India's arguments on Kashmir why they don't want to hold a plebiscite

[K_Bin_W]

There was a time when Lord Mountbatten the first Governor General of India, offered Jinnah plebiscite in Kashmir in exchange for Pakistan stopping its attack on Kashmir.
But Jinnah refused, believing that he could win Kashmir militarily.

Just shows opportunity seldom knocks twice.

1962 was another when Indians as usual were winning and liberating China....

 

[VkdIndian]

C

First, a Truce Agreement had to be concluded/reached which was supposed to govern the withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani troops ... Its details were to be made public, and then the withdrawal would have followed.

Completely false.
Have you read the UN resolution? Please quote the paras that require what you are claiming.

PKaistan keeps talking of resolution 80 that was more accommodating to them.
India demanded full implemention of resolution 47 which was first ignored by Paksitan for it’s own convenience.

Both nations played the game to thier advantage.

I accept it, but Paksiatnis don’t, and try to paint holier than thou picture of themselves.

 

[M. Sarmad]

C

Completely false.
Have you read the UN resolution? Please quote the paras that require what you are claiming.

Yes, I have... But have you ??

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.

A.

(1) 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 endeavour 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.

B.

(1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and
Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the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.
C.

(1) Upon signature, the full text of the Truce Agreement or communique containing the principles thereof as agreed upon between the two Governments and the Commission, will be made public.

 

[VkdIndian]

Yes, I have... But have you ??

Oh yes. I have, many times.

It appears that you have very conveniently not mentioned the resolution that you have reproduced in your post. You have posted excerpts of Resolution 80.

It would be nice if you could also tell, why Resoltion 47 wasn’t implemented by Paksiatn?

Resolution 47-

“The United Nations Security Council Resolution 47, adopted on 21 April 1948, concerns the resolution of the Kashmir conflict. After hearing arguments from both India and Pakistan, the Council increased the size of the UN Commission created by the former Resolution 39 to five members, instructed the Commission to go to the subcontinent and help the governments of India and Pakistan restore peace and order to the region and prepare for a plebiscite to decide the fate of Kashmir.

The Resolution recommended a three-step process for the resolution of the dispute. In the first step, Pakistan was asked to withdraw all its nationals that entered Kashmir for the sake of fighting. In the second step, India was asked to progressively reduce its forces to the minimum level required for law and order. In the third step, India was asked to appoint a plebiscite administrator nominated by the United Nations who would conduct a free and impartial plebiscite.”

I have put the most relevant parts here without any editing for our friends to read. Full resolution can be accessed on the internet very easily.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Oh yes. I have, many times.

Please read resolution 47, which was passed first. What you are quoting is from resolution 80.

Why didn’t Paksiatn implement resolution 47?

No, you clearly haven't

It's not Resolution 80

It's the Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) on 13 August 1948, which amplified Res 47

India accepted this resolution

Res 80 which called for the simultaneous withdrawal of Pakistani and Indian troops was passed later (in 1950)

 

[VkdIndian]

It's the Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) on 13 August 1948, which amplified Res 47

Oh yeah. This was also one resolution that just amplified on the Resolution 47.

India didn’t accept the terms of truce offered by Pakistan since it linked the truce to withdrawal of forces. Pkisatn offered such terms that it knew wouldn’t be acceptable to India.

Withdrawal of forces was the next step, after terms of truce were agreed upon. Linking this to truce was a cunning game, since, Paksitan realised that if, terms of truce were accepted, then it would have to withdraw it’s forces first, which it didn’t want to.

It is very convenient to put forward terms that are beneficial to yourselves and then claim that India didn’t accept it.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Oh yeah. This was also one resolution that just amplified on the Resolution 47.

India didn’t accept the terms of truce offered by Pakistan since it linked the truce to withdrawal of forces.

Withdrawal of forces was the next step, after terms of truce were agreed upon which was also mentioned in the resolution.

It is very convenient to put forward terms that are beneficial to yourselves and then claim that India didn’t accept it.

Pakistan did not offer any terms of truce to India, the UN Commission did

Pakistan wasn't even consulted during UNCIP-India negotiations despite its requests

Pakistan had nothing to do with the Truce terms offered by UNCIP (and rejected by India)

And that precisely was the reason that the UN Commission never blamed Pakistan, and later the UN-appointed official mediator squarely blamed India for halting the process

 

[VkdIndian]

Pakistan did not offer any terms of truce to India, the UN Commission did

Pakistan wasn't even consulted during UNCIP-India negotiations despite its requests

Reference? I haven’t read any publication that says so.

I would accept it for the time being for sake of argument.

Pakistan had nothing to do with the Truce terms offered by UNCIP

It is highly possible that a nation doesn’t accept, terms of agreement offered to it. If India found those terms inimical to it’s interests, than that is its’s sovereign right to reject them.

UN commision blame is not the governing criteria.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Reference? I haven’t read any publication that says so.

