How to beat the "1971Civil War " Psychological Syndrome !

[magra]

Your understanding of events is something repeatedly trumpeted by Indian media to spread lies, but the truth is totally different, and sadly, Pakistanis are not fully aware either, so lies live on.

1. The above was superseded by the UN Security Council resolution 80 adopted on 14th March 1950.
This resolution supported the recommendations in a report by General Andrew McNaughton, who had made the recommendations because of the stalemate in Jammu and Kashmir.

2. Under resolution 80 both countries were to reduce their forces simultaneously and only maintain a minimal force for the purposes of internal security. It did not require Pakistan or India to take the first steps, both were required to act concurrently and mutually.

3. India was a member of the Security Council when this resolution was passed but had abstained, it did not oppose the resolution, which in effect is a quiet approval, if India was explicitly opposed, it would have voted against the resolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_80

You can find the actual resolution and the report by visiting the UN website.

@Baibars_1260 @PakistaniAtBahrain

Since when did Wikipedia become an official source?

Here is the official UN source for the resolution 80.

Resolution 80 (1950) /

digitallibrary.un.org

It only thanks India and Pakistan for maintaining ceasefire, urges them to continue ceasefire and recommends further negotitations between the 2 countries.

 

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

Cant find with that. Can you give a link?

you have to buy it.

I will accept India's mistake when there is one in India vs Pak. Why dont you be direct in telling me about those.

as i said, you believe india is always right and pakistan is always wrong. yet you come here wanting to "discuss". lol, you are just here to troll.

ya sure. Even if what you say may be true, that part of Kashmir did not have to deal with your irregulars infiltrating and causing troubles with the security forces.

try infiltrating. the locals themselves will fight the indian army. they are armed, and they dont want to join India. thats why India doesnt try infiltrating, they have no support among the locals. just like in Kashmir, India has no local support, so they have to do lockdowns, blackouts, abductions, killings, torture, rapes, banning political parties, arresting politicians, etc.

Are you going to tell me that no non-Kashmiris have settled into your side of Kashmir since 1947 and the demographic distribution is same?

there is a fricking law. A LAW, that BANS any non-Kashmiri Pakistani from owning land in Kashmir. only Kashmiris can buy land and own it in Kashmir. maximum a non-Kashmiri Pakistani can do in Kashmir is rent a property and live there. thats it. we did everything from our side to not change the demographics. India on the other hand clearly is interested in demographic change.

No one's bringing anyone.

you shameless, lying piece of shit. i knew you were a troll from day 1.

Kashmiri leaders flay India's 'demographic change' plan

Political parties reject Indian government's move allowing outsiders to buy land in Jammu and Kashmir - Anadolu Ajansı

www.aa.com.tr

We do not owe an explanation to anyone. Indian Kashmir is India's and the time has come for total integration.

of course you dont owe an explanation to anyone. thats why India did a lockdown on Kashmir after abrogating 370. India doesnt think it even owes an explanation to the Kashmiris. Indian officials openly said they want to do the Israel model and force demographic change.

Anger over India’s diplomat calling for ‘Israel model’ in Kashmir

In video posted by filmmaker, India’s consul general to US seems to advocate Israel-like settlements of Kashmiri Hindus.

www.aljazeera.com

as for "the time has come for total integration". reminds me of a bollywood film i watched when i was a kid, its called Daraar. in this case, Kashmir is Juhi Chawla, India is Arbaaz Khan. India manmani karega Kashmir par, logon ko qatal karey ga, balatkaar kare ga, aur Kashmir ko khushi se qabool karna hoga. aur India kabhi nahi pochay ga Kashmir se ke woh kya chahte hain. but, Allah is watching, and the mazloom will get justice one day, and the zaalim will be punished in this life or the Day of Judgement.

So that is your excuse to give away part of Kashmir to China?

there was a chance Pakistan and China could go to war. so a land swap was done and borders were decided. the piece of Kashmir that China got in return was pretty much just barren land, so it didnt harm the people, and no one from our side of Kashmir seems to want it either. so, its not an issue for Pakistan or Kashmiris.

Article 370 existed as a temporary measure so that final decision could be taken after plebiscite. Thanks to Pak's refusal to act on UN resolution 1948, that never happened.

lol. same story from you, Pakistan always to blame, India is the blue eyed virgin. if lockdowns and atrocities in IOK and none in Azad Kashmir isnt a clear sign for you, then its because you refuse to see, which means you are just here to troll. i respect the other trolls that come here, at least they have more self respect and waste less of their time in their attempts to troll. you on the other hand troll and put in effort to feign sincerity and write essays, just shows you have no self-respect or maybe you are currently unemployed and have time on your hands.

Kashmir could not be run on temporary basis forever, so the article has now been removed.

resolved? if Kashmiris decide today they are happy to be part of India, no one would be happier than me. i want them to be happy. but its unlikely they are going to be happy with India, so until they arent happy, this isnt getting resolved, even if Pakistan doesnt participate in agitation. an insurgency can go on without Pakistan's involvement, like in other parts of the world.

