You Have Families Too, Cops Warn Terrorists In Kashmir In Retaliation

[prashantazazel]

The officer thinks like me.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Yeah i have to learn this from Pakistani

Dude pakistan versions on kashmir has no recognition amoung international bodies

This the what you posted without reading it

The resolution recommended that in order to ensure the impartiality of the plebiscite Pakistan withdraw all tribesmen and nationals who entered the region for the purpose of fighting and that India leave only the minimum number of troops needed to keep civil order. The Commission was also to send as many observers into the region as it deemed necessary to ensure the provisions of the resolution were enacted. Pakistan ignored the UN mandate, did not withdraw its troops and claimed the withdrawal of Indian forces was a prerequisite as per this resolution.[6]Subsequently Pakistan refused to implement the plebiscite until India accedes to it and continued holding on to the portion of Kashmir under its control


So its evident now what UN version is on kashmir

Good that you have "learnt" that the UN did not declare Pakistan an aggressor state in Kashmir

Now coming to what you posted from wiki, firstly "External Affairs Ministry, Government of India" is no credible source. India itself is a party to the dispute and what the Indian government says/claims has zero value .... Secondly, the UN Security Council has passed more than twenty Resolutions on Kashmir, and in none of its resolutions has the UN declared Pakistan an aggressor state or held it responsible for halting the (plebiscite) process ... The UN official mediator Sir Owen Dixon, however, did hold India responsible for halting the process. He reported to the Security Council that:

"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Para 52 of Document S/1971)


The London Economist stated that "the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [the Kashmiri people]...has been obstructing a holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite. From this the world opinion can only conclude that India really has no confidence that the vote would go in its favour" The Economist (London), Feb 18, 1950

The same forces weren't there till 1988.
Kashmir was a peaceful and prosperous state of India.
Dal lake was place visited by tourists from world over.

But what changed 40 years after independence?
Why did India have to send forces to Kashmir?
What's caused the exodus of Kashmiri pandits?


If these questions don't put you in introspection mode then nothing will.

Btw this is just a small part of Kashmir which is where such incidents happen.
Rest of Kashmir is still peaceful and ergo prosperous.

Kashmir insurgency is legitimate even if Pakistan has no right to support it

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/indi...testers-in-kashmir.443255/page-4#post-8551860

 

[Indika]

"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Para 52 of Document S/1971)


The London Economist stated that "the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [the Kashmiri people]...has been obstructing a holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite. From this the world opinion can only conclude that India really has no confidence that the vote would go in its favour" The Economist (London), Feb 18, 195

Well when India become independent, western countries were pretty much hostile to India. To expect economist or some phoren guy to be impartial about India is asking for too much. The statement has more opinion than facts says lot many things about its impartiality.

Kashmir insurgency is legitimate even if Pakistan has no right to support it

Well every terrorist will have his god forsaken reason to kill others and claim their so called struggle the legitimate. Going by your statement even ISIS,TTP or baloch should be legitimate. Even a guy who loses a election can claim legitimacy by saying his 1 vote constitutes a majority in his lala land.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Well when India become independent, western countries were pretty much hostile to India. To expect economist or some phoren guy to be impartial about India is asking for too much. The statement has more opinion than facts says lot many things about its impartiality.

Forget the "Foreign Guys" (i.e. the UN and the English Press), here is a "confession" by your own PM (as recorded by an Indian author):


Writing to the Chief Minister of West Bengal, B.C. Roy on 29 June 1953, Nehru confided “If there was a plebiscite, a great majority of Muslims in Kashmir would go against us.” They had “become frightened of the communal elements in Jammu and in India.” He had “this feeling of our losing grip in Kashmir.” [Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 22, pp.204-5]


In 1996 was published a Note Nehru had written to Sheikh Abdullah on 25 August 1952 from Sonamarg in Kashmir. It is a document of cardinal importance. It laid bare Nehru’s entire approach to the questions; his strategy and tactics. He revealed that “towards the end of 1948” he concluded that “there were only two possibilities open to us, continuance of the war in a limited way; (2) some kind of a settlement on the basis of the existing military situation”. He had accepted the UNCIP resolutions to get a ceasefire; not to hold a plebiscite. “We are superior to Pakistan in military and industrial power,” With the passage of time Pakistan will “accept a settlement which we consider fair, whether in Kashmir or elsewhere”.

He was not bothered about what “Pakistan did or what the United Nations might do.” But he was “worried to find that the leaders of Kashmir were not so clear in their minds about the present or the future.” He was not worried about the wishes of the people either. They were “not what are called a virile people. They are soft and addicted to easy living.” Like Indira Gandhi, he felt that they were interested in “an honest administration and cheap and adequate food. If they get this, then they are more or less content.” The State would retain its “autonomy in most respects.” The leaders must shed doubt as doubt “percolates to their followers.” His recipe was clear. “Make the people think that the association of Kashmir State with India is an accomplished and final fact, and nothing is going to undo it.” [Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 19, pp.322-330. ed. S. Gopal, Nehru Memorial Fund, OUP, Second Series.]


http://www.criterion-quarterly.com/bilateral-negotiation-on-kaskmir-unlearnt-lesson/

Well every terrorist will have his god forsaken reason to kill others and claim their so called struggle the legitimate. Going by your statement even ISIS,TTP or baloch should be legitimate. Even a guy who loses a election can claim legitimacy by saying his 1 vote constitutes a majority in his lala land.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/turk...ashmir-turkish-fm.442528/page-11#post-8534069

 

[$@rJen]

Un dont recognized Pakistan as an aggressor . both countries have to vocate at same time.

Same time!??? There's a new conspiracy in Pakistan or what??? Please download the documents from UN site and update yourself of the real history..

 

[Trango Towers]

It was not taken from us dumbo. First you guys should learn history
Tribals invaded the estwhile princely state of Kashmir. They defeated Maharaja forces and was just 20km away from SriNagar. The moment IA landed rest is history.

If Nehru hadnt gone to the UN by himself, we wont have Kashmir issue today.

You call me dumbo. Now idiot who send those forces and wasn't Kashmir part of India. Read your history and then question it. Your whole life you have been cheated.

I guess pakistan wasn't part of India until it was taken from you. I suppose Muslims didn't rule you either.

 

[t_for_talli]

Hahahahaha all police.. you mean jammu?

all, Policemen are locals everywhere

You call me dumbo. Now idiot who send those forces and wasn't Kashmir part of India. Read your history and then question it. Your whole life you have been cheated.

I guess pakistan wasn't part of India until it was taken from you. I suppose Muslims didn't rule you either.

Kashmir was not part of India, Pakistan but was under Maharaja who wanted an Independent state.
Pakistan Attacked with intention to capture Kashmir,
Maharaja seeked help from India, agreed for inclusion in India
Indian forces came to rescue.
India helpd 70% of KAshmir

 

[NKVD]

Good that you have "learnt" that the UN did not declare Pakistan an aggressor state in Kashmir

Now coming to what you posted from wiki, firstly "External Affairs Ministry, Government of India" is no credible source. India itself is a party to the dispute and what the Indian government says/claims has zero value .... Secondly, the UN Security Council has passed more than twenty Resolutions on Kashmir, and in none of its resolutions has the UN declared Pakistan an aggressor state or held it responsible for halting the (plebiscite) process ... The UN official mediator Sir Owen Dixon, however, did hold India responsible for halting the process. He reported to the Security Council that:

"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Para 52 of Document S/1971)


The London Economist stated that "the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [the Kashmiri people]...has been obstructing a holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite. From this the world opinion can only conclude that India really has no confidence that the vote would go in its favour" The Economist (London), Feb 18, 1950




Kashmir insurgency is legitimate even if Pakistan has no right to support it

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/indi...testers-in-kashmir.443255/page-4#post-8551860

BS Crap a lone UN official statement what did his statement Has to to with UNSC resolution 47 which a secuirty council mandate

Learn what ia UNSC Resolution first and how its opted in UN you not even aware of working of UN it seems

UNSC resolution 47 states
"Pakistan has to widrwaw his forces from Azad Kashmir and Gilgit with its all tribes which you have not done "made it agressor state which defied UN resolution

India is premitted to stay few forces in kashmir for law and order

And UNSC resolution 47 is a major and primary document of the kashmir dispute eventually raised by Pakistani's themselves

Forget the "Foreign Guys" (i.e. the UN and the English Press), here is a "confession" by your own PM (as recorded by an Indian author):


Writing to the Chief Minister of West Bengal, B.C. Roy on 29 June 1953, Nehru confided “If there was a plebiscite, a great majority of Muslims in Kashmir would go against us.” They had “become frightened of the communal elements in Jammu and in India.” He had “this feeling of our losing grip in Kashmir.” [Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 22, pp.204-5]


In 1996 was published a Note Nehru had written to Sheikh Abdullah on 25 August 1952 from Sonamarg in Kashmir. It is a document of cardinal importance. It laid bare Nehru’s entire approach to the questions; his strategy and tactics. He revealed that “towards the end of 1948” he concluded that “there were only two possibilities open to us, continuance of the war in a limited way; (2) some kind of a settlement on the basis of the existing military situation”. He had accepted the UNCIP resolutions to get a ceasefire; not to hold a plebiscite. “We are superior to Pakistan in military and industrial power,” With the passage of time Pakistan will “accept a settlement which we consider fair, whether in Kashmir or elsewhere”.

He was not bothered about what “Pakistan did or what the United Nations might do.” But he was “worried to find that the leaders of Kashmir were not so clear in their minds about the present or the future.” He was not worried about the wishes of the people either. They were “not what are called a virile people. They are soft and addicted to easy living.” Like Indira Gandhi, he felt that they were interested in “an honest administration and cheap and adequate food. If they get this, then they are more or less content.” The State would retain its “autonomy in most respects.” The leaders must shed doubt as doubt “percolates to their followers.” His recipe was clear. “Make the people think that the association of Kashmir State with India is an accomplished and final fact, and nothing is going to undo it.” [Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 19, pp.322-330. ed. S. Gopal, Nehru Memorial Fund, OUP, Second Series.]


http://www.criterion-quarterly.com/bilateral-negotiation-on-kaskmir-unlearnt-lesson/



https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/turk...ashmir-turkish-fm.442528/page-11#post-8534069

still
No reLevance because Until Pakistani not widrew from Pakistan occupied kashmir
Peblicite is never be implemented accourding to UNSC 47

So did

 

[Trango Towers]

all, Policemen are locals everywhere



Kashmir was not part of India, Pakistan but was under Maharaja who wanted an Independent state.
Pakistan Attacked with intention to capture Kashmir,
Maharaja seeked help from India, agreed for inclusion in India
Indian forces came to rescue.
India helpd 70% of KAshmir

Oh so that's the rubbish taught in Indian schools. That Kashmir was independent.

