You’ve been given the relevant excerpts from the UNSC Resolutions that clearly point out that there was no onus Pakistani to unilaterally withdraw its troops without an agreement on demilitarization (or truce agreement) between the concerned parties. India’s intransigence and refusal to accept multiple proposals for demilitarization (by the UN) is the root cause for no progress here.
If you can’t even acknowledge basic facts then there is no point in continuing this discussion. I’m giving you one last opportunity to quote the relevant text of the UNSC Resolutions to support your claims.
No excerpts given but I will give you now, and if you are looking for an opportunity to shut me down, go ahead.
@M. Sarmad
1. As part of truce agreement, India and Pakistan was supposed to draft terms and conditions to bring on peace on guiding principle laid by UN resolution Aug 13 and that was
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 he worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.
A1. 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.
http://kashmirvalley.info/un-resolutions/#.XpH4XsgzY2w
2. Onus can be put on India of stalling truce agreement if Pakistan can prove that it agreed to conditions abiding by the principle laid by UN resolutions
3. No such evidence could be provided by Sarmad, infact to contrary he claim Pakistan agreed but on condition of having UN troops, which is sheer violation of guiding principles that authorized India forces for law and order. India, in its own right, can reject this proposal, without being blamed of stalling the process.
4. UN in its guiding principle called presence of Pakistan in kashmir as a material change, and it was accepted by Gov. of Pakistan, thus any further demand of not leaving the state is unwarranted
As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation
5. Pakistan refusal to follow original resolution, in letter and spirit, gives India sufficient rights to reject any further supplement proposals.
6. No evidence posted in all discussion which can establish any proposal refused by Indian side which conform to UNSC resolution on Kashmir 1948.
7. Indian refusal to reject any Pakistani demand, which doesn't meet the expectations set by UN at first, can not be termed as stalling by India, but stalling by Pakistan.
8. Even today, presence of Indian forces conform to UN resolution, but presence of Pakistan is still a material change in Kashmir, thus putting Pakistan in violation and not India.
Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will he administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.
Had India agreed to implement the original UNCIP Resolutions in principle and spirit, there wouldn't be any subsequent resolutions or proposals.
Read slowly and carefully:
Pakistan had made it clear the UN Commission that it was ready to begin withdrawing its troops as soon as the Commission notified it. But the Commission never notified Pakistan as no agreement between India and the Commission on terms and conditions of withdrawal could be reached.
^^ That was before the subsequent resolutions were passed after you tried to backtrack from your original commitment
Post UN document claiming so here for all to read.
And are you saying Pakistan didn't put any condition before doing so? Very obedient. Whom are we fooling bro?
