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

[Skull and Bones]

Azad Kashmir banega Hindusthan. No body negotiates with weaker entities on equal terms.

 

[my2cents]

Send them with lands also.

You drove 14% of your population (hindus) residing in your country and 20% in East Pakistan before partition into India. What land did you transfer for it?

 

[VkdIndian]

if a way forward has to be figured out, in this particular case, India is clearly responsible and disproportionately at fault.

UNCIP was determined to resolve the issue by both sides displaying goodwill and faith.
India didn’t want to be taken for a ride in the name of goodwill. A major Indian objection was use of regular forces by Paksitan in capturing large tracts of territory. India didn’t want to loose sight of that transgression at any stage. UNCIP didn’t like it. India wasn’t out there to please anyone.

The mere fact that India rejected 11 demilitarization

It could have been 20 or 30 for that matter. It didn’t meet Indian concerns. India didn’t accept them, the same way Paksiatn didn’t accept initial offers of UNCIP.

The FIRST condition was to conclude a Truce Agreement. A Truce Agreement was never concluded because India continuously kept rejecting every and all proposals of terms of demilitarization

Not correct. It was Paksiatni side that delayed it excessively, by demanding a clear mandate for Plebiscite, before agreeing for a truce. Precious time was lost in that. It also didn’t want to remove it’s forces completely as envisaged in first resolution by the UN. Later on India also put her own objections to the plans of UNCIP. Both played there part in causing delays which eventually led to failure.

Why do we stop at 1950s? The discussion should continue beyond that too, since Pakstan still claims, the issue, to be under UN resolutions. Paksiatn launched Op Gibraltar in 1965. That transgression was bigger and most violative of any UN mandate. It lost the plot that year completely.

After that Paksiatn should have stopped talking about UN and Plebiscite.

Few words used repeatedly in this discussion are cunning, backstabbing etc etc. No nation worth it’s name has been bereft of these traits. They all use these in statecraft. Sometimes, it works, and sometimes it doesn’t. Paksatn did try these w.r.t Junagarh. Didn’t work out they way they had envisaged. Time to take a chill pill and move on.

Try Simla agreement and sort it out.

 

[surmabhopali]

Please stop with these idiotic arguments. Why are you and other Pakistans such pus*ies. Don’t you morons understand that this world only understand force. The rule of law only applies to the strong and their citizens, for the rest of us, it’s rule of the jungle. The bindu Hindu dotheads clearly understand this fact while you natural born cowards go begging to the UN, the West, and Martians to get the ugly subhumans to come to an agreement whereas the enemy is sharpening his tools - literally and metaphorically - building up a large war machine under the guise of fighting china and preparing his ugly subhuman people mentally by installing a map of a “United South Asia” in his parliament. They are increasingly becoming brazen and even demanding what more. Theyre very specific and focused on us. The Indians activity here increased post 03/2022 NCV and it’s being directed by their Intel services to mentally break Pakistan before the final assault. I swear on everything holy, if I had the opportunity, I’d round the defeatists, the corrupt, and sellouts before I will tackle the bindus in Kashmir. Nothing is worse than a defeatist mindset which many of you have displayed this August 14 openly talking shit on your country and joining in with the savages across the border whose primary goal is to eradicate Pakistan and Pakistanis and capture lands that he thinks belongs to him. Wake up!

Lion of zaid hamid roars here.

 

[maithil]

Pakistan lost the last chance of any amicable solution when its Army sabotaged the process when Modi visited Nawaz's home. Now it's all stick, no carrot.

 

[TopGun786]

You drove 14% of your population (hindus) residing in your country and 20% in East Pakistan before partition into India. What land did you transfer for it?

Lands you occupied since 1947 including Kashmir, junagadh, manawarid, looted their resources can suffice more than that.
Also millions of Muslims migrated to Pakistan from India, same goes for them as they left their properties there.
And yes, I took your opinion equal to 2 cents only

 

[TopGun786]

While blaming both sides for the failure to implement UN Resolutions might seem to be the politically correct thing to do, esp. if a way forward has to be figured out, in this particular case, India is clearly responsible and disproportionately at fault.

The mere fact that India rejected 11 demilitarization plans put forth by the UN between 1949 and 1952, while Pakistan accepted all of them, makes it impossible to justify placing equal blame on both parties. To suggest otherwise would require a considerable degree of delusion.