Yes, and thats why sooner or later, China would 'advise' Pak to take the deal and remove the uncertainty on CPEC.

i love your one sided analysis because it further proves you dont come here to talk sincerely. as @peagle said, you are only interested in point scoring and intellectual dishonesty. i can summarise your entire argument like this, "India will always prevail, Pakistan will always lose, and so shall China and everyone else". you speak as if China doesnt want Ladakh, and as if China will want something as important as CPEC to be at risk in the event of Pakistan-India war (for any reason other than Kashmir) by letting India be in Kashmir forever. its in Pakistan and China's interests that Pakistan gets the rest of Kashmir. CPEC is more important to China in the long run than it is to Pakistan. for us, CPEC is a huge short term boost, but in the long run its not as important to us as it is to China.

 

[peagle]

Since when did Wikipedia become an official source?

Here is the official UN source for the resolution 80.

Resolution 80 (1950) /

digitallibrary.un.org

It only thanks India and Pakistan for maintaining ceasefire, urges them to continue ceasefire and recommends further negotitations between the 2 countries.

You really are an idiot.

I merely provided that as an easy to read format.
The page also has links to the actual resolution and the report, do not give me more Indian fantasies, how dumb can you be?
How can you lie so blatantly, read the bloody resolution and the report, you fool.

The resolution had adopted the recommendations in the following report.

"Proposal in respect of Jammu and Kashmir made by General A.G.L.
McNaughton, President of the Security Council of the United Nations, pursuant
to the decision of the Security Council taken at its 457th meeting, on 22
December, 1949.

The principal considerations underlying the following proposals of the President of the Security
Council of the United Nations are:

(a) To determine the future of Jammu and Kashmir by the democratic method of the free and
impartial plebiscite, to take place as early as possible; Thus to settle this issue between the
Governments of India and Pakistan in accordance with the freely expressed will of the
inhabitants, as is desired by both Governments;

(b) To preserve the substantial measure of agreement of fundamental principles which has
already been reached between the two Governments under the auspices of the United Nations.

(c) To avoid unprofitable discussion of disputed issues of the past and to look forward into the
future towards the good-neighbourly and constructive co-operation of the two great nations.

DEMILITARISATION PREPARATORY TO THE PLEBISCITE

2. There should be an agreed programme of progressive demilitarisation, the basic principle of
which should be the reduction of armed forces on either side of the Cease-Fire Line by
withdrawal, disbandment and disarmament in such stages as not to cause fear at any point of
time to the people on either side of the Cease-Fire Line. The aim should be to reduce the armed
personnel in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on both side of the Cease-Fire Line to the
minimum compatible with the maintenance of security and of local law and order, and to a level
sufficiently low and with the forces so disposed that they will not constitute a restriction on the
free expression of opinion for the purposes of the plebiscite.

The programme of demilitarisation should include the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and
Kashmir of the regular forces of Pakistan; and the withdrawal of the regular forces of India not
required for purposes of security or for the maintenance of local law and order on the Indian side
of the Cease-Fire Line; also the reduction, by disbanding and disarming, of local forces,
including on the one side the Armed Forces and Militia of the State of Kashmir and on the other,
the Azad Forces.

The "Northern Area" should also be included in the above programme of demilitarisation, and its
administration should, subject to United Nations supervision, be continued by the existing local
authorities.

SUGGESTED BASIS OF AGREEMENT

3. The Governments of India and Pakistan should reach agreement not later than 31 January
1950, in New York on the following points;

(a) The Government of Pakistan should give unconditional assurance to the Government of
India that they will deal effectively within their own borders with any possibility of tribal
incursion into Jammu and Kashmir to the end that, under no circumstances, will tribesmen be
able unlawfully to enter the State of Jammu and Kashmir from or through the territory of
Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to keep the senior United Nations
military observer informed and to satisfy him that the arrangements to this end are and
continue to be adequate.

(b) The Governments of India and Pakistan should confirm the continued and unconditional
inviolability of the "Cease-Fire Line

(c) Agreement should be reached on the basic principles of demilitarisation outlined in
paragraph 2 above.

(d) Agreement should be reached on the minimum forces required for the maintenance of
security and of local law and order, and on their general disposition.

(e) Agreement should be reached on a date by which the reduction of forces, to the level
envisaged in paragraph 2 above, is to be accomplished. Agreement should be reached on the
progressive steps to be taken in reducing and redistributing the forces to the level envisaged in
paragraph 2 above.

4. In respect to the foregoing matters, the Governments of India and Pakistan should further
agree that a United Nations representative, to be appointed by the Secretary-General of the
United Nations in agreement with the two Governments, should supervise the execution of the
progressive steps in reduction and redistribution of armed forces and that it should be the
responsibility of this United Nations representative to give assurance to the people on both sides
of the Cease-Fire Line that they have no cause for fear at any stage throughout the process.

The United Nations representative should have the duty and authority

(a) of interpreting the agreements reached between the parties pursuant to paragraph 3,
sub-paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) above, and

(b) of determining, in consultation with the Governments of India and Pakistan respectively,
the implementation of the plan for the reduction and redistribution of armed forces referred to
in paragraph 3 (f) above.

