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

[kadamba-warrior]

I see nothing wrong in OIC resolution.

That's quite remarkable considering that OIC has absolutely no locus standi on the matter - even if you go by Shimla Agreement to which Pakistan herself is a party.

If you really think that there is nothing wrong with that, not only is your position opposed to that of GOI, but aligns with a bigoted religious organization which does nothing but be biased in favor of its member countries (Pakistan).

On Thursday, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Secretary General Iyad Ameen Madani made a special reference on Jammu and Kashmir in his opening statement at the 42nd session of the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers (CFM) in Kuwait, stressing the need for a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute and said that final disposition of the issue should be evolved through a sustainable dialogue in accordance with the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

@hinduguy You should know well what this means. They want a referendum without meeting any of the pre-conditions for the referendum. In other words, what is with them already is their's to keep. What is ours, is to be put through referendum.

Further you should also know that if their demand of further partition is allowed to happen in Kashmir, it will open the floodgates for many more partitions and the ensuing violence will dwarf anything seen in 1947.

Thankfully though, there are saner voices in New Delhi.

 

[Ahmad Sajjad Paracha]

Pakistan is fine with plebescite in both kashmirs she was from always. Our former P.M muhammad ali persuaded Nehru to do so. Other than that when it comes to other partitions or violence nothing like that is gonna happen you dont need to worry about that. Its just a vague statement to prevent referendum.

 

[kadamba-warrior]

Plebscite should be held in kashmir to decide the fate of kashmiris which India is denying to do bcz it is scared to do so because of all attrocities that it has been doing since 1948 and of other events like waving of pakistani flag in kashmir by people of pakistan.

Pakistan is fine with plebescite in both kashmirs she was from always. Our former P.M muhammad ali persuaded Nehru to do so. Other than that when it comes to other partitions or violence nothing like that is gonna happen you dont need to worry about that. Its just a vague statement to prevent referendum.

There are preconditions for even the plebiscite to be held. They have always been! But you guys seem to forget conveniently!

Kashmir, Plebiscite and UN security council Resolution

This is exactly why I think the thread above should be made sticky - to educate Pakistanis advocating plebiscite without even reading the preconditions!

@MilSpec

 

[JanjaWeed]

That's where i said in a previous post...new delhi seems to have shifted it stance...it looks we are going to be in pro-active mode....the objections to activities and claims on Azad Kashmir are far more regular feature now than in the past....

It's true New Delhi is much more assertive than it ever was in the case of Azad Kashmir. & that's how it should have been ever since. Successive governments at the center were quite happy to maintain the status-quo & quite comfortable with Pakistan's claim on Indian Kashmir, without staking any claim of it's own...thereby providing Pakistan with a chance of portraying itself as the one wronged by India.
But the equation is changing now...things are not going to remain one way street & OIC maybe pushed into making more than one resolution on Kashmir next time around.

 

[graphican]

Don't talk about it, don't metion it, don't say it's disputed, tell me not it is under my occupation. Kashmir is so atoot for India that even mentioning it freezes their breath Good OIC call devil a devil and let it burn

 

[Shan-e-ibrahim]

UN Resolutions for Kashmir is inline with the OIC Resolution. Great work by OIC

As we an India are signatory to simla agreement, we cannot ask any third psrty to interfere be it UN, unless until concensus from both.

what ever OIC says, it is their will and their wish to support the cause. Pakistan does not ask OIC to supportus and involve officially in this matter. But they are doing it for a greater cause and good out of support to those stranded muslims in kashmir.

India can seperately take up the issue with OIC and lodge complaint against the OIC and must not blame Pakistan for this.

There are preconditions for even the plebiscite to be held. They have always been! But you guys seem to forget conveniently!

Kashmir, Plebiscite and UN security council Resolution

This is exactly why I think the thread above should be made sticky - to educate Pakistanis advocating plebiscite without even reading the preconditions!

@MilSpec

UN resolution remains but cannot be implemented due to simla agreement. And it remains because no other resolution has been passed to make kashmir un resolution unfunctional.

 

[MilSpec]

Great to see world's Muslims backing their people in Kashmir under foreign occupation.

As long as OIC backs Kashmir, India can forget UNSC. Modi's Israel visit is going to be very useful to us in this regard as India will be seen as the enemy of the Muslim world.

And flight of imagination doesn't have any bounds...

We will take Kashmir one way or another or burn India with it. Ghaznavid doctrine of perpetual war still exists in our minds. Hindutva elite of Bharat will realize that Muslims of Kashmir aren't so easily abandoned.

Wow... if this is the rhetoric set by the administrator, then the space for rational discourse seems bleek.... I don't oppose such comments, but instead welcome it. It would make India's MEA's job much easier if Pakistan as a nation took such stand....

the only issue is, your comment is quite offensive to Pakistan and Pakistanis alike - @Irfan Baloch @Oscar @Pfpilot
Admission of the fact that your interpretation of Pakistani philosophy rooted in afghan warlords who looted India is indication of massive intellectual bankruptcy going against the grain of what M.A Jinnah envisioned and stands out as the exact ideology that is brow beaten by Hassan Nissar with his chappals on almost every talk show he is on. But then again , Your country Your Choice....

Yeesh - you guys are thick headed aren't you, requiring repeated debunking of the same claim again and again and again ...

First, the OIC expressed a position completely in line with the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir and the Simla Agreement. Nothing in the Simla Agreement prevents the OIC from issuing a resolution or taking a position on the Kashmir dispute. In case you didn't notice, the OIC is not a party to the Simla Agreement and therefore doesn't give a flying f*** about what India thinks about the positions it takes.

Second, the language of Simla does not preclude 3rd party involvement;
1. By reiterating a commitment to the UN Charter Simla in fact reiterates the commitment of both countries to abide by the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir

2. Outside of the UN, the language of the Simla Agreement leaves open third party mediation provided both India and Pakistan agree to it.

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

 

[Alpha BeeTee]

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.

Do you think any one cares if India rejects this resolution or not ?
Obviously this reaction was anticipated by the OIC before passing the resolution but they did it any way.
Did the OIC expect India to accept it's illegal occupation of Kashmir ? No
You can reject it as many times as you want.No one cares.
And plz don't reply.I don't want a useless discussion with you.I just saw you getting over excited so had to cool you down a bit.

 

[Alpha BeeTee]

It is a mark of India's increasing geopolitical weight and consequent confidence that earlier we used to ignore this yearly lip service as a farce, then we started condemening/rejecting it and now we are starting to dismiss it with contempt.

Lol...

 

[Pak_Sher]

As we an India are signatory to simla agreement, we cannot ask any third psrty to interfere be it UN, unless until concensus from both.

what ever OIC says, it is their will and their wish to support the cause. Pakistan does not ask OIC to supportus and involve officially in this matter. But they are doing it for a greater cause and good out of support to those stranded muslims in kashmir.

India can seperately take up the issue with OIC and lodge complaint against the OIC and must not blame Pakistan for this.



UN resolution remains but cannot be implemented due to simla agreement. And it remains because no other resolution has been passed to make kashmir un resolution unfunctional.

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.

 

[desimorty]

Plebscite should be held in kashmir to decide the fate of kashmiris which India is denying to do bcz it is scared to do so because of all attrocities that it has been doing since 1948 and of other events like waving of pakistani flag in kashmir by people of pakistan.

lol, a Plebiscite was something India fought for in 1948 and the 1st requirment is the withdrawel of Pakistani troops from Azad Kashmir. Thats a UN requirement. India is not required to withdraw troops.

 

[ayesha.a]

Do you think any one cares if India rejects this resolution or not ?
Obviously this reaction was anticipated by the OIC before passing the resolution but they did it any way.
Did the OIC expect India to accept it's illegal occupation of Kashmir ? No
You can reject it as many times as you want.No one cares.
And plz don't reply.I don't want a useless discussion with you.I just saw you getting over excited so had to cool you down a bit.

If you respond to a post of mine, it is my prerogative whether to respond back or not. If you don't want to read the response, just skip ahead. I will helpfully put my response a few lines below, and a few asterisks in between, so that you will not inadvertently read it and singe your eyes. You're welcome.

****************************

The real point can be obtained by asking the counter of your first sentence. Do you think anybody cares whether OIC passes a resolution or not, in the first place? Do you think even the OIC cares two hoots? If they did care, collectively they do have enough clout to strong arm India, even today. And in the past, say in the early 90s, they could have brought India to her knees if they wanted to. Did they ever take a single concrete step? No.

They can issue this statement for centuries to come. Nobody cares.

 

[Alpha BeeTee]

If you respond to a post of mine, it is my prerogative whether to respond back or not. If you don't want to read the response, just skip ahead. I will helpfully put my response a few lines below, and a few asterisks in between, so that you will not inadvertently read it and singe your eyes. You're welcome.

****************************

The real point can be obtained by asking the counter of your first sentence. Do you think anybody cares whether OIC passes a resolution or not, in the first place? Do you think even the OIC cares two hoots? If they did care, collectively they do have enough clout to strong arm India, even today. And in the past, say in the early 90s, they could have brought India to her knees if they wanted to. Did they ever take a single concrete step? No.

They can issue this statement for centuries to come. Nobody cares.

Your attempt to pretend that you don't care is not resonating well with ur actions.
You still couldn't hold ur response inspite of my request.This shows how much you do care.Your urge to neutralize the point of the resolution is clear.
However,it is a matter of common sense to figure out that which part of Kashmir is occupied and which is azaad.
I guess the one with the presence of 7 lac troops is more worthy of being called occupied than the one with little to no army presence.
And the one for which the international community frequently passes condemning resolution is more worthy of being called occupied than the one where an international giant is planning development infrastructure ?
Umph...so decide for urself,which one is the better joke,calling azad Kashmir Azad Kashmir or calling Jammu Kashmir an integral part of yours ?
Such is the irony which you fail to see.

 

[Alpha BeeTee]

Foxes shout when they are in group, but lion howl alone and deadly. Than foxes run away.

Awww...you lion :-D

 

[ayesha.a]

Your attempt to pretend that you don't care is not resonating well with ur actions.
You still couldn't hold ur response inspite of my request.This shows how much you do care.Your urge to neutralize the point of the resolution is clear.

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.

However,it is a matter of common sense to figure out that which part of Kashmir is occupied and which is azaad.
I guess the one with the presence of 7 lac troops is more worthy of being called occupied than the one with little to no army presence.

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.

And the one for which the international community frequently passes condemning resolution is more worthy of being called occupied than the one where an international giant is planning development infrastructure ?

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.