forces did not even begin withdrawing, Pakistan was in violation of its commitments.

Dixon's words are pure speculation as to what India would have done had Pakistan actually honored its commitments.

Do try and read this thread completely before posting stuff that has been answered already. ALL the tribesmen had withdrawn, and Pakistani forces had begun withdrawing. The proof of this was that the UN resolution from the previous year said that only when Pakistani forces had started withdrawing, AND the tribesmen had withdrawn, was India to be questioned about reducing itrs troop numbers in Kashmir. That questioning started. It's mentioned all in a previous post, which I'll post here. Do pay attention to the highlighted area where it says India was to be notified once Pakistan had fulfilled its obligations of reducing troop numbers and once all the tribesmen had withdrawn.

And one of the common responses of Salim on UN resolutions "Pakistan had to withdraw all its troops from Kashmir as per resolution 47". Nonsense. Here's resolution 47 in the flesh.

Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948.
(Document No.1100, Para. 75, dated the 9th November, 1948).

(1) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw itstroops from that State. CHECK - Pakistan agreed

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from theState of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident thereinwho have entered the State for the purpose of fighting. CHECK - Pakistan tried

(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission. - CHECK - Pakistan awaited the following

When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani 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 Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.- CHECK - "are being withdrawn", when Pakistani troops ARE BEING withdrawn, then India must agree to reduce its troops.

But did it? Answer is next.

Onto 1952, and Pakistani troops were being withdrawn, now UNCIP asks India to reduce its troops as per resolution 47 above.

UN resolution 98 of 23RD December 1952
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

But oh no, did it agree to reduce its troops? Here are those words again
UNCIP representative: "in the end I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of plebiscite of such character, as would in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled."
UNCIP chief representative

And Dixon was the chief UN observer of UNCIP. He did not speculate. The commitment as per the resolutions was to engage talks with India only after the Pakistanis had fulfilled their half of the bargain. They did, and that is when UNCIP tried to get India to demilitarize, which it did not.

They remain on the books, yes. But any resolution becomes irrelevant when the context in which it was issued is no longer exists.

So the Kashmir conflict has ended? I think not. The context in which these resolutions were given were that the Kashmiris had not chosen who they wanted to join thrugh plebiscite. The same situation exists to this day.

The point is that there is no conflict between the UN Charter and the mutual bilateral agreement by Pakistan and India to resolve the Kashmir issue bilaterally. Nothing in the UN Charter forbids such a mutual agreement.

You've missed the point. Whilst nothing in the UN charter forbids a mutual agreement, article 103 of the UN charter states quite clearly that if a conflict arises between the two parties of a mutual agreement, then the UN resolutions shall prevail. You can look at it like the UN resolutions are dormant if the two parties can solve their problems with each other, but if they cannot then the UN resolutions are back. Since the Kashmir conflict has continued for another 4 decades, I think it's pretty safe to say that the two parties remain in conflict with each other. Pakistan has said that India is not serious to resolve these issues, and Article 103 is therefore invoked bringing back the UN resolutions, since there is a conflict in the mutual agreement.

They were a part of the princely state of J&K, which is what matters. The native people of that area should be given the vote. Obviously any demographic tampering by Pakistan should not be rewarded.

The people of the Northern Areas should be given a vote. I agree.

I do not agree that Northern Areas were/are a part of Kashmir though. That territory was illegally annexed by Indian invaders just before Partition occurred.

 

[Halaku Khan]

Do try and read this thread completely before posting stuff that has been answered already. ALL the tribesmen had withdrawn, and Pakistani forces had begun withdrawing. The proof of this was that the UN resolution from the previous year said that only when Pakistani forces had started withdrawing, AND the tribesmen had withdrawn, was India to be questioned about reducing itrs troop numbers in Kashmir.

Yes, I have read all that. As Pakistani forces withdrew, local authorities were to take charge. Please cite sources if you are claiming that tribesmen had fully withdrawn, that Pakistani forces had begun withdrawing, and that local authorities had started to take charge of the vacated areas. Which area was handed over to local authorities?

Also, was there any official notification issued to India the tribesmen have fully withdrawn and that the Pakistanis have started withdrawing? Don't think so. So the ball was not in India's court. Dixon's attempt to blame India in this situation is suspect.

So the Kashmir conflict has ended? I think not. The context in which these resolutions were given were that the Kashmiris had not chosen who they wanted to join thrugh plebiscite. The same situation exists to this day.

In this day and age, any solution which envisages Buddhist and Hindu areas being handed over to an Islamic republic is clearly out of question. That is why the UN resolutions have lost relevance, aside from demographic tampering in the Northern areas.

