What's new

What does China think about Kashmir. My POV

Furthermore, since China is a P5 member, I don't see how there could be any meaningful UN involvement in Tibet and HK. For one, those areas are not under international dispute, crazed ranting from Hollywood liberals and hippies aside. They're recognized by literally every other nation on earth as a part of China. Not disputed territory and not in any way comparable to Kashmir. And Taiwan isn't even recognized by the UN as a member state. And that "state department" guy mentioned a plebiscite in the South China Sea? Who would be voting? Fish?

No offense to "US retired State Dept" but for a supposedly informed official, his first thread seems remarkably uninformed. But hey, it's the internet. Anyone can claim to be anything.

LOL, so this @US_statedept_retired doesn't know that my city Hong Kong is not disputed territory, not a single government in the world thinks it is?

Absolutely no relation to Kashmir whatsoever. Talking about the UN is ludicrous, not a single UN state considers my city to be a disputed territory.

Claiming to be a member of the US state department without proof, I guess that would be a criminal offence.
 
.
I think this giveth a very good idea for all those clamoring for a plebiscite.
U.N.Resolution August 13, 1948.
This is the most significant resolution passed by the UN on the state of Jammu & Kashmir. It clearly states that Pakistan was to vacate its troops from the whole of the state. It also mentions, albeit indirectly, that Pakistan had consistently lied on the question of whether or not its troops were involved in the fighting in Jammu & Kashmir. Once the then Pakistani Prime Minister conceded that Pakistani troops were indeed involved, the UN had no option but to ask for their withdrawal. That the withdrawal never took place, is another story.


The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan.

Having given careful consideration to the points of view expressed by the representatives of India and Pakistan regarding the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir; and

Being of the opinion that the prompt cessation of hostilities and the correction of conditions the continuance of which is likely to endanger international peace and security are essential to implementation of its endeavors to assist the Governments of India and Pakistan in effecting a final settlement of the situation;

Resolves to submit simultaneously to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following proposal:

PART I: CEASE-FIRE ORDER
A. The Governments of India and Pakistan agree that their respective High Commands will issue separately and simultaneously a cease-fire order to apply to all forces under their control and in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as of the earliest practicable date or dates to be mutually agreed upon within four days after these proposals have been accepted by both Governments.

B.The High Commands of the Indian and Pakistani forces agree to refrain from taking any measures that might augment the military potential of the forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. ( For the purpose of these proposals forces under their control shall be considered to include all forces, organized and unorganized, fighting or participating in hostilities on their respective sides.

C.The Commanders-in-Chief of the forces of India and Pakistan shall promptly confer regarding any necessary local changes in present dispositions which may facilitate the cease-fire.

D. In its discretion and as the Commission may find practicable, the Commission will appoint military observers who, under the authority of the Commission and with the co-operation of both Commands, will supervise the observance of the cease-fire order.

E. The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan agree to appeal to their respective peoples to assist in creating and maintaining an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations.

PART II: TRUCE AGREEMENT
Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in Part I, both the Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their representatives and the Commission.
A.

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 its troops from that State.

2. The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

3. Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.

B.

1.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.

2. Pending the acceptance of the conditions for a final settlement of the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of the cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order. The Commission will have observers stationed where it deems necessary.

3. The Government of India will undertake to ensure that the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will take all measures within its powers to make it publicly known that peace, law and order will be safeguarded and that all human political rights will be granted.

4. Upon signature, the full text of the truce agreement or a communique containing the principles thereof as agreed upon between the two Governments and the Commission, will be made public.

PART III

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the truce agreement, both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This text is just for the new members of the forum who aren't exactly aware of the content of this resolution

One interesting replies in one of the earlier threads that I found is also mentioned below:

And most importantly, the UN resolution on Kashmir was passed by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the UN Charter which is non-binding and has no mandatory enforceability, as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII.

Further here are the facts and myths. These facts, needless to say, will be trashed here as nothing but myths. But these are verifiable and is the reality - take it or leave it. Burying one's head in the sand is not the way forward. Here are the facts written by a Pakistani journalist:

Too many people have told us so much. And so many people have promised us too much. Consequently, today we are no more capable of distinguishing between reality and illusion and this is our collective tragedy!

