The Kashmir Resolutions - Explanations

[Halaku Khan]

This has been proven wrong at least 6 times in this thread. Can't you read it?

Pakistan did not have to withdraw ALL its forces. It needed to only start withdrawing its forces.

All this has been addressed in post 69. Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

All this has been addressed in post 69. Thanks.

It hasn't been addressed in that post.

Your only contention is that 'India was not informed'. That is akin to putting the horse before the cart. Liaquat Ali Khan had agreed to issue orders to start withdrawing Pakistani forces in accordance with the UN resolutions, and leave behind the suggested number.

It was at this point that India refused to accept the 18,000 Indian soldiers in the UNSC resolution, and argued that it need to leave behind an additional 3000 soldiers. This was quite obviously against what the UN resolutions stated. Owen Dixits comments that blame India were based on the Indian refusal to agree to withdrawal conditions based on the UNSC resolutions, and its insistence on additional forces.

Therefore, the ball was indeed entirely in India's court. Nehru's quotes are important in this context because they give us insight into the thought process of the GoI, and why it suddenly decided that it needed to leave behind 3000 more troops, and stall the process. His comments quite clearly indicate that the GoI had decided against implementing the UN resolutions, and therefore undermined the entire demilitarization process so as to stop progress towards a referendum.

 

[Halaku Khan]

It hasn't been addressed in that post.

Your only contention is that 'India was not informed'. That is akin to putting the horse before the cart. Liaquat Ali Khan had agreed to issue orders to start withdrawing Pakistani forces in accordance with the UN resolutions, and leave behind the suggested number.

It was at this point that India refused to accept the 18,000 Indian soldiers in the UNSC resolution, and argued that it need to leave behind an additional 3000 soldiers. This was quite obviously against what the UN resolutions stated. Owen Dixits comments that blame India were based on the Indian refusal to agree to withdrawal conditions based on the UNSC resolutions, and its insistence on additional forces.

Therefore, the ball was indeed entirely in India's court. Nehru's quotes are important in this context because they give us insight into the thought process of the GoI, and why it suddenly decided that it needed to leave behind 3000 more troops, and stall the process. His comments quite clearly indicate that the GoI had decided against implementing the UN resolutions, and therefore undermined the entire demilitarization process so as to stop progress towards a referendum.

Actually my contention is that Pakistan never began the process of withdrawing and handing over to local authorities.

Also the UN resolutions say that India should withdraw "the bulk" of its forces in stages in a manner to be negotiated between the UN Commission and India (without Pakistan being a party to these negotiations). Saying that 18,000 troops are required is certainly not a violation.

As far as your other contentions, if you can provide sources, I will look into them, time permitting.

 

[roadrunner]

Actually my contention is that Pakistan never began the process of withdrawing and handing over to local authorities.

Also the UN resolutions say that India should withdraw "the bulk" of its forces in stages in a manner to be negotiated between the UN Commission and India (without Pakistan being a party to these negotiations). Saying that 18,000 troops are required is certainly not a violation.

As far as your other contentions, if you can provide sources, I will look into them, time permitting.

If you read the thread, you'd save everyone a lot of time.

Now your contention. Pakistan did start the process of withdrawing. This is shown by the fact that resolution 47 was passed which said Pakistan must start withdrawing its troops and then, AND ONLY THEN, must India agree to reduce troop numbers. Which it did not.

"and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, [then] 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" (the "then" has been inserted by me to make it clear to you what this sentence means.

The second paragraph of yours is simply ridiculous. If you even read the first page of this thread, you'd know your answer. Pakistan was asked in resolution 98 to reduce its troop number to 6,000. India was asked to reduce its troops number down to 18,000. It did not agree, stating it needed 21,000 troops to ensure security.

 

[Halaku Khan]

If you read the thread, you'd save everyone a lot of time.

Now your contention. Pakistan did start the process of withdrawing. This is shown by the fact that resolution 47 was passed which said Pakistan must start withdrawing its troops and then, AND ONLY THEN, must India agree to reduce troop numbers. Which it did not.

"and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, [then] 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" (the "then" has been inserted by me to make it clear to you what this sentence means.

The second paragraph of yours is simply ridiculous. If you even read the first page of this thread, you'd know your answer. Pakistan was asked in resolution 98 to reduce its troop number to 6,000. India was asked to reduce its troops number down to 18,000. It did not agree, stating it needed 21,000 troops to ensure security.

Nothing you have said proves that the process of withdrawing and handing over to local authorities had started.

 

[roadrunner]

Nothing you have said proves that the process of withdrawing and handing over to local authorities had started.

This was proven in post #3. Here it is for your benefit again, since you can't read.

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.

The Commission (UNCIP) had to notify the Indian government that the Pakistani forces were in the process of being withdrawn, AND THEN India had to agree to reducing its troop number. Using your head, if UNCIP asked India to agree to reduce its troop number down to 18,000, then Resolution 48 must have been fulfilled (meaning Pakistani troops had started to withdraw). The passing of Resolution 98 is proof that Resolution 48 had been fulfilled.

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

Apologies for the caps and writing everyone else, but Halaku Khan doesn't appear able to read the earlier posts.

 

[Halaku Khan]

The Commission (UNCIP) had to notify the Indian government that the Pakistani forces were in the process of being withdrawn, AND THEN India had to agree to reducing its troop number. Using your head, if UNCIP asked India to agree to reduce its troop number down to 18,000, then Resolution 48 must have been fulfilled (meaning Pakistani troops had started to withdraw). The passing of Resolution 98 is proof that Resolution 48 had been fulfilled.


Apologies for the caps and writing everyone else, but Halaku Khan doesn't appear able to read the earlier posts.

No, this argument is not valid. The fact that there were discussions between Indian and the UN does not mean that Pakistani forces had begun withdrawing. There needs to be actual proof of what areas were vacated, and what were the local authorities that took over, what were the supervisory arrangements established by the UN over these local authorities, and so on. Thereafter, an official notification was to be issued, which also never happened.

 

[Vinod2070]

There is some obvious issue with the reading of the words of the resolution by RR,

It clearly talks of the hypothetical situation of the the actions that need to happen when the forces are actually withdrawn (at a future date), nowhere does it talk of such a thing actually happening and the notification being forwarded to India.

Case rejected as null and void.

 

[roadrunner]

No, this argument is not valid. The fact that there were discussions between Indian and the UN does not mean that Pakistani forces had begun withdrawing. There needs to be actual proof of what areas were vacated, and what were the local authorities that took over, what were the supervisory arrangements established by the UN over these local authorities, and so on. Thereafter, an official notification was to be issued, which also never happened.

What do the words,

"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", mean to you?

The Commission notifies the Government of India when the forces start withdrawing.

Then India must agree to reduce its troops numbers to 18,000

Was India asked to reduce its troop numbers down to 18,000?

Yes it was in Resolution 98, but it did not agree.

This is all stated in the resolutions quite clearly. It's a simpl process

a.Commission notifies India Pak forces are withdrawing.
b. UNCIP tries to get India to demilitarize now
c. India demilitarizes

a. was carried out, b. was carried out, c. was not carried out. a. had to happen before b. and c.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^ The above point is what I was referring to when I said that LAQ had issued agreed with Owen Dixit's proposal and issued orders to withdraw. This was taken as the start of the withdrawal from Pakistan's side (being withdrawn) and negotiations with India collapsed soon after since the GoI insisted that she be allowed to retain 3000 troops over the 18000 limit set by resolution 98.

HK:

The events were from my recollection of several books I have read. One I am certain was O B Jones's Pakistan, the others I cannot recollect the titles of. I'll head to the library and try and post the relevant excerpts once finals are over

 

[Nihat]

We have to agree to a solution though , enough is enough - Kashmir drains so much resources from both nations that they don't fully concentrate on economy and general uplift.

It has to be either one of Joint administration of the entire region including Indian and Pakistani Kashmir or LoC as the IB .

Kashmir as a separate nation will never work , it'll become a hotbed for secret services from both nations and will never be able to develop fully.

 

[beetel]

We have to agree to a solution though , enough is enough - Kashmir drains so much resources from both nations that they don't fully concentrate on economy and general uplift.