I would accept it for the time being for sake of argument.

You may read UNCIP reports submitted to the UN for clarity, esp. the final report that is markedly critical of India, and to quote the chairman of the UNCIP, Josef Korbel, the Commission failed "..., especially by a lack of goodwill on the part of India"

And later, Sir Owen Dixon, the UN-appointed official mediator reported the failure of his mission to the UNSC in these words:

"In the end, I became convinced that India's agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would, in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled."

And yet you guys have the audacity to blame Pakistan for halting the process !!

It is highly possible that a nation doesn’t accept, terms of agreement offered to it. If India found those terms inimical to it’s interests, than that is its’s sovereign right to reject them.

UN commision blame is not the governing criteria.

Yes, holding a plebiscite in Kashmir was never in India's interest and that's the reason it was never held.

But it's quite ironic that despite being the ones who prevented the plebiscite from taking place, you attempt to accuse Pakistan of stopping the process.

Talk about lying?

 

[VkdIndian]

You may read UNCIP reports submitted to the UN for clarity, esp. the final report that is markedly critical of India, and to quote the chairman of the UNCIP, Josef Korbel, the Commission failed "..., especially by a lack of goodwill on the part of India"

First of all thanks for countering with reasoning and trying to quote facts rather than hurling insults, which is commonplace on the forum.

Just completed reading the book titled “Danger in Kashmir” by josef korbel. He was one of the members of the commision appointed by the UN.

What you have quoted gives an impression, as if all the fault lay with India. The statement quoted by you, if seen in isolation does give that impression. But when read in conjunction with content, before and after, it gives a completely different picture than what you have tried to portray. As if India hijacked the entire effort solely.

One can always argue who played bigger spoilsport. To me Indian objections look more valid than those of Paksiatn, but that could be opposite for you and hence the assessment of culpability.

Josef, clearly brings out fault lines between both the nations that led to distrust and ultimate failure of the UN resolutions.

It would also be prudent to bring his persona into the assessment. He was an Anti-communist and has dedicated almost 50 pages in a 300 page book on dangers of communism and it’s possibility of spread to this part of the world. Appears completely irrelevant to the subcontinent. He reflects his fears of communism on the situation in Kashmir. He quotes his discussion with leaders from both the nations in this regard. Nehru’s nonchalance in this regard appears to unsettle him. That could have clouded some of his views.

Yes, holding a plebiscite in Kashmir was never in India's interest and that's the reason it was never held.

India did have reservations about holding a plebiscite in one go across the entire territory. The main reason was fear of causing mass exodus and unrest in other communities. It was a valid concern seen in the light of mass killings in the aftermath of the partition.

Things never moved forward mainly due to Paksiatn’s insistence of assurance of all the details of plebiscite from the word go while Indian insistence of one step at a time as per the UN resolutions.

Josef Korbel and Ownes were definitely more critical of India than that of Paksiatn. That was probably, because India didn’t toe the line they suggested.

Talk about lying?

I standby that accusation. A trait Paksiatn never let go off, about irregulars attacking India. They used the same lie again and again. 1965 and 1999 are the two big ones after 1947. I hope they wouldn’t do it again.

 

[JohnyD]

Makes sense. Scotland is not occupied territory, Kashmir is.. as simple as that.

If kashmir is occupied,why the elected ppl attend indian parliment..?..why pak is asking India to hold pleibisite? Why dont u ask us to hold plebiscite in GB or Pak Occp Kashmir? You can say pak has dispute with India over kashmir but u or no one in the entire world can deny kashmir is an integral part of India...and no power can separate it from us..not even ppl of kashmir to be point blank...kashmiri pandit left kashmir for india if there separtists loving pak, are free to go to pak...but i dont mean any Indian should leave India, its their country and they have equal right to remain as Modi or IA generals...

 

[Maira La]

If kashmir is occupied,why the elected ppl attend indian parliment..?..why pak is asking India to hold pleibisite? Why dont u ask us to hold plebiscite in GB or Pak Occp Kashmir? You can say pak has dispute with India over kashmir but u or no one in the entire world can deny kashmir is an integral part of India...and no power can separate it from us..not even ppl of kashmir to be point blank...kashmiri pandit left kashmir for india if there separtists loving pak, are free to go to pak...but i dont mean any Indian should leave India, its their country and they have equal right to remain as Modi or IA generals...

Nothing is integral part of anything, both countries (Pakistan and India) are post colonial countries with British made borders.

Kashmir can be solved by war, not dialogue. Once Pakistan gets Kashmir, the Hindus can convert or go to India. Conversion would be good choice since they already look Muslim.

 

[M. Sarmad]

First of all thanks for countering with reasoning and trying to quote facts rather than hurling insults, which is commonplace on the forum.

Just completed reading the book titled “Danger in Kashmir” by josef korbel. He was one of the members of the commision appointed by the UN.

What you have quoted gives an impression, as if all the fault lay with India. The statement quoted by you, if seen in isolation does give that impression. But when read in conjunction with content, before and after, it gives a completely different picture than what you have tried to portray. As if India hijacked the entire effort solely.

One can always argue who played bigger spoilsport. To me Indian objections look more valid than those of Paksiatn, but that could be opposite for you and hence the assessment of culpability.

Josef, clearly brings out fault lines between both the nations that led to distrust and ultimate failure of the UN resolutions.

It would also be prudent to bring his persona into the assessment. He was an Anti-communist and has dedicated almost 50 pages in a 300 page book on dangers of communism and it’s possibility of spread to this part of the world. Appears completely irrelevant to the subcontinent. He reflects his fears of communism on the situation in Kashmir. He quotes his discussion with leaders from both the nations in this regard. Nehru’s nonchalance in this regard appears to unsettle him. That could have clouded some of his views.

Any attempt at meaningful discussion should always be welcome on discussion boards like this one. And I do appreciate your efforts as very few Indians actually try to get into a serious discussion on this matter.

Regarding Josef Korbel, the UNCIP chairman, I merely cited his words. I didn't claim that he accused India of exclusively derailing the effort (that was Sir Owen Dixon). However, he did assign a much greater degree of responsibility to India for the UNCIP's failure than to Pakistan. Since you have mentioned his book "Danger in Kashmir," this passage from page 159 effectively summarizes his findings:

So the problem of demilitarization was a real one, but it should not have presented any great difficulties if there had been good will and some mutual confidence. The government of India did not accept the Commission’s proposal, and its own counterproposal “was, in the opinion of the Commission, far from a fulfillment of India’s undertaking under the terms of the 13 August resolution. The government of Pakistan also had a number of objections to the Commission’s plan of demilitarizing the country; nevertheless it agreed to accept the final judgment of an arbitrator.

India did have reservations about holding a plebiscite in one go across the entire territory. The main reason was fear of causing mass exodus and unrest in other communities. It was a valid concern seen in the light of mass killings in the aftermath of the partition.

Things never moved forward mainly due to Paksiatn’s insistence of assurance of all the details of plebiscite from the word go while Indian insistence of one step at a time as per the UN resolutions.

Josef Korbel and Ownes were definitely more critical of India than that of Paksiatn. That was probably, because India didn’t toe the line they suggested.

Your PM Nehru believed otherwise. To quote AG Noorani:

Writing to the Chief Minister of West Bengal, B.C. Roy on 29 June 1953, Nehru confided “If there was a plebiscite, a great majority of Muslims in Kashmir would go against us.” They had “become frightened of the communal elements in Jammu and in India.” He had “this feeling of our losing grip in Kashmir.” [Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 22, pp.204-5]

In 1996 was published a Note Nehru had written to Sheikh Abdullah on 25 August 1952 from Sonamarg in Kashmir. It is a document of cardinal importance. It laid bare Nehru’s entire approach to the questions; his strategy and tactics. He revealed that “towards the end of 1948” he concluded that “there were only two possibilities open to us, continuance of the war in a limited way; (2) some kind of a settlement on the basis of the existing military situation”. He had accepted the UNCIP resolutions to get a ceasefire; not to hold a plebiscite. “We are superior to Pakistan in military and industrial power,” With the passage of time Pakistan will “accept a settlement which we consider fair, whether in Kashmir or elsewhere”.

He was not bothered about what “Pakistan did or what the United Nations might do.” But he was “worried to find that the leaders of Kashmir were not so clear in their minds about the present or the future.” He was not worried about the wishes of the people either. They were “not what are called a virile people. They are soft and addicted to easy living.” Like Indira Gandhi, he felt that they were interested in “an honest administration and cheap and adequate food. If they get this, then they are more or less content.” The State would retain its “autonomy in most respects.” The leaders must shed doubt as doubt “percolates to their followers.” His recipe was clear. “Make the people think that the association of Kashmir State with India is an accomplished and final fact, and nothing is going to undo it.” [Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 19, pp.322-330. ed. S. Gopal, Nehru Memorial Fund, OUP, Second Series.]


India was never serious about holding a plebiscite in Kashmir. It was only deceiving the Kashmiris and the world from Day 1

 

[JohnyD]

Nothing is integral part of anything, both countries (Pakistan and India) are post colonial countries with British made borders.

Kashmir can be solved by war, not dialogue. Once Pakistan gets Kashmir, the Hindus can convert or go to India. Conversion would be good choice since they already look Muslim.

yes, agree on war thing if pak can afford .... but asking or expecting india to hold plebiscite on its own land for a weaker nation like pak, doesn't make any logical and political sense..

Reg conversion based on look...well, anyone after growing the beard can make a fit look alike muslim...and any pak muslim by shaving his beard can look like Indian but no need to convert to hindusim, he can still keep his faith..

 

[CallSignMaverick]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1627389624871014400