That's the reason Pakistan was never held responsible by either the UN, UNCIP, or the UN mediator. Rather, the blame was attributed to India.

These Endians are the biggest hypocrites of all time and with no sense of shame at all.
I believe this is something to do with that "organic drink" most of them take daily or weekly.

Azad Kashmir banega Hindusthan. No body negotiates with weaker entities on equal terms.

Aa tujeh "Ajaad Kashmir" du.

 

[my2cents]

Lands you occupied since 1947 including Kashmir, junagadh, manawarid, looted their resources can suffice more than that.
Also millions of Muslims migrated to Pakistan from India, same goes for them as they left their properties there.
And yes, I took your opinion equal to 2 cents only

Lands you occupied since 1947 including Kashmir, junagadh, manawarid, looted their resources can suffice more than that.
Also millions of Muslims migrated to Pakistan from India, same goes for them as they left their properties there.
And yes, I took your opinion equal to 2 cents only

That was not part of the deal that Hindus have to migrate to India. You forced them to and in the ensuing violence 2 million were killed.

 

[M. Sarmad]

It could have been 20 or 30 for that matter. It didn’t meet Indian concerns. India didn’t accept them, the same way Paksiatn didn’t accept initial offers of UNCIP.

And that precisely is the point, India rejected all 11 demilitarization proposals put forth by the UN, India would have rejected a 100 as it was never serious about conducting a plebiscite in Kashmir. That's why the UN Commission Chairman pointed out the "lack of goodwill on the part of India", the same chairman while pointing out Pakistan's mistrust of India, himself had to admit that Pakistan's reservations were not ill-founded.

Pakistan, OTOH, did not reject any UNCIP proposals at any stage. Your claim that Pakistan too rejected UNCIP demilitarization plans is absolutely baseless.

Not correct. It was Paksiatni side that delayed it excessively, by demanding a clear mandate for Plebiscite, before agreeing for a truce. Precious time was lost in that. It also didn’t want to remove it’s forces completely as envisaged in first resolution by the UN. Later on India also put her own objections to the plans of UNCIP. Both played there part in causing delays which eventually led to failure.

Let me educate you, our Indian friend, Pakistan had accepted the UNCIP Resolutions on the very condition that a demilitarization plan will have to be agreed upon (and made public) in advance of the withdrawal of the forces. Both the UN and India accepted this demand. And this was included in the text of the UNCIP Resolutions. You can't blame Pakistan for demanding what had already been agreed upon by all.


The Commission had told Pakistan that it had to begin withdrawing its forces and that once the withdrawal had begun, India too would start withdrawing the bulk of its forces from Kashmir.

The Commission assured Pakistan as follows:

In accordance with the provisions of the truce proposals of the 13 August 1948 resolution:

(1) After Pakistan had made the beginning in the withdrawal of its forces from Kashmir there was to be a relation between the further withdrawals of all the Pakistan forces and the beginning withdrawals of the bulk of the Indian forces from Kashmir in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

Pakistan did begin withdrawing its forces (see UNCIP interim reports for details) but later stopped the process as the UNCIP and India failed to reach an agreement on the stages of the withdrawal of the bulk of the Indian forces, as provided in A and B of part II of the 13 August 1948 resolution. UNCIP and India failed to reach an agreement because India rejected each and every proposal put forward by the UN.

Under these circumstances, no sane person could have held Pakistan responsible for halting the process.

 

[El Sidd]

Pakistanis will join QUAD's war against China.

Pakistan's addition won't change the outcome of any war against China.

 

[VkdIndian]

And that precisely is the point, India rejected all 11 demilitarization proposals put forth by the UN, India would have rejected a 100 as it was never serious about conducting a plebiscite in Kashmir.

Plebiscite was a process which was to be undertaken much later. There were many other activities that had to be done before that.
India had objection to those modalities. Straightaway jumping to Plebiscite and blaming India is far fetched and a major Paksiatni pastime.

Pakistan, OTOH, did not reject any UNCIP proposals at any stage.

Josef writes - Pakistan, and for that answer we waited with trepidation. The answer came on Septeinber 6, 1948. The government of Pakistan accepted the resolution-but it attached so many reservations, qualifications, and assumptions that the commission had to consider its answer as "tantamount to rejection."

