India terms OIC resolution on Kashmir ''completely unacceptable''

[Kaniska]

This is quite expected from OIC...Why should we even bother about OIC which is not taken seriously by their own Muslim members?...This is same OIC which can not anything inspite of massive loss of life due to fighting amongst Muslims between each other...Starting with Tribal Areas of Pakistan and if you move west till Middle east, the entire area is in war for last 15 year...What has been OIC has done rather than paying leap service to them...

 

[Kinetic]

Awww...you lion :-D

Lions of Gujarat...

 

[Alpha BeeTee]

I am responding to you, not to the OIC resolution. If Pakistanis here claim the OIC "irresolution" as a voctory, Indian members will have to point out that it is not. That doesn't make the OIC resolution itself any more important or consequential.



Except that:

1) Indian Kashmir does not have 700,000 troops, not even close.

2) Pak Kashmir does have a significant military presence as well.

3) The Indian army does not operate in Kashmir's hinterlands, only central and state police forces do. They do guard the LoC though.

4) Of course there will be a large military presence in Kashmir (on both sides), because the neighbouring country has made several attempts to take it by force, and continues to aspire to do so. If India left Kashmir unprotected, PA would be rolling in that very day. The military presence is to prevent that happening, just as the military presence in Pak Kashmir is to prevent India from taking it. It has nothing to do with suppressing Kashmiris - as I said before, the army does not do counter insurgency against domestic elements. That is why neither Kashmiri seperatists nor maoists are tackled by the army.


You really want to compare foreign investment in both countries? BTW, as explained earlier, IOC is not "the international community". It is a non entity, solely passing resolutions to keep Pakistanis happy, while doing billions of dollars of trade with India.

I knew you would come up with silly logics derived from twisting facts.Dishonesty is first lesson Indian trolls learn.
Most of ur points are lies which have been fed into ur brains..
Cling onto them if you will..believe whatever makes you sleep well.

 

[ayesha.a]

I knew you would come up with silly logics derived from twisting facts.Dishonesty is first lesson Indian trolls learn.
Most of ur points are lies which have been fed into ur brains..
Cling onto them if you will..believe whatever makes you sleep well.

As expected, not a single factual rebuttal, merely a lot of hand waving. You have demonstrated who has anything substantial to say, and who is merely parrying every factual matter that comes his way. I guess facts are anathema to you, like sunlight is to an owl.

Anyway, read and ingrain the facts in my previous post any time you wish to yelp about those cliched nonsense of "700K soldiers", "oppression", "international community", etc.

 

[Shan-e-ibrahim]

Simla Agreement has been outdated and India does not want to negotiate and continue with the occupation. It wants to build Hindu Settlements on the pattern of Israel. Simla Agreement needs to discarded once and for all.

No it still remains. It was to be updated during Agra summit, but both parties refrained to sign it.

IF Simla Agreement is outdated, then claim of India over whole of the Kashmir is legitimate including administration over siachen. Because Simla agreement is the key which stops India at LOC. It is a proof that India will not cross LOC. Our government also knows this.

Hindu settlement:
All Kashmiris including Hindus and Muslims have right to settle in Kashmir, and this is Pakistan's stand also.

Indian point of view:
Any Kashmiri(Hindu or Muslim) who has Married a NON Kashmiri loses it's Kashmiri Domicile. And he/she can no more vote in IOK or buy land in Kashmir. They have maintained this protocol of not changing any demography.

Pakistan point of view:
Any Kashmiri(Hindu or Muslim) if marries a non Kashmiri, he/she will remain a Kashmiri and the spouse will also get the Kashmiri nationality in Azad Kashmir or GB. And can still buy land in Azad Kashmir or GB.

NOTE:So any Pakistani who marries a Kashmiri becomes an Indian citizen too as per the dispute and claim of India. But will India recognize him/her as Indian citizen, is as per the constitution followed in India.

Things are complicated and both countries know it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Please read pre-requisites for UNSC resolutions on kashmir...

I have - please read my discussion on that issue and the fact that Simla does not preclude third party mediation here: Modi sulking over Pakistan internationalizing Kashmir Dispute | Page 3

 

[MilSpec]

I have - please read my discussion on that issue and the fact that Simla does not preclude third party mediation here: Modi sulking over Pakistan internationalizing Kashmir Dispute | Page 3

As long as both part consent, India doesn't... End of Discussion....

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

@MilSpec

Oh, and more specific to the question of unilateral demilitirization, please see my exchange with Toxic here:

Kashmir: If progress is to be made, India must dictate the terms | Page 7

As long as both part consent, India doesn't... End of Discussion....

Which still means that Pakistan's position on Simla is correct and India's is not - Simla leaves open the option for third party mediation, as long as both sides agree, whereas India does not even acknowledge that possibility.

Also, Simla has no bearing on mechanisms of dispute resolution that were adopted by India and Pakistan prior to Simla, such as the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir and the IWT. In fact, by reiterating the commitment of both countries to the UN Charter, the SA strengthens the commitment of India and Pakistan to the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir, as well as any future actions under the UN Charter.

 

[MilSpec]

@MilSpec

Oh, and more specific to the question of unilateral demilitirization, please see my exchange with Toxic here:

Kashmir: If progress is to be made, India must dictate the terms | Page 7


Which still means that Pakistan's position on Simla is correct and India's is not - Simla leaves open the option for third party mediation, as long as both sides agree, whereas India does not even acknowledge that possibility.

Also, Simla has no bearing on mechanisms of dispute resolution that were adopted by India and Pakistan prior to Simla, such as the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir and the IWT. In fact, by reiterating the commitment of both countries to the UN Charter, the SA strengthens the commitment of India and Pakistan to the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir, as well as any future actions under the UN Charter.

Initiate the pre requisites for UNSC resolution and we will honor the commitment... Despite gross violations of 65 71 and 99.... Ball has been in your court since 47...

and for your future refrence on the topic here you go
Kashmir, Plebiscite and UN security council Resolution

 

[Hindustani78]

OIC Resolutions are non binding, even during 2000, Bangladesh then PM Hasina clearly stated Kashmir issue to be solved bilaterally between India and Pakistan.

The Hindu : OIC resolution non-binding, says Hasina

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Initiate the pre requisites for UNSC resolution and we will honor the commitment... Despite gross violations of 65 71 and 99.... Ball has been in your court since 47...

and for your future refrence on the topic here you go
Kashmir, Plebiscite and UN security council Resolution

I've read through it, hence my decision to bring my exchange with Toxic, on the same subject, to your attention.

 

[Hindustani78]

Initiate the pre requisites for UNSC resolution and we will honor the commitment... Despite gross violations of 65 71 and 99.... Ball has been in your court since 47...

and for your future refrence on the topic here you go
Kashmir, Plebiscite and UN security council Resolution

Pakistan never vacated the occupied territory of Kashmir which they called Azad Kashmir and thats why Plebiscite was not possible and Pakistan complicated the Kashmir issue by ceding Kashmir land to China and now doesnt want to respect Shimla agreements.

 

[MilSpec]

Pakistan never vacated the occupied territory of Kashmir which they called Azad Kashmir and thats why Plebiscite was not possible and Pakistan complicated the Kashmir issue by ceding Kashmir land to China and now doesnt want to respect Shimla agreements.

Preaching to choir buddy... Preaching to the Choir!

 

[Hindustani78]

Preaching to choir buddy... Preaching to the Choir!

These are historical realities.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

@Hindustani78 @MilSpec

UNSC Resolution 80, the associated McNaughton Report, and the various subsequent reports by UN appointed rapporteurs, clearly establish that demilitarization was subject to an agreement between India and Pakistan on the 'when and how' of demilitarization. Indian intransigence and refusal to accept any kind of 'bilateral' (and IMO fair, given the lack of trust between both nations) demilitarization was the reason behind the lack of movement on implementation of the plebiscite.

While Indians are fond of dredging up just the first couple of UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir and harping on the text requiring Pakistani forces to withdraw first, the facts are the subsequent UNSC Resolutions took a position that was/is inline with the Pakistani stance.