What follows may hurt the sentiments of many but then there comes a time when someone has to take the risk and put forth certain irrefutable facts even if they sound sacrilegious. After all, is it not better for the community to be confronted with the harsh reality and reconcile, rather than live out a life of delusion and thus suffer each passing day!

So, let us start with the myths and realities related to of the Kashmir problem.

* Myth- The Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir being a Hindu had decided to join the Dominion of India.

* Reality- Authoritative sources now confirm that the Ruler of Kashmir was inclined to opt for independence and was trying to build up internal consensus by getting the pro Pakistan Muslim Conference and Pro India National Conference onto a common platform. In a bid to gain time for the same, he on 12 August 1947 sent telegrams bearing identical dates, asking for ‘Standstill Agreement’ to both the Dominions India and Pakistan which under the Indian Independence Act 1947, would guarantee continuation of all existing agreements as well as administrative arrangements till new agreements were made. Had the Maharaja wanted accession to India, he could have easily done so even before 15 August 1947 rather than get involved with ‘Stand Still Agreements’ and remain undecided till October.
* Myth-India obtained the ‘instrument of accession’ in its favour by pressurizing the Maharaja.

* Reality- The Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir had not entered into any agreement with New Delhi till October 1947. However, it was the decision of the Pakistan army to invade Kashmir that virtually pushed the Maharaja into New Delhi’s lap and prompted him to seek Indian intervention. And so, New Delhi obliged, but not before obtaining the ‘instrument of accession’ in its favour!

* Myth- Pakistan has always stood up for the ‘right of self determination’ of the Kashmiris.

* Reality- By sponsoring the Tribal invasion, Pakistan changed the perception of the Kashmir problem from an ideological issue into a geographical dispute and never felt it necessary to approach the UN for its resolution. It is thanks to India, which took up this issue with the UN that the UN passed resolutions on Kashmir calling for Plebiscite.

* Myth- India is legally bound to implement the UN resolution for determining the ‘right to self determination’ through Plebiscite.

* Reality- The UN resolution on Kashmir was passed by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the UN Charter which is non-binding and has no mandatory enforceability, as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII.

*Myth- India is evading the implementation of the UN Security Council resolution on Plebiscite in Kashmir while Pakistan has done its best to ensure that the UN resolutions on Kashmir are implemented.

* Reality- UN resolution of 13 August 1948 decreed that a plebiscite would be held in Kashmir only after the Commission's resolutions were implemented. This envisaged withdrawal of all Pakistani forces from those areas of Kashmir which it had occupied in 1948. By refusing to do so till date, Pakistan has given India a legally tenable and diplomatically advantageous position by shifting the onus for non implementation of UN resolutions on Pakistan. In an illuminating article titled ‘Understanding UN Resolutions on Kashmir’ (Greater Kashmir, 20 July 2012) Hashim Qureshi has quoted former UN General Secretary Kofi Annan as ascribing this as the reason “that the General Assembly cannot implement the resolutions of the UNCIP (on Kashmir)”.

* Myth- The principles applied to secure the accession of the erstwhile kingdom of Junagadh to India on the basis of a Hindu majority were not followed in the case of Kashmir which has a Muslim majority.

* Reality- In the case of Junagadh a Plebiscite was conducted in February 1948, in which approximately 99% of the people chose accession with India. So, by conducting a plebiscite, even if farcical, India ‘technically’ fulfilled its international obligations thus avoiding any criticism of its earlier strong arm tactics and portrayed to the world that it was ready to hold a Plebiscite in Kashmir once the stipulated conditions set by the UN had been fulfilled.

* Myth- A Plebiscite as envisaged in the UN resolutions can still be held in Jammu and Kashmir.

* Reality- By granting non Kashmiris the right to acquire land and settle down in PaK as well as seceding portions of PaK to China, Pakistan has virtually foreclosed this option. New Delhi has cleverly adopted the technically sound stance that ‘since the geography and demographics of the region have been permanently altered,’ Resolution 47 (calling for Plebiscite) is now obsolete.

It is thus evident that under the prevailing conditions, the scope of implementing the ‘right to self determination’ through a Plebiscite in Kashmir is virtually nonexistent.