5. When the agreed programme of demilitarisation preparatory to the plebiscite been
accomplished to the satisfaction of the United Nations representative, the Plebiscite
Administrator should proceed forthwith to exercise the functions assigned to him under the terms
of UNCIP resolution of 5 January 1949, which, together with UNCIP resolution of 13 August
1948, was accepted by the Governments of India and Pakistan and which are now reaffirmed by
these Governments except in so far as the provisions therein contained as modified by the
relevant provisions of this document.
The functions and powers of the Plebiscite Administrator remain as set forth in UNCIP
resolution of 5 January, 1949.

6. The United Nations representative should be authorised to make any suggestions to the
Governments of India and Pakistan which, in his opinion are likely to contribute to the
expeditious and enduring solution of the Kashmir question, and to place his good offices at their
disposal."

 

[Baibars_1260]

Is it not obvious that until the border issue is settled, India would not relinquish its claim on the entirety of J&K, hence the parliament resolution.

Who is interested in a settlement?
Really ... who cares about your claims or the technicalities of a toothless UN resolution. Does China ever go to the UN to settle its territorial disputes with Taiwan or India? Does Russia care about the UN over Abkazia , South Ossetia, when it walloped Georgia in 2008?
Does Israel care about UN resolutions to enforce withdrawal to the pre-1967 boundaries?
Does North Korea care to withdraw to beyond the Yalu river? They are holding on the 38th parallel.

Even if India becomes a permanent member of the security council ( in its dreams) it cannot enforce a withdrawal of Pakistani forces out of Azad Kashmir.
Your generals are far more realistic than your diplomats and politicians.
They know that Pakistan is not going to leave its population to be imprisoned, murdered, and raped.
The children in Azad Kashmir will have clear vision all their lives , not blinded by bird shot fired into their eyes. Over our dead bodies, sir...

You had your chance to settle and you blew it

The Simla Agreement was signed as a first step towards one and what we got was Operation Brasstacks. The Indian parliamentary resolution was before Kargil.
So now live with your folly because Kashmir will be kept on the burner for a while. Artillery shelling on the LOC , whether now or in 2002 has got you nothing but a lot of dead soldiers about as many as lost in the 1971 war ( 1,874 during Operation Parakaram alone ). You can try hundreds of Balakot sorties and it won't matter because you will still loose aircraft.
So after the loss of all these lives you agree to a "ceasefire " .
How long will this one last ?

You can resume your shelling.
Who is scared?

So you the think the new Afghan govt will ignore the trade interests of Afghanistan and work as Pak's younger brother?

Geography limits the choices of nations. Just as Nepal is limited to a
port access with India so is Afghanistan limited to its access with Pakistan.
Counter question to you:
You think Nepal will ignore its trade interests with China and behave as India's younger brother?
In fact the analogy is flawed as per the latest developments because with infrastructure developments Nepal has more choices to trade with China than Afghanistan has with India. At least Nepal has a boundary with an economically powerful nation. India can whistle all it wants, we control the gate at Wagah.

Yes, you have one card in the pocket and with no insurance policy. Dont come crying when their purpose is over with you, like you cried when America ditched you.

Thank you for your advice. We have learnt our lesson and know how to protect our interests.
Our bilateral relations are no concern of India. We don't go crying anywhere, Having lost over 100,000 civilians and soldiers we know that crying doesn't help.
Concentrate on keeping your guns quiet and your soldiers safe.
Maintain the ceasefire and keep spraying bird shot into the eyes of your citizens. You will maintain the record of the world largest population of blind people very easily.

Ofcourse I consider my country to be important. Whereas you have pinned all hopes on the govt (not Pak govt, but Chinese govt).

Your country is important to you and to no other country in the region. We don't pin our hopes on our government. In 1947 our government couldn't even secure coal for the steam locomotives then in use as all the coal mines were in eastern India in the southern part of the Indian province of Bihar ( Dhanbad), and West Bengal. Our entire railroad system collapsed. Our railway engineers fabricated oil burners from scrap steam pipes and siphoned fuel oil from ships in Karachi harbor into modified water tanks in the steam locomotives. When fired up the locomotives ran, ferrying refugees from our camps on the Indian border and troops to the front. We couldn't afford to buy diesel or electric locomotives until five years later. Even the fuel oil from Greek freighters was bought on a barter system exchanging bales of cotton for fuel oil. We rubber stamped our worthless currency and ran our ramshackle 70 year old locomotives and cannibalized wartime crashed aircraft to keep 3 ancient DC-3s flying, But we fought on then and we will fight on now.
We will eat grass and we will fight on.
Keep the guns quiet. It is good for you.

Whats wrong with the stadium?

Google the image and find out .

As mentioned before, your forces defeated a princely state and were then pushed back to the present LOC by the Indian forces.

As mentioned before the state acceded on October 27, 1947. Our regular forces only engaged on May 4, 1948 till you went crying to the UN in January 1949
Why didn't you push us back from the LOC and out of Kashmir during these 7 months?
Why didn't you push us out of Kashmir during all the wars over the last 73 years?

No doubt, Kashmir is heaven on both sides. But terrorists from your side made sure that our side is the most dangerous heaven on earth.

Ok so its our fault Kashmir is dangerous on your side ?
So are you going to keep complaining or doing something about it ?
What do you plan to do ?
Buy more bird shot ?

See, with this attitude towards them, you think you can ever have a friendship with Bangladesh?

Our bilateral relations with Bangladesh are far below the level of importance we accord to other countries. Bangladesh is not connected with us geographically, culturally , linguistically and we have learned from our Turkish allies not to listen too much to those religious fundamentalists peddling a fake "brotherhood " narrative.
India itself should bother about its narrative on Bangladesh since your home minister dubs the people there as a particular species of the genus Blattodea Isoptera .

 

[Baibars_1260]

@peagle @PakistaniAtBahrain @magra .

Great posts from all of us but we are going back and forth over technicalities. The UN 1948 resolution apart from diplomatic posturing is irrelevant and unenforceable.

The boots on the ground situation is what matters.
In 1971 Pakistan successfully blunted the Indian offensive in West Pakistan and ended the war on that front in a tactically favorable position vis a vis Kashmir . This is saying a lot, considering the losses we had suffered in the east and to our naval assets. The withdrawal by India to the December 17, 1971 line following the ceasefire resolution on December 21, 1971 was an acknowledgement by India that the LOC could not be altered substantially on India's will even over a so-called "defeated " Pakistan. We had lost the Civil War in the east but had fought the war to a stalemate in the West. No mean feat in itself.

The 1972 Simla Agreement was a tacit agreement of the ground realities. The UN was no longer relevant. Converting the LOC into an international border was the only option and then as left wingers in India wanted India and Pakistan would develop a "Canada-USA "
relationship where the border was essentially just a line on the map.
This is the left wing stance commonly discussed by dreamy intellectuals in the Jawahar Lal Nehru School of International studies.
Post-1972 Pakistan was less interested in the Canada USA relationship than getting its soldiers interned in India back and fixing its borders. With a quiet border, and both Kashmirs in India and Pakistan stable, Pakistan heaved a sigh of relief when most of our boys came home by 1973. By mid 1974 they had all come home.

The border still had to be fixed.

Pakistan had closed its embassy indefinitely, and suspended all communications, travel and consular links , subject to the border being demarcated and fixed.

India refused to discuss the finalization of the border .
India instead aggressively pushed for reopening embassies, returning ambassadors, reopening road, rail and post and telegraph links including "people to people " contact. This was beyond the scope of the Simla Agreement which acknowledged that the issue of the Kashmir border shall not be unilaterally altered.
Pakistan's stance was Border First !
India's stance was Normalize First !
Pakistan did not open its embassy for 7 years ( it was managed by the Swiss Embassy instead) . Once the border was settled Pakistan was looking to a North Korea type freeze in the relationship. An embassy would not even be needed. A mere liaison office in the British or US embassy would have worked.

India NEVER discussed finalizing the border. It insisted on first discussing trade and cultural links ( we held our noses on the invitations to the Ajmer shrine which India always peddled).
The cultural and emotional blackmail India did on Pakistan during this period was enormous. India used the doddering generation of North Indian Muslim divided families with their relatives in the diaspora in Pakistan ( Karachi mainly ) to exert pressure to reopen consular links.
Then Congress lost the election in 1977, and the Cold War hawks like Natwar Singh were no longer in power. The new foreign minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee unilaterally insisted on visiting Pakistan. In a personal meeting with Gen. Zia Ul Haque Atal Bihari promised to resolve all border issues if Pakistan would reopen the embassies.
Thinking that a new government would perhaps fulfill the spirit of the Simla Agreement Pakistan relented and opened its embassies, restored, rail and road links and communications issuing limited transit visas. Overflights were also resumed. India allowing Pakistani flights to Bangladesh ( Pakistan had been using the Sri Lanka route ).

Neither India nor Pakistan went to the UN. Kashmir was peaceful and so was the border. This was the situation for 10 years.

Did India ever discuss the border ?

The demands from India were never ending. Test Cricket matches , transit rights for goods to Afghanistan, sponsorship of India to join the OIC. India got all its demands except the OIC membership which Pakistan vetoed.

Then we got Brasstacks , Siachen, and a parliamentary resolution asking us to vacate Azad Kashmir.
Intense meddling in Sindh with India alternatively backing G.M. Syed's Jiye Sindh movement and then backing Altaf Hussain's Mukka Chowk.
Who in Pakistan will trust India again?

 

[magra]

Converting the LOC into an international border was the only option

I am thankful that atleast one Pakistani has come to this realization. This is the only relevant thing in the entire discussion of yours. Do this and the 'border' is settled, as you have been wanting in the entire post.

Who is interested in a settlement?

Pakistan is super-interested. You keep asking for solving this central issue before proceeding to normalize ties. But what constitutes settlement is different in Pak's eyes. Pakistan wants to gobble entire Kashmir as settlement. India just wants to covert de-facto to de-jure.

 

[magra]

you have to buy it.



as i said, you believe india is always right and pakistan is always wrong. yet you come here wanting to "discuss". lol, you are just here to troll.



try infiltrating. the locals themselves will fight the indian army. they are armed, and they dont want to join India. thats why India doesnt try infiltrating, they have no support among the locals. just like in Kashmir, India has no local support, so they have to do lockdowns, blackouts, abductions, killings, torture, rapes, banning political parties, arresting politicians, etc.



there is a fricking law. A LAW, that BANS any non-Kashmiri Pakistani from owning land in Kashmir. only Kashmiris can buy land and own it in Kashmir. maximum a non-Kashmiri Pakistani can do in Kashmir is rent a property and live there. thats it. we did everything from our side to not change the demographics. India on the other hand clearly is interested in demographic change.



you shameless, lying piece of shit. i knew you were a troll from day 1.