You've missed the point. Whilst nothing in the UN charter forbids a mutual agreement, article 103 of the UN charter states quite clearly that if a conflict arises between the two parties of a mutual agreement, then the UN resolutions shall prevail. You can look at it like the UN resolutions are dormant if the two parties can solve their problems with each other, but if they cannot then the UN resolutions are back. Since the Kashmir conflict has continued for another 4 decades, I think it's pretty safe to say that the two parties remain in conflict with each other. Pakistan has said that India is not serious to resolve these issues, and Article 103 is therefore invoked bringing back the UN resolutions, since there is a conflict in the mutual agreement.

No that is not true - what you posted says that if there is any conflict between obligations as a result of a bilateral agreement, and obligations under the UN Charter, then the UN Charter will prevail. But here the obligations under the bilateral agreement do not violate the Charter.

The people of the Northern Areas should be given a vote. I agree.

I do not agree that Northern Areas were/are a part of Kashmir though. That territory was illegally annexed by Indian invaders just before Partition occurred.

Illegally annexed by Indian invaders just before 1947? That is not true - they had been part of the princely state for many years.

 

[roadrunner]

I've answered the rest of this. You simply fail to accept it. I might answer it tomorrow if I get time. I'd rather focus on this for now.

No that is not true - what you posted says that if there is any conflict between obligations as a result of a bilateral agreement, and obligations under the UN Charter, then the UN Charter will prevail. But here the obligations under the bilateral agreement do not violate the Charter.

I should re-phrase what I wrote in reply to this. This is Article 103 of the UN Charter.

"In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail."

So what does it mean?

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of Pakistan and India under the UN charter and a mutual agreement, the obligations under the present Charter prevail.

This is clear. IF Simla says that the UN resolutions which call for plebiscite are irrelevant, then this is a conflict in obligations. Therefore, Simla does not have the power to overrule the UN resolutions according to the UN charter, and so the UN resolutions still stand.

Apologies for interpreting it wrong first time, but the conclusion is still the same.

 

[Halaku Khan]

Halaku Khan, I think there's been a mistake, something's wrong with your flag. Please choose your appropriate flag.

Ha Ha.

No nothing wrong with the flag. I scrupulously follow the UN Charter

Also, I just wanted to say that I find your name interesting, Halaku Khan.

Halaku was a great warrior wasn't he? Sort of like Ghori, Gaznavi et al.

I take it you are very emotional when it comes to muslims and islam?

Well, I endeavor to be clinical rather than emotional. I think the real conflicts are not physical conflicts between people but rather mental and psychological conflicts inside individuals.

 

[Halaku Khan]

IF Simla says that the UN resolutions which call for plebiscite are irrelevant, then this is a conflict in obligations. Therefore, Simla does not have the power to overrule the UN resolutions according to the UN charter, and so the UN resolutions still stand.

Apologies for interpreting it wrong first time, but the conclusion is still the same.

The UN resolutions are indeed irrelevant, but that is not a result of the Simla agreement. They had lost relevance even before the Simla agreement.

 

[roadrunner]

The UN resolutions are indeed irrelevant, but that is not a result of the Simla agreement. They had lost relevance even before the Simla agreement.

The UN resolutions do not have a time limit. They exist until a conflict ends or their usage is changed through further overriding agreements, or that they become inapplicable as a situation changes. None of those has occurred. If it has do point it out.

And the UN resolutions calling for plebiscite are very much still applicable.

 

[Halaku Khan]

The UN resolutions do not have a time limit. They exist until a conflict ends or their usage is changed through further overriding agreements, or that they become inapplicable as a situation changes. None of those has occurred. If it has do point it out.

And the UN resolutions calling for plebiscite are very much still applicable.

In this case the situation has indeed changed. Here I am using the term "situation" more generally to include human factors. Things that were considered normal and acceptable in previous centuries are no longer acceptable now.

So the situation has changed in the sense that it is no longer acceptable to contemplate handing over Buddhist and Hindu areas to an Islamic republic.

 

[roadrunner]

In this case the situation has indeed changed. Here I am using the term "situation" more generally to include human factors. Things that were considered normal and acceptable in previous centuries are no longer acceptable now.

So the situation has changed in the sense that it is no longer acceptable to contemplate handing over Buddhist and Hindu areas to an Islamic republic.

At least you now acknowledge that the UN resolutions take presidence over the Simla agreement, and nothing in Simla can legally override those resolutions. Good. That is the first part to you understanding the Kashmir issue better.

Now, for the second part. It does not matter if the "situation" has changed. It is whether the applicability of the resolutions still exist. And yes, they do exist, because the sole purpose of the UN resolutions was to give the vote to the Kashmiri people. This applies now as it did when the resolution was past.

The Buddhist/Hindu/Muslim areas are irrelevently grouped anyhow. They are all Kashmiris, that is the important thing. It is up to them to decide their fate through the vote, as the UN resolutions call for.