There are many such observations. Accepting something but putting so many conditions that, the acceptance is meaningless. There are many such instances on behalf of Paksiatn. Be careful if you you try and portray Pakistan to be an image of piousness and purity and India - an opposite.

What is the way forward? That is the main contention now. While failing to honour UN resolutions in many ways, Pakskatn is still trying to invoke the same. Living in the past isn’t going to help.

Paksitan has played a major role to bring material change in the region and those UN resolutions have become defunct.

The ship that carried Plebiscite, however, isn’t going to sail again.

 

[TopGun786]

That was not part of the deal that Hindus have to migrate to India. You forced them to and in the ensuing violence 2 million were killed.

Value of this comment: Nothing more than 2 cents.

 

[MilSpec]

And that precisely is the point, India rejected all 11 demilitarization proposals put forth by the UN, India would have rejected a 100 as it was never serious about conducting a plebiscite in Kashmir. That's why the UN Commission Chairman pointed out the "lack of goodwill on the part of India", the same chairman while pointing out Pakistan's mistrust of India, himself had to admit that Pakistan's reservations were not ill-founded.

Pakistan, OTOH, did not reject any UNCIP proposals at any stage. Your claim that Pakistan too rejected UNCIP demilitarization plans is absolutely baseless.




Let me educate you, our Indian friend, Pakistan had accepted the UNCIP Resolutions on the very condition that a demilitarization plan will have to be agreed upon (and made public) in advance of the withdrawal of the forces. Both the UN and India accepted this demand. And this was included in the text of the UNCIP Resolutions. You can't blame Pakistan for demanding what had already been agreed upon by all.


The Commission had told Pakistan that it had to begin withdrawing its forces and that once the withdrawal had begun, India too would start withdrawing the bulk of its forces from Kashmir.

The Commission assured Pakistan as follows:

In accordance with the provisions of the truce proposals of the 13 August 1948 resolution:

(1) After Pakistan had made the beginning in the withdrawal of its forces from Kashmir there was to be a relation between the further withdrawals of all the Pakistan forces and the beginning withdrawals of the bulk of the Indian forces from Kashmir in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

Pakistan did begin withdrawing its forces (see UNCIP interim reports for details) but later stopped the process as the UNCIP and India failed to reach an agreement on the stages of the withdrawal of the bulk of the Indian forces, as provided in A and B of part II of the 13 August 1948 resolution. UNCIP and India failed to reach an agreement because India rejected each and every proposal put forward by the UN.

Under these circumstances, no sane person could have held Pakistan responsible for halting the process.

BS, There is no interim report that states Pakistan completed it's withdrawal of both it's Military and tribal forces.

The clear intellectual dishonesty of Pakistanis is to ignore the violation of the basics of the prerequisites in 65... Post 65 there is no scope of any UNSC resolutions.

Because 65 violated the basic tenet of the Cease Fire order (Forget even going to the truce part.

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.

 

[M. Sarmad]

BS, There is no interim report that states Pakistan completed it's withdrawal of both it's Military and tribal forces.

If you don't want to look silly, it's best to read the post before replying.

Nowhere did I say Pakistan completed the withdrawal, I said Pakistan began to withdraw its forces (as was required per UN Resolutions) but later halted the process due to the failure of UNCIP and India to reach an agreement over the withdrawal of the bulk of Indian forces. And that exactly is what UNCIP reports state

 

[M. Sarmad]

Josef writes - Pakistan, and for that answer we waited with trepidation. The answer came on Septeinber 6, 1948. The government of Pakistan accepted the resolution-but it attached so many reservations, qualifications, and assumptions that the commission had to consider its answer as "tantamount to rejection."

Joseph further wrote in the same para that you are quoting from "Basically the Commission was in full agreement with this Pakistani position", and in the next para same page, he goes on to concede that Pakistan’s suspicions of India in the light of present-day developments may have been justified...

See, such selective quoting won't help you.

And Pakistan's "objections" that you are trying to equate with the Indian rejection of UNCIP proposals were before the acceptance of UNCIP Resolutions, Pakistan demanded clarity. Once Pakistan accepted the UNCIP Resolutions, it accepted each and every demilitarization proposal put forth by the UNCIP subsequently. India, OTOH, rejected all UNCIP proposals even after accepting the UNCIP Resolutions. Hope that helps clear up your confusion