Kashmiri leaders flay India's 'demographic change' plan

Political parties reject Indian government's move allowing outsiders to buy land in Jammu and Kashmir - Anadolu Ajansı

www.aa.com.tr

of course you dont owe an explanation to anyone. thats why India did a lockdown on Kashmir after abrogating 370. India doesnt think it even owes an explanation to the Kashmiris. Indian officials openly said they want to do the Israel model and force demographic change.

Anger over India’s diplomat calling for ‘Israel model’ in Kashmir

In video posted by filmmaker, India’s consul general to US seems to advocate Israel-like settlements of Kashmiri Hindus.

www.aljazeera.com

as for "the time has come for total integration". reminds me of a bollywood film i watched when i was a kid, its called Daraar. in this case, Kashmir is Juhi Chawla, India is Arbaaz Khan. India manmani karega Kashmir par, logon ko qatal karey ga, balatkaar kare ga, aur Kashmir ko khushi se qabool karna hoga. aur India kabhi nahi pochay ga Kashmir se ke woh kya chahte hain. but, Allah is watching, and the mazloom will get justice one day, and the zaalim will be punished in this life or the Day of Judgement.



there was a chance Pakistan and China could go to war. so a land swap was done and borders were decided. the piece of Kashmir that China got in return was pretty much just barren land, so it didnt harm the people, and no one from our side of Kashmir seems to want it either. so, its not an issue for Pakistan or Kashmiris.



lol. same story from you, Pakistan always to blame, India is the blue eyed virgin. if lockdowns and atrocities in IOK and none in Azad Kashmir isnt a clear sign for you, then its because you refuse to see, which means you are just here to troll. i respect the other trolls that come here, at least they have more self respect and waste less of their time in their attempts to troll. you on the other hand troll and put in effort to feign sincerity and write essays, just shows you have no self-respect or maybe you are currently unemployed and have time on your hands.



resolved? if Kashmiris decide today they are happy to be part of India, no one would be happier than me. i want them to be happy. but its unlikely they are going to be happy with India, so until they arent happy, this isnt getting resolved, even if Pakistan doesnt participate in agitation. an insurgency can go on without Pakistan's involvement, like in other parts of the world.



i love your one sided analysis because it further proves you dont come here to talk sincerely. as @peagle said, you are only interested in point scoring and intellectual dishonesty. i can summarise your entire argument like this, "India will always prevail, Pakistan will always lose, and so shall China and everyone else". you speak as if China doesnt want Ladakh, and as if China will want something as important as CPEC to be at risk in the event of Pakistan-India war (for any reason other than Kashmir) by letting India be in Kashmir forever. its in Pakistan and China's interests that Pakistan gets the rest of Kashmir. CPEC is more important to China in the long run than it is to Pakistan. for us, CPEC is a huge short term boost, but in the long run its not as important to us as it is to China.

One thing I learnt from your essay is that you do not deserve to be answered on all the points. You are right, my time is precious. Even if I show you the exact proof, you would close your eyes. So just carry on with your essays.
After this, you would say, why I did not reply on your points, and if I chickened out. So just make up your mind, if you want me to answer on all points or not.

You really are an idiot.

I merely provided that as an easy to read format.
The page also has links to the actual resolution and the report, do not give me more Indian fantasies, how dumb can you be?
How can you lie so blatantly, read the bloody resolution and the report, you fool.

The resolution had adopted the recommendations in the following report.

"Proposal in respect of Jammu and Kashmir made by General A.G.L.
McNaughton, President of the Security Council of the United Nations, pursuant
to the decision of the Security Council taken at its 457th meeting, on 22
December, 1949.

The principal considerations underlying the following proposals of the President of the Security
Council of the United Nations are:

(a) To determine the future of Jammu and Kashmir by the democratic method of the free and
impartial plebiscite, to take place as early as possible; Thus to settle this issue between the
Governments of India and Pakistan in accordance with the freely expressed will of the
inhabitants, as is desired by both Governments;

(b) To preserve the substantial measure of agreement of fundamental principles which has
already been reached between the two Governments under the auspices of the United Nations.

(c) To avoid unprofitable discussion of disputed issues of the past and to look forward into the
future towards the good-neighbourly and constructive co-operation of the two great nations.

DEMILITARISATION PREPARATORY TO THE PLEBISCITE

2. There should be an agreed programme of progressive demilitarisation, the basic principle of
which should be the reduction of armed forces on either side of the Cease-Fire Line by
withdrawal, disbandment and disarmament in such stages as not to cause fear at any point of
time to the people on either side of the Cease-Fire Line. The aim should be to reduce the armed
personnel in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on both side of the Cease-Fire Line to the
minimum compatible with the maintenance of security and of local law and order, and to a level
sufficiently low and with the forces so disposed that they will not constitute a restriction on the
free expression of opinion for the purposes of the plebiscite.

The programme of demilitarisation should include the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and
Kashmir of the regular forces of Pakistan; and the withdrawal of the regular forces of India not
required for purposes of security or for the maintenance of local law and order on the Indian side
of the Cease-Fire Line; also the reduction, by disbanding and disarming, of local forces,
including on the one side the Armed Forces and Militia of the State of Kashmir and on the other,
the Azad Forces.

The "Northern Area" should also be included in the above programme of demilitarisation, and its
administration should, subject to United Nations supervision, be continued by the existing local
authorities.

SUGGESTED BASIS OF AGREEMENT

3. The Governments of India and Pakistan should reach agreement not later than 31 January
1950, in New York on the following points;

(a) The Government of Pakistan should give unconditional assurance to the Government of
India that they will deal effectively within their own borders with any possibility of tribal
incursion into Jammu and Kashmir to the end that, under no circumstances, will tribesmen be
able unlawfully to enter the State of Jammu and Kashmir from or through the territory of
Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to keep the senior United Nations
military observer informed and to satisfy him that the arrangements to this end are and
continue to be adequate.

(b) The Governments of India and Pakistan should confirm the continued and unconditional
inviolability of the "Cease-Fire Line

(c) Agreement should be reached on the basic principles of demilitarisation outlined in
paragraph 2 above.

(d) Agreement should be reached on the minimum forces required for the maintenance of
security and of local law and order, and on their general disposition.

(e) Agreement should be reached on a date by which the reduction of forces, to the level
envisaged in paragraph 2 above, is to be accomplished. Agreement should be reached on the
progressive steps to be taken in reducing and redistributing the forces to the level envisaged in
paragraph 2 above.

4. In respect to the foregoing matters, the Governments of India and Pakistan should further
agree that a United Nations representative, to be appointed by the Secretary-General of the
United Nations in agreement with the two Governments, should supervise the execution of the
progressive steps in reduction and redistribution of armed forces and that it should be the
responsibility of this United Nations representative to give assurance to the people on both sides
of the Cease-Fire Line that they have no cause for fear at any stage throughout the process.

The United Nations representative should have the duty and authority

(a) of interpreting the agreements reached between the parties pursuant to paragraph 3,
sub-paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) above, and

(b) of determining, in consultation with the Governments of India and Pakistan respectively,
the implementation of the plan for the reduction and redistribution of armed forces referred to
in paragraph 3 (f) above.

5. When the agreed programme of demilitarisation preparatory to the plebiscite been
accomplished to the satisfaction of the United Nations representative, the Plebiscite
Administrator should proceed forthwith to exercise the functions assigned to him under the terms
of UNCIP resolution of 5 January 1949, which, together with UNCIP resolution of 13 August
1948, was accepted by the Governments of India and Pakistan and which are now reaffirmed by
these Governments except in so far as the provisions therein contained as modified by the
relevant provisions of this document.
The functions and powers of the Plebiscite Administrator remain as set forth in UNCIP
resolution of 5 January, 1949.

6. The United Nations representative should be authorised to make any suggestions to the
Governments of India and Pakistan which, in his opinion are likely to contribute to the
expeditious and enduring solution of the Kashmir question, and to place his good offices at their
disposal."

If as per you, UN resolution of 1950 supercedes UN resolution of 1948.
Then Shimla agreement of 1972 supercedes the previous UN resolutions. Then why does Pak keep talking about UN resolutions. Your friend Baibars keeps on pleading to stop talking about UN resolutions.
I cant seem to decide whether I should agree with you or him. Please discuss among yourselves and let me know the outcome.

 

[peagle]

@peagle @PakistaniAtBahrain @magra .

Great posts from all of us but we are going back and forth over technicalities. The UN 1948 resolution apart from diplomatic posturing is irrelevant and unenforceable.

The boots on the ground situation is what matters.
In 1971 Pakistan successfully blunted the Indian offensive in West Pakistan and ended the war on that front in a tactically favorable position vis a vis Kashmir . This is saying a lot, considering the losses we had suffered in the east and to our naval assets. The withdrawal by India to the December 17, 1971 line following the ceasefire resolution on December 21, 1971 was an acknowledgement by India that the LOC could not be altered substantially on India's will even over a so-called "defeated " Pakistan. We had lost the Civil War in the east but had fought the war to a stalemate in the West. No mean feat in itself.

The 1972 Simla Agreement was a tacit agreement of the ground realities. The UN was no longer relevant. Converting the LOC into an international border was the only option and then as left wingers in India wanted India and Pakistan would develop a "Canada-USA "
relationship where the border was essentially just a line on the map.
This is the left wing stance commonly discussed by dreamy intellectuals in the Jawahar Lal Nehru School of International studies.
Post-1972 Pakistan was less interested in the Canada USA relationship than getting its soldiers interned in India back and fixing its borders. With a quiet border, and both Kashmirs in India and Pakistan stable, Pakistan heaved a sigh of relief when most of our boys came home by 1973. By mid 1974 they had all come home.

The border still had to be fixed.

Pakistan had closed its embassy indefinitely, and suspended all communications, travel and consular links , subject to the border being demarcated and fixed.

India refused to discuss the finalization of the border .
India instead aggressively pushed for reopening embassies, returning ambassadors, reopening road, rail and post and telegraph links including "people to people " contact. This was beyond the scope of the Simla Agreement which acknowledged that the issue of the Kashmir border shall not be unilaterally altered.
Pakistan's stance was Border First !
India's stance was Normalize First !
Pakistan did not open its embassy for 7 years ( it was managed by the Swiss Embassy instead) . Once the border was settled Pakistan was looking to a North Korea type freeze in the relationship. An embassy would not even be needed. A mere liaison office in the British or US embassy would have worked.

India NEVER discussed finalizing the border. It insisted on first discussing trade and cultural links ( we held our noses on the invitations to the Ajmer shrine which India always peddled).
The cultural and emotional blackmail India did on Pakistan during this period was enormous. India used the doddering generation of North Indian Muslim divided families with their relatives in the diaspora in Pakistan ( Karachi mainly ) to exert pressure to reopen consular links.
Then Congress lost the election in 1977, and the Cold War hawks like Natwar Singh were no longer in power. The new foreign minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee unilaterally insisted on visiting Pakistan. In a personal meeting with Gen. Zia Ul Haque Atal Bihari promised to resolve all border issues if Pakistan would reopen the embassies.
Thinking that a new government would perhaps fulfill the spirit of the Simla Agreement Pakistan relented and opened its embassies, restored, rail and road links and communications issuing limited transit visas. Overflights were also resumed. India allowing Pakistani flights to Bangladesh ( Pakistan had been using the Sri Lanka route ).

Neither India nor Pakistan went to the UN. Kashmir was peaceful and so was the border. This was the situation for 10 years.

Did India ever discuss the border ?

The demands from India were never ending. Test Cricket matches , transit rights for goods to Afghanistan, sponsorship of India to join the OIC. India got all its demands except the OIC membership which Pakistan vetoed.

Then we got Brasstacks , Siachen, and a parliamentary resolution asking us to vacate Azad Kashmir.
Intense meddling in Sindh with India alternatively backing G.M. Syed's Jiye Sindh movement and then backing Altaf Hussain's Mukka Chowk.
Who in Pakistan will trust India again?

I have not really participated in this discussion because it turned into a hampsters wheel long ago, I only provided little info on core issues, so count me out, because this discussion has reached its conclusion, right now it's a talk for sake of talking.

I agree with most of what you said above, except that the UN Security Council resolutions still matter and are still relevant, otherwise India would not have been running through high and hell water trying to stop any discussions on Kashmir in the UN Security Council, and making and crying foul when it failed.

The law is the law, we are living in an international rules-based order, so rulings matter and they have value. It is another matter that the Kashmir issue will ultimately be resolved through negotiations, only when it is resolved will the UN Security Council resolutions lose their relevance, not before. To think otherwise is just playing with words.

If I kill someone, then go into hiding and come back 40 years later and I cannot claim that my action has no meaning because the body has decomposed and the dead person has no living relatives, so just forget about it now. Law and rules will always matter, especially if we are to live in a rules-based order.

 

[peagle]

If as per you, UN resolution of 1950 supercedes UN resolution of 1948.
Then Shimla agreement of 1972 supercedes the previous UN resolutions. Then why does Pak keep talking about UN resolutions. Your friend Baibars keeps on pleading to stop talking about UN resolutions.
I cant seem to decide whether I should agree with you or him. Please discuss among yourselves and let me know the outcome.

I will refer you again to the idiot comment.

1. The Simla agreement did not supersede the UN Security Council resolutions, because the nature of the agreement was such that it cannot overrule the judgments of the UN Security Council resolutions.

2. The Simla agreement states that the agreement shall not affect the existing position of either party.

3. You are obsessed with what someone else has said, someone's statement or lack thereof does not change reality, it is the said person's opinion based on their own knowledge. It does not become a fact if it is incomplete.

4. Rather than being blind and putting your will to live on what people say, how about sticking with the truth. I only discuss the truth, not what someone or the other has said.

You really are an id..t

 

[magra]

I will refer you again to the idiot comment.

1. The Simla agreement did not supersede the UN Security Council resolutions, because the nature of the agreement was such that it cannot overrule the judgments of the UN Security Council resolutions.

2. The Simla agreement states that the agreement shall not affect the existing position of either party.

3. You are obsessed with what someone else has said, someone's statement or lack thereof does not change reality, it is the said person's opinion based on their own knowledge. It does not become a fact if it is incomplete.

4. Rather than being blind and putting your will to live on what people say, how about sticking with the truth. I only discuss the truth, not what someone or the other has said.

You really are an id..t

If you consider me an idiot, then I would say thanks for devoting your time to reply to me at length.
I wont respond to your points since you already have a conclusion in your mind which I cant seem to alter. Moreover, your use of terms like 'idiot' does not give me a pleasure to converse with you.

 

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

One thing I learnt from your essay is that you do not deserve to be answered on all the points. You are right, my time is precious. Even if I show you the exact proof, you would close your eyes. So just carry on with your essays.
After this, you would say, why I did not reply on your points, and if I chickened out. So just make up your mind, if you want me to answer on all points or not.

If as per you, UN resolution of 1950 supercedes UN resolution of 1948.
Then Shimla agreement of 1972 supercedes the previous UN resolutions. Then why does Pak keep talking about UN resolutions. Your friend Baibars keeps on pleading to stop talking about UN resolutions.
I cant seem to decide whether I should agree with you or him. Please discuss among yourselves and let me know the outcome.

bla bla bla. India is always right, Pakistan is always wrong, but i am open minded and here to discuss. more bla bla bla. oh but my time is precious. lol, you are worst kind of troll. zero self respect and jobless.