It has to be either one of Joint administration of the entire region including Indian and Pakistani Kashmir or LoC as the IB .

Kashmir as a separate nation will never work , it'll become a hotbed for secret services from both nations and will never be able to develop fully.

If it is independence or joint administration pakistan will loose more than India in case of land(Here keeping out jammu and laddakh out)..
What is coming out now is it is better for pakistan to retain what they have now..

 

[roadrunner]

Stick to the thread you two.

This isn't a thread for your opinions on Kashmir's monetary costs.

It's on the UN resolutions on Kashmir, legalities.

If you have any relevant arguments, state them here, otherwise, don't post irrelevant opinions here.

 

[karnivore]

"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", mean to you?

The Commission notifies the Government of India when the forces start withdrawing.

Incorrect. Commission is supposed to notify the GoI, when:

• “the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals” have withdrawn (completely),
• resulting in “terminating the situation, which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council, as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces”, and
• “the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn” i.e. demilitarization on Pak’s side has begun.

a. was never given effect to, and hence b. never happened. Therefore no notification.

Then India must agree to reduce its troops numbers to 18,000

Was India asked to reduce its troop numbers down to 18,000?

Yes it was in Resolution 98……

Incorrect. India was never “asked” to reduce its troops down to 18,000 vide res. 98. Actually, both the countries were “asked” to negotiate on the number of troops to remain at the end of demilitarization, within the maximum limit set by the UN. Res. 98 is concerned with the plan of demilitarization. It is not a direction/ order/ request to demilitarize, as you are trying to imply.

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;

Discussion, negotiation and agreement on the demilitarization plan was not subject to the notification under B(I) of s/1100, only the act of demilitarization (on India’s part) was.

……but it did not agree.

Incorrect. India did not disagree to demilitarize per se. She did not agree to the maximum number of 18,000 troops and wanted 3,000 more troops.

This is all stated in the resolutions quite clearly. It's a simpl process

a.Commission notifies India Pak forces are withdrawing.
b. UNCIP tries to get India to demilitarize now
c. India demilitarizes

a. was carried out, b. was carried out, c. was not carried out. a. had to happen before b. and c.

Only that no notification was ever issued to India. If it was, the notification number and date would be much appreciated.

^^ The above point is what I was referring to when I said that LAQ had issued agreed with Owen Dixit's proposal and issued orders to withdraw. This was taken as the start of the withdrawal from Pakistan's side (being withdrawn) and negotiations with India collapsed soon after since the GoI insisted that she be allowed to retain 3000 troops over the 18000 limit set by resolution 98.

India claims that “the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals” were never completely removed and hence “the situation, which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council, as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces” has not been terminated. In fact, she claims that, “the ensuing months, after the adoption of the resolution (s/1100), saw Pakistan brazenly advancing deep into Baltistan and Ladakh, hundreds of kilometres to the east while the so-called Azad Kashmir forces, which were to be disbanded, were expanded and consolidated and formed what the UNCIP Military Adviser described as a "formidable force".” (The official position of India can be had at, The United Nations: Jammu & Kashmir; Embassy of India - Washington, DC)

This meant, from India’s point of view, that step 2 was not fully honoured by Pakistan. Therefore, India was, and continues to be, not obligated to fulfill step 3 i.e plebiscite.

There seems to be an impression that since, negotiation on demilitarization had began, therefore Pak had fulfilled it’s part of the bargain. First, as I have already mentioned, negotiation on demilitarization was never subject to fulfillment of step 2. Second, the absence of any specific UN notification to India (at least I am not aware of any such notification and if anyone points me to such notification, I will be much obliged.) seems to justify India’s position on step 2.

PS. Sorry for waking up a sleeping thread.

 

[asq]

So 'are being" means "has been done"?

60 years and still on the go!

Marvellous!

Do it and then talk.

Hay Salim it was done.Liaqat ali the first prime Minister of Paskitan withdrew our fighter from the outskirts of sri nagar to the present position, india did not.

We were in Sri nagar airport.
we did withdraw, india did not even an inch.

that is exactly how India has behaved in the past 60 years, ruthless, killers of innocents, dictatorial and use of Stalinist tactics.