Incorrect. Commission is supposed to notify the GoI, when:
a. was never given effect to, and hence b. never happened. Therefore no notification.
- “the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals” have withdrawn (completely),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- “the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn” i.e. demilitarization on Pak’s side has begun.
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.
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.
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.
Only that no notification was ever issued to India. If it was, the notification number and date would be much appreciated.
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.
So India's solution to the problem is?
CONTINUE OCCUPATION AND KILLING OF CIVILIANS".
What a shame. What a tongue and cheek story
Last edited: