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

[VkdIndian]

Pakistan’s suspicions of India in the light of present-day developments may have been justified...

Those “present day’s” suspicions were for 1950s. Many decades have passed since then. Had he written this book now, he would have said exactly the opposite in the light of Paksiatni transgressions of 1965, 1999 and support to insurgency in India.

"Basically the Commission was in full agreement with this Pakistani position",

Why didn’t you complete the sentence?
“Basically the Commission was in full agreement with this Pakistani position, but its resolution was designed first to stop hostilities and later to negotiate.”
One member of the commission can keep having his personal ideas and biases. Tough luck.

India, OTOH, rejected all UNCIP proposals even after accepting the UNCIP Resolutions. Hope that helps clear up your confusion

There was no confusion. India accepted the UNCIP Resolutions. The basic stricture of resolutions didn’t have detailed process to implement them. The issues arose when nitty grittys of the implementation was being worked out and India realised that those weren’t to India’s liking.

Hence, Indian stand of not moving further. India wasn’t there to mollify anyone.

I say again, if the events are documented today, Paksiatn will come out bigger violator of all UN resolutions, that, it so vociferously asking to be implemented. Josef’s hindsight was looking 20/20 when he wrote the book. But today that wouldn’t look anywhere close to 20/20.

 

[Muji.Iqbal]

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

Thats why Owen Dixon blamed Indian stubbornness for not following the United Nations resolutions.

 

[my2cents]

Value of this comment: Nothing more than 2 cents.

For you 2 million getting killed for Pakistan is worth 2 cents. Then 3 million killed for Bangladesh is worth 3 cents.

 

[TopGun786]

For you 2 million getting killed for Pakistan is worth 2 cents. Then 3 million killed for Bangladesh is worth 3 cents.

2 Million killed for Pakistan were because of radical Hindus like you who started mass massacres of Muslims.
You are saying like they were safe if the partition did not happen?
You failed to protect the Muslims and other minorities which remain in India.... Sikhs (1984), Muslims especially in Kashmir and Gujarat and many other parts of India, and Christians all over India (even right now at this time they are being prosecuted and their houses being burned down) and you are here to tell us fairy tales.
And 3 million killed in Bangladesh is just a blatant lie.
Your 2 cents decreased in vale to less than a single cent.

 

[my2cents]

2 Million killed for Pakistan were because of radical Hindus like you who started mass massacres of Muslims.
You are saying like they were safe if the partition did not happen?
You failed to protect the Muslims and other minorities which remain in India.... Sikhs (1984), Muslims especially in Kashmir and Gujarat and many other parts of India, and Christians all over India (even right now at this time they are being prosecuted and their houses being burned down) and you are here to tell us fairy tales.
And 3 million killed in Bangladesh is just a blatant lie.
Your 2 cents decreased in vale to less than a single cent.

2 Million killed for Pakistan were because of radical Hindus like you who started mass massacres of Muslims.
You are saying like they were safe if the partition did not happen?
You failed to protect the Muslims and other minorities which remain in India.... Sikhs (1984), Muslims especially in Kashmir and Gujarat and many other parts of India, and Christians all over India (even right now at this time they are being prosecuted and their houses being burned down) and you are here to tell us fairy tales.
And 3 million killed in Bangladesh is just a blatant lie.
Your 2 cents decreased in vale to less than a single cent.

Read up on Ishtiaq Ahmed The Garrison State where he did all the research about who started the massacre in 1947.
Regarding 1971 genocide there are many articles on the net about the rapes and fatalities. Even if it is 30000 as some of you claim, it is way too many.

The Past has yet to Leave the Present: Genocide in Bangladesh

"This repetition of history proves that there is much to be communally cognizant of, much to globally hold accountability for, and much to locally embrace changes within."

www.google.com

 

[M. Sarmad]

Those “present day’s” suspicions were for 1950s. Many decades have passed since then. Had he written this book now, he would have said exactly the opposite in the light of Paksiatni transgressions of 1965, 1999 and support to insurgency in India.

That's because after the early 1950s, the UN made limited efforts to address the Kashmir dispute, due to India's clear rejection of a plebiscite in the region as it continued to solidify its control over the occupied territory.

The TL of Indian actions in Occupied Kashmir (to refresh your memory):

• India set up a so-called Constituent Assembly in 1951, in violation of the Security Council resolution of 30 March. 1951.
• India took steps in 1952 to bring about the administrative merger of Kashmir with India in violation of UN resolutions. An agreement, known as the Delhi Agreement, was signed that year; it covered such matters as residuary powers, citizenship laws, fundamental rights, powers of the Supreme Court in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the application of emergency provisions embodied in the Constitution and the headship of the state.
• India further tightened its grip over occupied Kashmir by the promulgation of a Presidential Order in May 1954, which had the effect of extending the jurisdiction of the Indian Union.
• In April 1954, the customs barriers between occupied Kashmir and India were abolished.
• Indian taxation laws in respect of income tax and customs and excise duties were extended to occupied Kashmir.
• Kashmir’s financial integration with India which was launched the previous year was completed in 1955; and the Auditor General of India was empowered to exercise the same jurisdiction in Jammu and Kashmir as in other states.
• In April 1955, other provisions of the Indian Constitution were made applicable to the state.
• In November 1956, India began taking steps unilaterally to integrate the state with the Union of India with effect from 26 January 1957, in complete disregard of India’s assurances to the contrary solemnly expressed before the Security Council and in defiance of the Security Council’s resolution of 30 March, 1951. This occasioned the adoption of another resolution by the Security Jo on 24 January, 1957, which reaffirmed the Council’s resolution of 30 March, 1951 and declared that: “The convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of the ‘All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference’ and any action that Assembly may have taken or might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof, or action by the parties concerned in support of any action by the Assembly would not constitute a disposition of the ‘State’ in accordance with the principles enunciated by the Security Council.”
• India went a step further when, on 23 April 1957, it included the Jammu and Kashmir state in the membership of the Northern Zone Council Organization of India.
  
  And in 1957 USSR used Veto in the Security Council for the first time to "save" India. Had USSR not used the veto (in clear violation of the UN principles of the charter) to strike down the UN Resolution of 20th Feb 1957, the Kashmir issue would have been resolved long ago. Russians used "veto" many times to avoid discussion on Kashmir in the Security Council. As a matter of fact, the U.N. was virtually elbowed out of the Kashmir dispute by Russia.​

 

[M. Sarmad]

Why didn’t you complete the sentence?
“Basically the Commission was in full agreement with this Pakistani position, but its resolution was designed first to stop hostilities and later to negotiate.”
One member of the commission can keep having his personal ideas and biases. Tough luck.

Again, you are mixing things up here. Pakistan's stance was rooted in its unwillingness to agree to a ceasefire unless there was a well-defined plan in place for conducting a plebiscite in Kashmir. Pakistan had explicitly conveyed to the Commission its concern that India, following a ceasefire, would backtrack on its commitment to hold a plebiscite. The Commission had provided assurances to Pakistan that such a scenario wouldn't occur. However, Pakistan's concerns were validated when India, following the ceasefire agreement in 1949, indeed backtracked on its commitment to conduct a plebiscite in Kashmir.

Pakistan's objections, which you are desperately attempting to equate with India's refusal to accept any UNCIP demilitarization proposal, were made before Pakistan accepted the UNCIP Resolutions. and history has indeed provided validation for Pakistan's position. India's main utilization of the UN was to secure a ceasefire in the region of Kashmir, not to carry out a plebiscite. This strategic maneuver stemmed from the fact that Kashmir's populace was predominantly Muslim, and it would have certainly chosen Pakistan over India

 

[VkdIndian]

That's because after the early 1950s,

I commend you for being well read and putting across solid arguments.
The problem is that I have also read about this issue quite a lot and am well aware of various angles and aspects.