 

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

I feel proud that I have been able to give you the most trouble. Thanks.

sure thing, troll.

 

[Baibars_1260]

One thing I learnt from your essay is that you do not deserve to be answered on all the points. You are right, my time is precious. Even if I show you the exact proof, you would close your eyes. So just carry on with your essays.
After this, you would say, why I did not reply on your points, and if I chickened out. So just make up your mind, if you want me to answer on all points or not.

If as per you, UN resolution of 1950 supercedes UN resolution of 1948.
Then Shimla agreement of 1972 supercedes the previous UN resolutions. Then why does Pak keep talking about UN resolutions. Your friend Baibars keeps on pleading to stop talking about UN resolutions.
I cant seem to decide whether I should agree with you or him. Please discuss among yourselves and let me know the outcome.

I am sorry. You are misrepresenting.

It is not I who am "pleading" to convert the LOC into a border but the proposal came from Indira Gandhi's "kitchen cabinet", D. P. Dhar, and P. N. Haksar and Indira Gandhi her self before and during the 1972 Simla Summit.
India had just had a sober realization that there would be no surrender in Muxaffarabad and the people of Azad Kashmir are not going to welcome the Indian Army with garlands. India had already tried that and failed.

Which is why the Simla Agreement left open the option for further bilateral discussions to finalize the border.
The UN resolution was out of the picture.

But Indian politicians are more scared of their own right wing "Akhand Bharat" lobby and even Indira Gandhi balked at altering India's map .
With a quiet border India then began unrealistic demands pushing refusing further discussions on the border .
The stances of the Centrist governments over the years have varied :
1. 1972-1982.
Normalize relations first, before we will discuss the border
2. 1990-2002 and onwards under right wing governments .
Stop "terrorism" first before normalizing relations
What border?
Only border we will discuss is the border of Azad Kashmir with Pakistan. Entire Pakistan is ours
Vajpayee's famous statement to Musharraf .
India is incomplete without Pakistan.
3. 2014 onwards..
What Simla Agreement?
Entire Kashmir, Aksai Chin, and Gilgit Baltistan is ours. We will bomb you..

Then as the Japanese say India got an "honorable kick in the pants", first from Pakistan and then from China.
So now India has agreed to a ceasefire before pondering its next moves.
It will need lots of chillies and lemons on its shiny new weapons.

What next ?

Unfortunately the future is grim.
The "Nazi" style social and electronic media propaganda has gripped the mindset of the masses in a jingoistic hysteria that is never going to dissipate.Back in the 1970s India's observance of the "1000 year victory" was very low key and hardly mentioned. The 5th Anniversary of the India's intervention in Bangladesh ( December 1975 ) wasn't even celebrated in India as there was no Mujibur Rahman around to congratulate India.

Today, it is not the UN resolution or the Simla Agreement that matters. These are but footnotes in a dark history. The future is darker.

There is a serious likelihood of India's fascist regime making a stupid mistake and military blunder.
Which is why the Bulletin of Atomic scientists lists the Doomsday clock at 100 seconds to Midnight.

No one in Pakistan or on this forum is "pleading" with your RSS Nazi fascists for any kind of border settlement . We know the grim reality.
I was giving a historical account of why the LOC will never be converted to an international border and you used the word " pleading " because it suits your Hindutva ego to portray your self as a representative of an Akhand Bharat.
No one is pleading. Your 5000 year civilization is likely to be destroyed very shortly because of your delusions and stupidity.
I will have to report you to the mods for misrepresenting and trolling.

@waz @krash
Am requesting you please lock this thread and warn @magra for trolling. He is deliberately misrepresenting our posts and peddling a vicious fascist agenda.,

 

[Baibars_1260]

I agree with most of what you said above, except that the UN Security Council resolutions still matter and are still relevant, otherwise India would not have been running through high and hell water trying to stop any discussions on Kashmir in the UN Security Council, and making and crying foul when it failed.

The UN resolutions are absolutely relevant today as a huge bargaining tool to have India "over a barrel" diplomatically. India will NEVER be made a permanent member of the UN Security Council precisely because of the UN Kashmir resolution. If India had adhered to the UN resolution and solved the Kashmir border issue and solved its border issue with China it would have had a shot at becoming a permanent Security Council member. So now India can dream of it .
The UN security resolution is very important to keep India out of the Security Council and China will always cite that issue as factor for vetoing India's application to joining the UN Security Council.

 

[peagle]

If you consider me an idiot, then I would say thanks for devoting your time to reply to me at length.
I wont respond to your points since you already have a conclusion in your mind which I cant seem to alter. Moreover, your use of terms like 'idiot' does not give me a pleasure to converse with you.

Hey, you have some sense after-all,
did you ever wonder why that thought in regards to your capacities came to mind, because I have read your contributions in this thread and I was forced to reach that conclusion.

I'm sure you are a nice guy in real life, most Indians I know are a lovely bunch, people I love to bits, but I find on certain topics, they lose all sense of reality.

Anyhow, I sincerely wish you the best in your life's endeavors.