Well if Kashmir was independent why are you occupying it. Let the will of the people be.

 

[M. Sarmad]

BS Crap a lone UN official statement what did his statement Has to to with UNSC resolution 47 which a secuirty council mandate

Learn what ia UNSC Resolution first and how its opted in UN you not even aware of working of UN it seems

UNSC resolution 47 states
"Pakistan has to widrwaw his forces from Azad Kashmir and Gilgit with its all tribes which you have not done "made it agressor state which defied UN resolution

India is premitted to stay few forces in kashmir for law and order

And UNSC resolution 47 is a major and primary document of the kashmir dispute eventually raised by Pakistani's themselves

Well, that lone BS UN official statement was actually the final report submitted in the UN Security Council by the UN appointed official mediator, who had been sent to Kashmir by the UN to implement its resolutions and conduct a free and fair plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir .... Hope that clears your confusion

still
No reLevance because Until Pakistani not widrew from Pakistan occupied kashmir
Peblicite is never be implemented accourding to UNSC 47

So did

That has been explained to you guys many times but you keep coming up with the same nonsense over and over again !!!



India claims that acceptance of Resolution 47 (1948) was stated by Nehru to be conditional on the withdrawal of Pakistani forces from territory within the 1947 boundaries of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, in accordance with the terms of that Resolution. Pakistani forces have, of course, never been withdrawn.


The factual position is as under:-


(a) The demilitarization of Jammu and Kashmir was to take place in a synchronized manner on both sides of the ceasefire line. It was India which refused to implement the process of demilitarization.


(b) The proof of Indian refusal to demilitarize is to be found in the report of Sir Owen Dixon (an eminent Australian Jurist and United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan) to the Security Council, contained in Document S-1971, in which he concluded as follows:-

"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 any 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 the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperilled."(Para 52 of Document S/1971).


(c) It should also be noted that after a thorough examination of the matter the Security Council in its Resolution No. 98(1952), adopted on 23rd December 1952, allowed both India and Pakistan to maintain a limited number of their forces on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization in order to maintain law and order. This number was to be between 3000-6000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistani side and 12000-18000 remaining on the Indian side of the cease-fire line. Pakistan agreed to this proposal; India did not.


(d) To claim, in the face of this clear and irrefutable evidence, that the plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan refused to withdraw its forces, is patently an attempt to deceive the world. The simple truth is that India did not allow the creation of conditions necessary for the holding of a free and fair plebiscite under UN auspices.

 

[JOEY TRIBIANI]

Same time!??? There's a new conspiracy in Pakistan or what??? Please download the documents from UN site and update yourself of the real history..

I do read it . their is nothing as such .

 

[Bratva]

The same forces weren't there till 1988.
Kashmir was a peaceful and prosperous state of India.
Dal lake was place visited by tourists from world over.

But what changed 40 years after independence?
Why did India have to send forces to Kashmir?
What's caused the exodus of Kashmiri pandits?


If these questions don't put you in introspection mode then nothing will.

Btw this is just a small part of Kashmir which is where such incidents happen.
Rest of Kashmir is still peaceful and ergo prosperous.

Does Maqbool Bhaat ring any bell ? If kashmir was peaceful upto 1988, Maqbool Bhaat wouldnot had have been hanged in tihar jail in 1984

 

[$@rJen]

I do read it . their is nothing as such .

hmm... seems you've missed the main point on purpose or unknowingly...
I'm attaching the UN Docuent please do read the entire article.. it's around 14 pages.


1. UN says pakistan forces and Tribes men has to be withdraw first.
2. If india satisfied with the 1st process the next step shall be taken (Pakistan Never did that)

that's to Minimize its forces but to have enough to maintain a law and order situation in J&K
and this minimized force has to be retained in the forward areas but that should be within its operation bases.

 

[JOEY TRIBIANI]

hmm... seems you've missed the main point on purpose or unknowingly...
I'm attaching the UN Docuent please do read the entire article.. it's around 14 pages.


1. UN says pakistan forces and Tribes men has to be withdraw first.
2. If india satisfied with the 1st process the next step shall be taken (Pakistan Never did that)

that's to Minimize its forces but to have enough to maintain a law and order situation in J&K
and this minimized force has to be retained in the forward areas but that should be within its operation bases.

Corrupt file..

 

[$@rJen]

Corrupt file..

How is it a corrupt file, when i can dowload from PDF and view..
anyhow, here is the UN Link
http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/1948.shtml
Download the S/RES/52 file and Read