And it is here that our leaders have to take a call on re-thinking their strategy for resolution of the ‘K’ Issue. We must realise that the UN resolutions on Kashmir have yielded nothing for over six decades and so our insistence and any further clamouring for implementation of the same, does not make diplomatic sense.

The implicit faith which our leaders put on Pakistan for resolving Kashmir too needs to be re-examined. While it is not intended to belittle Islamabad’s contribution in keeping the ‘K’ issue alive, its decision to add the militancy angle to the peaceful movement has caused irreparable damage to the cause. America, which once empathised with the Kashmiris, today steers clear of touching Kashmir with a barge pole.
 
.
There will be no referendum on Kashmir; pure and simple.

Its got nothing to do with either Kashmirs clamoring for Independence or dying to become a part of India; its got everything to do with India's economy and the large market it presents to otherwise stagnant economies in the West and the East.

Those hoping for International mediation shouldn't hold their breaths for too long because international relations and diplomacy is a euphemistic way of saying that you can be as hypocritical as you want to be and not get called as such as long as you have the right nuisance value.

India's economy has that value; ours does not otherwise countries that were born out of the 'right to self-determination' from our colonial masters would not be denying it to others and finding legal loopholes and jargon to mask their hypocrisy.

Thats just the way things are; so build the economy up, increase your international clout and learn how the game works to get what you want and have even your most blatantly hypocritical acts rationalized away.

The only right to decide lies with the Kashmiri people.
 
.
Furthermore, since China is a P5 member, I don't see how there could be any meaningful UN involvement in Tibet and HK. For one, those areas are not under international dispute, crazed ranting from Hollywood liberals and hippies aside. They're recognized by literally every other nation on earth as a part of China. Not disputed territory and not in any way comparable to Kashmir. And Taiwan isn't even recognized by the UN as a member state. And that "state department" guy mentioned a plebiscite in the South China Sea? Who would be voting? Fish?

No offense to "US retired State Dept" but for a supposedly informed official, his first thread seems remarkably uninformed. But hey, it's the internet. Anyone can claim to be anything.

So I am not the only one who smells the bs coming from this dude.

This thread seems to be an attempt to imply that China does not support Pakistans position, in fact they support India instead according to the esteemed op LOL.
 
. .
So I am not the only one who smells the bs coming from this dude.

This thread seems to be an attempt to imply that China does not support Pakistans position, in fact they support India instead according to the esteemed op LOL.

I agree with you both.

The position of @US_statedept_retired seems to be exactly the same as that of most Indian members here.

And he doesn't know the most basic things about the differences between a disputed territory (Kashmir) and a territory that is not disputed by anyone (my city HK).

If he is really part of the US state department, let him prove it, since such a false claim is a criminal offence.
 
. .
The ideal solution that will stand the test of time is the reunification of Kashmir into a new and sovereign nation state. If that happens, the very long held dream of ''breakfast in Dehli, Lunch in Islamabad and dinner in Kabul can be realised ''.
Good idea but impractical. An independent Kashmir is not viable and will collapse like a house of cards sooner than later.

There is a section of Kashmir’s society on both sides of the border that has been shouting from the rooftops for ‘Independence’ of Kashmir. They neither want to remain with India nor join Pakistan. Do these hotheads know the consequences of an independent Kashmir?

Let’s check it out.

Reasons why an independent Kashmir is not viable.

1) Located in one of the most unstable regions in the world in terms of terrorism.

2) Could only set themselves up for an invasion from any one of possibly 3 neighboring countries.

3) Independence doesn’t guarantee stability.

4) Independence doesn’t guarantee safety.

5) A predominantly Muslim nation could fall prey to an extreme form of Islam based on strict Sharia Law like the TTP/ISIS aim to establish. Their gradual influence in a new sovereign state of Kashmir would be a real possibility and a clear danger to the region.

6) An independent Kashmir will not be economically viable since there are no industries or natural resources. Agriculture and tourism cannot sustain a country’s economy. Investors would think twice before investing in a land-locked country. Independence doesn’t guarantee economic prosperity.

7) How would the country even generate income in an area that has no resources? India doles out to Kashmir, on an average Rs 50,000 crores or $9 billion every year in the form of subsidies, grants, aid and infrastructure. Stop this and Kashmir would sink faster than the Titanic. Which country will provide them the necessary funds to keep afloat? None.

8) How would they find resources for raising an army for internal as well as external threats? A minimum of three divisions would be required and probably an indep armored brigade for the defence of an independent Kashmir. Cost? At least $10 billion! Where is the money? Or where would it come from? And needless to say, maintaining this force will not be chicken feed.

9) Kashmir is predominantly rural and makes nearly all of its paltry income from agriculture in a region as rocky as the Himalayas. There won’t be much money available to sustain a government in Kashmir and have enough funds for education, infrastructure, healthcare, defense, etc. It would not be able to fund such projects with the limited sources of income without running up monstrous debts which would quickly cripple the economy of the nation, scaring away investors, resulting in perpetual poverty, and finally in a collapse.

10) China will probably smell an opportunity here and try and convert this new country into another autonomous region of China like the TAR by pumping in funds and resources. After all, it has a strategic and economic interest in Gilgit/Baltistan. China is heading stealthily towards its ambitious plan to safeguard its Persian Gulf route through Kashmir, which would also get a potential naval base in the Arabian Sea at Gwadar, linked by road to its eastern Xinjiang province.

So, the bottom line is that an independent Kashmir is out of the question as it will not be viable.
 
.
I agree with you both.

The position of @US_statedept_retired seems to be exactly the same as that of most Indian members here.

And he doesn't know the most basic things about the differences between a disputed territory (Kashmir) and a territory that is not disputed by anyone (my city HK).

Yep also go through his posts he has taken Indian position in all matters he has commented on concerning India. Case in point his review of Chuck Hagels comments.
 
.
China provided arm support to Pakistan during their war against India that a statement of total support for Pakistan.
 
.
All the romantic notions of changing the maps is a matter of the past. India is fine with the status quo. So is the world. Pakistan alone can hold on to her illusions for as long as it suits her, but India or the world community is unlikely to be bothered.

After the cross border proxy wars initiated by her, there is no strong ground on which Pak foreign policy can stand on.
Samghauta express deal was signed by both nation( for peace process). First train carrying 68 Pakistanis was bombed by the Hindu extremist group RSS and it happened before 26/11 in your country. What is the meaning of terrorism in your book? How about Mumbai attack back in early 90s. You tried to blame it on us and guess what happened? RSS was responsible for that attack. Who is funding BLA anyway? Two years before 26/11, your government starts funding BLA's terrorists so who is initiating the proxy war here. Your politicians are admitting that they will keep supporting them and here you are trying to sell you bull crap.
 
.
Samghauta express deal was signed by both nation( for peace process). First train carrying 68 Pakistanis was bombed by the Hindu extremist group RSS and it happened before 26/11 in your country. What is the meaning of terrorism in your book? How about Mumbai attack back in early 90s. You tried to blame it on us and guess what happened? RSS was responsible for that attack. Who is funding BLA anyway? Two years before 26/11, your government starts funding BLA's terrorists so who is initiating the proxy war here. Your politicians are admitting that they will keep supporting them and here you are trying to sell you bull crap.
Petition your lawmakers to build a wall of fire between India and Pakistan. That should keep us out.
 
. .
And yet US. U.K,CHINA and France backed us on the Kashmiri issue.

Have you ever used your mind to figure out that all big powers have supported you on Kashmir and still you could not get what you want?
 
.
LOL, so this @US_statedept_retired doesn't know that my city Hong Kong is not disputed territory, not a single government in the world thinks it is?

Absolutely no relation to Kashmir whatsoever. Talking about the UN is ludicrous, not a single UN state considers my city to be a disputed territory.

Claiming to be a member of the US state department without proof, I guess that would be a criminal offence.

This US State dept retired knows that you fall into yet another trap of reading and picking on choice words and sentences, and miss the boat on what was overall claimed.

It does not make a difference if you are disputed or not, rather what makes a difference is opening yourself to separatists to demand the same and you DO have separatists calls in HK. It was a larger point being made.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom