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

[Hindustani78]

@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.

Then why Pakistan havnt remove its military from Kashmir and created an atmosphere for Plebiscite that time only ? Pakistan was simply thinking that its in better position and was not interested and on that even ceded Kashmir Land to China and even further complicated Kashmir issue. India even now havnt change the demographics of Kashmir where as its not the case in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. Kashmiris are still majority in Indian Kashmir even when the holiest place Amarnath is there in Kashmir. Article 370 is placed in India and the biggest thing is this that Kashmiri Indians can live anywhere in India but Indians cant even buy land in Indian Kashmir.

Why should not Indians be from any religion , go and settle in Indian kashmir ?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Then why Pakistan havnt remove its military from Kashmir and created an atmosphere for Plebiscite that time only ?

Because Pakistan, correctly, disagreed with the suggestion of unilateral demilitarization (India's behavior in Junagadh was a pretty good reason why Pakistan did not trust her), and subsequent UNSC Resolutions expanded upon the demilitirization requirement, linking it to an agreement between both India and Pakistan. Pakistan worked within the UN system to have its concerns addressed and incorporated into the UNSC Resolutions.

Pakistan was simply thinking that its in better position and was not interested and on that even ceded Kashmir Land to China and even further complicated Kashmir issue. India even now havnt change the demographics of Kashmir where as its not the case in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. Kashmiris are still majority in Indian Kashmir even when the holiest place Amarnath is there in Kashmir. Article 370 is placed in India and the biggest thing is this that Kashmiri Indians can live anywhere in India but Indians cant even buy land in Indian Kashmir.

I have not see any credible studies suggesting that the demographics of Azad Kashmir have been deliberately changed.

Why should not Indians be from any religion , go and settle in Indian kashmir ?

Because it is internationally recognized disputed territory, not Indian territory, and the Indian government committed to a plebiscite to resolve the status of said disputed territory, and allowing outsiders to settle in the disputed territory would undermine the very principle of plebiscite that the UNSC Resolutions require and India committed to.

 

[Hindustani78]

Because Pakistan, correctly, disagreed with the suggestion of unilateral demilitarization (India's behavior in Junagadh was a pretty good reason why Pakistan did not trust her), and subsequent UNSC Resolutions expanded upon the demilitirization requirement, linking it to an agreement between both India and Pakistan. Pakistan worked within the UN system to have its concerns addressed and incorporated into the UNSC Resolutions.


I have not see any credible studies suggesting that the demographics of Azad Kashmir have been deliberately changed.

Because it is internationally recognized disputed territory, not Indian territory, and the Indian government committed to a plebiscite to resolve the status of said disputed territory, and allowing outsiders to settle in the disputed territory would undermine the very principle of plebiscite that the UNSC Resolutions require and India committed to.

Junagadh was like an excuse from Pakistan as the it was mainly to intergrate NWFP's and other princely states of Balouchistan. Case of Kashmir was compeltely different because Pakistan military invaded Kashmir and later the Maharaja of Kashmir asked for help.

Demographics of Pakistan occupied Kashmir were changed first in 1947 only and this only let the maharaja to sort help from India and that process is even now going on but its not case in Indian Kashmir.

If it was disputed territory then why disputed territory was ceded to China ? Why have Pakistan complicated the Kashmir dispute ?

 

[MilSpec]

@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.

reference...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Junagadh was like an excuse from Pakistan as the it was mainly to intergrate NWFP's and other princely states of Balouchistan. Case of Kashmir was compeltely different because Pakistan military invaded Kashmir and later the Maharaja of Kashmir asked for help.

Junagadh acceded to Pakistan in accordance with the rules established for the accession of 'Princely States' (the State was contiguous via the sea with Pakistan). India fomented an uprising and sent in its military, occupying and eventually annexing the State in complete disregard of the fact that the State had legally acceded to Pakistan.

Demographics of Pakistan occupied Kashmir were changef first in 1947 only and this only let the maharaja to sort help from India and that process is even now going on but its not case in Indian Kashmir.

How were the demographics changed in 1947? The Pashtun tribesmen left the State after being defeated by the IA - it was the Pakistan Army that then fought to control the parts of J&K that Pakistan currently controls. Are there any credible studies illustrating deliberate and significant demographic change in Azad Kashmir & GB?

If it was disputed territory then why disputed territory was ceded to China ? Why have Pakistan complicated the Kashmir dispute ?

Under the terms of the agreement with China over Aksai Chin, in the event of a plebiscite resulting in accession of J&K to India, China would have to enter into negotiations with India over its status, so the territory itself was not permanently ceded to China, and it was largely barren land with almost no population.

reference...

The 'reference' is UNSC Resolution 80 and the McNaughton Report, as I mentioned in my post - here are the relevant sections:

===========================...
Considering that the resolution of the outstanding difficulties should be based upon the substantial measure of agreement on fundamental principles already reached, and that steps should be taken forthwith for the demilitarization of the State and for the expeditious determination of its future in accordance with the freely expressed will of the inhabitants,

1. Calls upon the Governments of India and Pakistan to make immediate arrangements, without prejudice to their rights or claims and with due regard to the requirements of law and order, to prepare and execute within a period of five months from the date of this resolution a programme of demilitarization on the basis of the principles of paragraph 2 of General McNaughton's proposal or of such modifications of those principles as may be mutually agreed;

2. Decides to appoint a United Nations Representative for the following purposes who shall have authority to perform his functions in such place or places as he may deem appropriate:

(a) To assist in the preparation and to supervise the implementation of the programme of demilitarization referred to above and to interpret the agreements reached by the parties for demilitarization;

(b) To place himself at the disposal of the Governments of India and Pakistan and to place before those Governments or the Security Council any suggestions which, in his opinion, are likely to contribute to the expeditious and enduring solution of the dispute which has arisen between the two Governments in regard to the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

(c) To exercise all of the powers and responsibilities devolving upon the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan by reason of existing resolutions of the Security Council and by reason of the agreement of the parties embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations Commission of 13 August 19485 and 5 January 1949;6

(d) To arrange at the appropriate stage of demilitarization for the assumption by the Plebiscite Administrator of the functions assigned to the latter under agreements made between the parties;
...
=====================

 

[xyxmt]

LOL, you think this is the first time? Take a look at the bottom of this page, in the "related threads".

OIC issues this inconsequential statement every year when they gather for completely futile "summits" that lead to nothing. The only difference this time is in the nature of India's response.

It's a yearly ritual for them, gang up together and offer some "statements of solidarity" to their so called brethren, before going back to selling oil to the very countries they "condemned". The only positive outcome from this hilarious ritual is that it keeps Pakistanis and a few other people happy, thinking that they are important enough to be noticed by the great Arab and other rich islamic countries. The truth is that their resolutions are not worth the paper that they print them on - they know that, we know that, everybody know that. Well, except some.

Here is a blast from the past:

View attachment 226797

View attachment 226798

View attachment 226799

View attachment 226800


Find out if there has been a single year when the OIC has not passes the same resolution, to keep a few Pakistanis happy. Also find out how much good it has done for Pakistan. But if this is the sort of thing that gladdens your heart, you can be a very happy man - you will hear such "resolutions" all the time, at least twice a year.

I dont get it, if its so insignificant and doesnt change anything then why so much burn

 

[chhota bheem]

I dont get it, if its so insignificant and doesnt change anything then why so much burn

what you really dont get is,the meaning of burn

 

[MilSpec]

OK
here it goes....

The 'reference' is UNSC Resolution 80 and the McNaughton Report, as I mentioned in my post - here are the relevant sections:

Which actually proves nothing at all, but just semantics to obfuscate the deliberate pussyfooting by Govt of Pakistan

===========================...
Considering that the resolution of the outstanding difficulties should be based upon the substantial measure of agreement on fundamental principles already reached, and that steps should be taken forthwith for the demilitarization of the State and for the expeditious determination of its future in accordance with the freely expressed will of the inhabitants,

Sure could have been done through a plebiscite provided the pre-requisites would have been met as agreed upon by
the *RESOLUTION 98 (1952) ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL AT ITS 611TH MEETING ON 23 DECEMBER, 1952. (DOCUMENT NO. S/2883, DATED THE 24TH DECEMBER, 1952)".

1. Calls upon the Governments of India and Pakistan to make immediate arrangements, without prejudice to their rights or claims and with due regard to the requirements of law and order, to prepare and execute within a period of five months from the date of this resolution a programme of demilitarization on the basis of the principles of paragraph 2 of General McNaughton's proposal or of such modifications of those principles as may be mutually agreed;

And did pakistan remove it's fancy dress soldier party in 5 months?

2. Decides to appoint a United Nations Representative for the following purposes who shall have authority to perform his functions in such place or places as he may deem appropriate:

Appoint a UN rep for what? to observe Pakistan no doing it's part? dis pakistan intimate consent to UN to initiate demilitarization?

(a) To assist in the preparation and to supervise the implementation of the programme of demilitarization referred to above and to interpret the agreements reached by the parties for demilitarization;

No agreement reached for demilitarization, pakistan has never initiated a SoP for the same... till date...

(b) To place himself at the disposal of the Governments of India and Pakistan and to place before those Governments or the Security Council any suggestions which, in his opinion, are likely to contribute to the expeditious and enduring solution of the dispute which has arisen between the two Governments in regard to the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

Again moot point without any Pakistani intent to withdraw, instead subsequently infiltrate Akhnoor a decade later...

(c) To exercise all of the powers and responsibilities devolving upon the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan by reason of existing resolutions of the Security Council and by reason of the agreement of the parties embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations Commission of 13 August 19485 and 5 January 1949;6

This part of your post was self defeating as it just blew your obfuscation of the resolutions for the readers here wide open.....


Ok lets review What resolutions of 13 Aug 1948 and 5th Jan 1949 says

RESOLUTION ADOPTED AT THE MEETING OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN ON 5 JANUARY, 1949. (DOCUMENT NO. S/1196, PARA IS, DATED THE 10TH JANUARY, 1949)
Having received from the Governments of India and Pakistan in Communications, dated December 23 and December 25, 1948, respectively their acceptance of the following principles which are supplementary to the Commission's Resolution of August 13, 1948;
The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite;
A plebiscite will be held when it shall be found by the Commission that the cease-fire and truce arrangements set forth in Parts I and II of the Commission's resolution of 13 August 1948, have been carried out and arrangements for the plebiscite have been completed;

Now lets go to 13 Aug 1948



*RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND
PAKISTAN ON 13 AUGUST 1948. (DOCUMENT NO. S/1100, PARA 75, DATED THE
9TH NOVEMBER, 1948)

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
coercion 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

1. 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 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.

2. The High Commands of Indian and Pakistan forces agreed 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).

3. 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.

4. In its discretions 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.

5. The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan agree to
appeal to their respective peoples to assist in creating and
maintaining an atmosphere favorable 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 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.

1. (l) 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 endeavor to secure
the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and
Pakistan 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 Pakistan
troops will be administered by the local authorities under the
surveillance of the Commission.

2. (1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India
that the tribesmen and Pakistan 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 Pakistan forces are being withdrawn
from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to
begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the 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 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 their power to make it publicly known that peace, law and order
will be safeguarded and that all human and political rights will be
guaranteed.

(d) To arrange at the appropriate stage of demilitarization for the assumption by the Plebiscite Administrator of the functions assigned to the latter under agreements made between the parties;

All I can say is try again next time...[/QUOTE]

 

[Hindustani78]

Junagadh acceded to Pakistan in accordance with the rules established for the accession of 'Princely States' (the State was contiguous via the sea with Pakistan). India fomented an uprising and sent in its military, occupying and eventually annexing the State in complete disregard of the fact that the State had legally acceded to Pakistan.

Reality on ground was this that majority of Indian Muslims were against the partition and Pakistan was having problems with Intregration of the princely states mainly in NWFP and Balouchistan.

How were the demographics changed in 1947? The Pashtun tribesmen left the State after being defeated by the IA - it was the Pakistan Army that then fought to control the parts of J&K that Pakistan currently controls. Are there any credible studies illustrating deliberate and significant demographic change in Azad Kashmir & GB?

Pasthun tribes of NWFP were not willing to join Pakistan and majority of them were behind Khan Abdul Ghafar Khan , Khudai Khidmatgar and they were more for the merger with Afghanistan.

Was those really Pashtun tribesmen or the mercenaries backed by the Pakistan military ? I think it was mainly PR to name that Pashtun tribesmen invaded Kashmir.

Under the terms of the agreement with China over Aksai Chin, in the event of a plebiscite resulting in accession of J&K to India, China would have to enter into negotiations with India over its status, so the territory itself was not permanently ceded to China, and it was largely barren land with almost no population.

Plebiscite was possible that time when Pakistan would have remove its military but that never happened and
Shortly after the 1962 war between India and China. Pakistan ceded Kashmir land to China in March 1963 and complicated the Kashmir issue more and by 1964 the Chinese have conducted the Nuclear test.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Which actually proves nothing at all, but just semantics to obfuscate the deliberate pussyfooting by Govt of Pakistan

It establishes the fact that the requirement of unilateral demilitarization placed upon Pakistan was superseded by subsequent UNSC Resolutions that realized how unfeasible and unfair a unilateral demilitarization would be to the party required to implement it, and removed that requirement. It doesn't appear that you saw the relevant sections of Resolution 80 so here they are again, without the other text that appeared to distract you from the central point of the resolution:

"to prepare and execute within a period of five months from the date of this resolution a programme of demilitarization on the basis of the principles of paragraph 2 of General McNaughton's proposal or of such modifications of those principles as may be mutually agreed;"

The resolution clearly states in the excerpt above that the 'program of demilitarization' was to be 'prepared and executed' on the 'basis of the principles of paragraph 2' of the McNaughton proposal - and here is what the relevant section of para 2 of the proposal states:

"There should be an agreed programme of progressive demilitarisation ..."

India never agreed to the sensible and fair proposals of a bilateral and simultaneous withdrawal of forces, even though India would have been allowed to retain a small token force of a few thousand 'for the purposes of maintaining law and order".

Sure could have been done through a plebiscite provided the pre-requisites would have been met as agreed upon by
the *RESOLUTION 98 (1952) ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL AT ITS 611TH MEETING ON 23 DECEMBER, 1952. (DOCUMENT NO. S/2883, DATED THE 24TH DECEMBER, 1952)".

Have you actually read the Resolution? Here are the salient points, which, again, establish my point that the requirement of unilateral withdrawal/demilitarization was superseded:

"3. Notes that agreement on a plan of demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not been reached because the Governments of India and Pakistan have not agreed on the whole of paragraph 7 of the twelve- point proposals;

4. Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3,000 and 6,000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line and between 12,000 and 18,000 armed forces remaining on the India side of the cease-line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952;"

Again, India was the irritant in implementing these proposals because it opposed any kind of sensible and fair solution of a 'bilateral withdrawal' under which the concerns of both parties would be addressed.

The point here is that the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir were no longer demanding a unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan - the international community and the UN had determine (correctly) that any solution involving a unilateral withdrawal from territory claimed by two States, at war with each other over said territory, would be inherently unfair to the side withdrawing first.

This part of your post was self defeating as it just blew your obfuscation of the resolutions for the readers here wide open.....

Ok lets review What resolutions of 13 Aug 1948 and 5th Jan 1949 says

Those resolutions were superseded by subsequent UNSC Resolutions on the Kashmir Dispute that, as explained above, did not demand an unconditional and unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan. Continuing to regurgitate the text of those resolutions (with respect to their content on demilitarization) serves no purpose since subsequent UNSC Resolutions elaborated on that requirement and did so in favor of the Pakistani position of a bilateral withdrawal.

Reality on ground was this that majority of Indian Muslims were against the partition and Pakistan was having problems with Intregration of the princely states mainly in NWFP and Balouchistan.

That is irrelevant to my comment regarding the fact that the accession of the State of Junagadh to Pakistan was in accordance with the rules of partition governing accession.

Pasthun tribes of NWFP were not willing to join Pakistan and majority of them were behind Khan Abdul Ghafar Khan , Khudai Khidmatgar and they were more for the merger with Afghanistan.

Was those really Pashtun tribesmen or the mercenaries backed by the Pakistan military ? I think it was mainly PR to name that Pashtun tribesmen invaded Kashmir.

Again, this comment is completely irrelevant to my point that you need to provide credible studies establishing deliberate demographic change in Ak and GB.

Plebiscite was possible that time when Pakistan would have remove its military but that never happened and
Shortly after the 1962 war between India and China. Pakistan ceded Kashmir land to China in March 1963 and complicated the Kashmir issue more and by 1964 the Chinese have conducted the Nuclear test.

As I pointed out in my response to milspec above, the UNSC recognized how irresponsible, unfeasible and unfair the solution, of requiring one State to unilaterally withdraw her troops from disputed territory that the two States were at war over, was. The UNSC Resolutions subsequent to the first ones addressed this issue and called for an agreement on bilateral withdrawal of forces.

Only a State that wants to use a unilateral withdrawal to her advantage and occupy territory vacated by the withdrawing State would oppose such a solution, and India is that State.

 

[MilSpec]

It establishes the fact that the requirement of unilateral demilitarization placed upon Pakistan was superseded by subsequent UNSC Resolutions that realized how unfeasible and unfair a unilateral demilitarization would be to the party required to implement it, and removed that requirement. It doesn't appear that you saw the relevant sections of Resolution 80 so here they are again, without the other text that appeared to distract you from the central point of the resolution:

"to prepare and execute within a period of five months from the date of this resolution a programme of demilitarization on the basis of the principles of paragraph 2 of General McNaughton's proposal or of such modifications of those principles as may be mutually agreed;"

The resolution clearly states in the excerpt above that the 'program of demilitarization' was to be 'prepared and executed' on the 'basis of the principles of paragraph 2' of the McNaughton proposal - and here is what the relevant section of para 2 of the proposal states:

"There should be an agreed programme of progressive demilitarisation ..."

India never agreed to the sensible and fair proposals of a bilateral and simultaneous withdrawal of forces, even though India would have been allowed to retain a small token force of a few thousand 'for the purposes of maintaining law and order".

Have you actually read the Resolution? Here are the salient points, which, again, establish my point that the requirement of unilateral withdrawal/demilitarization was superseded:

"3. Notes that agreement on a plan of demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not been reached because the Governments of India and Pakistan have not agreed on the whole of paragraph 7 of the twelve- point proposals;

4. Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3,000 and 6,000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line and between 12,000 and 18,000 armed forces remaining on the India side of the cease-line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952;"

Again, India was the irritant in implementing these proposals because it opposed any kind of sensible and fair solution of a 'bilateral withdrawal' under which the concerns of both parties would be addressed.

The point here is that the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir were no longer demanding a unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan - the international community and the UN had determine (correctly) that any solution involving a unilateral withdrawal from territory claimed by two States, at war with each other over said territory, would be inherently unfair to the side withdrawing first.


Those resolutions were superseded by subsequent UNSC Resolutions on the Kashmir Dispute that, as explained above, did not demand an unconditional and unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan. Continuing to regurgitate the text of those resolutions (with respect to their content on demilitarization) serves no purpose since subsequent UNSC Resolutions elaborated on that requirement and did so in favor of the Pakistani position of a bilateral withdrawal.


That is irrelevant to my comment regarding the fact that the accession of the State of Junagadh to Pakistan was in accordance with the rules of partition governing accession.


Again, this comment is completely irrelevant to my point that you need to provide credible studies establishing deliberate demographic change in Ak and GB.


As I pointed out in my response to milspec above, the UNSC recognized how irresponsible, unfeasible and unfair the solution, of requiring one State to unilaterally withdraw her troops from disputed territory that the two States were at war over, was. The UNSC Resolutions subsequent to the first ones addressed this issue and called for an agreement on bilateral withdrawal of forces.

Only a State that wants to use a unilateral withdrawal to her advantage and occupy territory vacated by the withdrawing State would oppose such a solution, and India is that State.

Show me one line in 1952, 54 or subsequent resolutions which unilaterally blames India on non-conformance.... and one line where pakistan has shown intent of demilitarization.. and you won't here a word from me hence forth....

 

[Hindustani78]

That is irrelevant to my comment regarding the fact that the accession of the State of Junagadh to Pakistan was in accordance with the rules of partition governing accession.

How it would be irrelevant , try to see the whole situation.

Again, this comment is completely irrelevant to my point that you need to provide credible studies establishing deliberate demographic change in Ak and GB.

Since the 1970s Pakistan has been nibbling away at Gilgit-Baltistan in an effort to detach it from Azad Kashmir to make the region an integral part of the rest of Pakistan.

1981 - The Pakistani Government has reportedly set up only 12 high schools and two regional colleges in the Northern Areas, with no post graduate facilities. Very few locals are able to secure government jobs, and when they do, they are paid 25 per cent less than non-native entrants from Pakistan's Punjab province.

We dont see such things in Indian Kashmir.

As I pointed out in my response to milspec above, the UNSC recognized how irresponsible, unfeasible and unfair the solution, of requiring one State to unilaterally withdraw her troops from disputed territory that the two States were at war over, was. The UNSC Resolutions subsequent to the first ones addressed this issue and called for an agreement on bilateral withdrawal of forces.


Only a State that wants to use a unilateral withdrawal to her advantage and occupy territory vacated by the withdrawing State would oppose such a solution, and India is that State.

It was Pakistan military which invaded Kashmir and thats why UN resolutions were called for withdrawal of forces.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Show me one line in 1952, 54 or subsequent resolutions which unilaterally blames India on non-conformance.... and one line where pakistan has shown intent of demilitarization.. and you won't here a word from me hence forth....

Why would I do that? I never claimed the UNSC Resolutions blamed one side or the other. The Indian government and various biographies and Indian accounts of the negotiations around UNSC Resolutions themselves state that India rejected the proposals involving a simultaneous withdrawal by both States.

The whole point of my argument is to highlight the fact that the Indian claim of non-compliance on the part of Pakistan (by not unilaterally withdrawing) is one that is bogus and disingenuous, meant to obfuscate the fact that India has reneged on her international/UN commitments on the Kashmir dispute.

The Indian claim is bogus because, as pointed out in earlier posts, UNSC resolutions subsequent to the first set called for a bilateral withdrawal.

How it would be irrelevant , try to see the whole situation.

There is nothing to see. Junagdh acceded to Pakistan in accordance with the rules of partition and India fomented terrorism in it and invaded and annexed it. This occurred a few months into Pakistan's existence as an independent nation - the events you refer to were irrelevant at that point, and some had not yet even occurred.

Since the 1970s Pakistan has been nibbling away at Gilgit-Baltistan in an effort to detach it from Azad Kashmir to make the region an integral part of the rest of Pakistan.

1981 - The Pakistani Government has reportedly set up only 12 high schools and two regional colleges in the Northern Areas, with no post graduate facilities. Very few locals are able to secure government jobs, and when they do, they are paid 25 per cent less than non-native entrants from Pakistan's Punjab province.

We dont see such things in Indian Kashmir.

Allegations of poor governance are not relevant to your other allegations of deliberate demographic change - again, where are the credible studies supporting your claims of deliberate demographic change?

It was Pakistan military which invaded Kashmir and thats why UN resolutions were called for withdrawal of forces.

And yet subsequent UNSC resolutions did not demand unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan, and instead supported a negotiated bilateral withdrawal, perhaps because they had seen India's treachery and hypocrisy through her invasion and forced annexation of Junagadh.

 

[somebozo]

OIC and their resolutions both are useless..!

 

[MilSpec]

Why would I do that? I never claimed the UNSC Resolutions blamed one side or the other. The Indian government and various biographies and Indian accounts of the negotiations around UNSC Resolutions themselves state that India rejected the proposals involving a simultaneous withdrawal by both States.

The whole point of my argument is to highlight the fact that the Indian claim of non-compliance on the part of Pakistan (by not unilaterally withdrawing) is one that is bogus and disingenuous, meant to obfuscate the fact that India has reneged on her international/UN commitments on the Kashmir dispute.

The Indian claim is bogus because, as pointed out in earlier posts, UNSC resolutions subsequent to the first set called for a bilateral withdrawal.

.

Dear sir, words aren't that that difficult to decipher... but the the withdrawal can only happen according to sequence of events stated as worded in the pre-requisites for the truce agreement.... simply based on the the truce agreement pakistan has not initiated the process, making it pre-requisites not met for the plebiscite.... thus ball is in your court since 1948... thats all I am saying....
Please show me one instance where Pakistan has submitted a single SOP to allude to initiate demilitarization for India to do anything....