I do agree that India has played it’s part in making this matter complex, but PKaistan has been a bigger violator of the same. I can produce a similar list of arguments and claim it to be more damning than that of your’s.

Finally, the battle has come down to, two patriots, firm in their beliefs and their nations decisions, putting forward arguments, that they think are better than the other one’s.

As I see the discussion not going to yield any conclusive results, it’s time to withdraw.

We will definitely come across some other thread and I would look forward to backing off and agreeing with your point of view.

 

[TopGun786]

Read up on Ishtiaq Ahmed The Garrison State where he did all the research about who started the massacre in 1947.
Regarding 1971 genocide there are many articles on the net about the rapes and fatalities. Even if it is 30000 as some of you claim, it is way too many.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/hir.ha...eave-the- present-genocide-in-bangladesh/amp/

Yes, among those 30,000 majority were killed by Mukti Bahni.
Ask your government about it

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

War remains the sole solution for resolving the Kashmir conflict, just as the Bangladesh issue of 1971 could only be resolved through warfare. Similarly, territorial disputes involving Kashmir and Baluchistan cannot be settled without resorting to armed conflict.

 

[M. Sarmad]

India accepted the UNCIP Resolutions. The basic stricture of resolutions didn’t have detailed process to implement them. The issues arose when nitty grittys of the implementation was being worked out and India realised that those weren’t to India’s liking.

Hence, Indian stand of not moving further. India wasn’t there to mollify anyone.

Yes, that's correct. India rejected UNCIP proposals because they were not to India's liking.

On the other hand, Pakistan's acceptance of these proposals was grounded in its commitment to honoring UNCIP resolutions regardless of its liking or disliking of those proposals

And in such a scenario, no neutral observer could have blamed Pakistan for halting the process.

Joseph Korbel too has admitted that International Opinion had become critical of India's attitude by 1950. He quotes:

.... Now, with the problem back before the Security Council, world opinion began to be critical of India’s attitude. Representative of this point of view was the London Economist, which remarked, “. . . But the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [of the Kashmir people] . . . has been obstructing the holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite. From this the world opinion can only conclude that . . . India really has no confidence that the vote would go in its favour.”

 

[TopGun786]

War remains the sole solution for resolving the Kashmir conflict, just as the Bangladesh issue of 1971 could only be resolved through warfare. Similarly, territorial disputes involving Kashmir and Baluchistan cannot be settled without resorting to armed conflict.

Exactly.
BTW Baluchistan is not an issue at all.
Only Kashmir is the issue.
A nuclear war seems only viable option to eradicate India fully. World will be a much better place then.

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

Exactly.
BTW Baluchistan is not an issue at all.
Only Kashmir is the issue.
A nuclear war seems only viable option to eradicate India fully. World will be a much better place then.

Both Baluchistan and Kashmir (that is under Pakistani control) are contested. India claims the territory of Azad Kashmir, and Baluchistan, like Bangladesh, seeks independence. Why not Kashmir and Baluchistan if Bangladesh can be resolved by Indian military action in Pakistan?

 

[TopGun786]

Both Baluchistan and Kashmir (that is under Pakistani control) are contested. India claims the territory of Azad Kashmir, and Baluchistan, like Bangladesh, seeks independence. Why not Kashmir and Baluchistan if Bangladesh can be resolved by Indian military action in Pakistan?

Aa tujhe "Ajaad Kassmeer" or Baluchistan du.
Kabushan b aaya tha Baluchistan.
Idr Abhi-none-done b aaya tha Azad Kashmir.... Locals ny maar maar kr thobra or buttocks suja diye thy.
Pakistan army came to his recuse otherwise his corpse would have been hanging to some thorny tree.
Only Indian occupied Kashmir is contested but this time it won't be the only destination.
Muryas were our slaves in past times. We will love to have them again for our service.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Finally, the battle has come down to, two patriots,
As I see the discussion not going to yield any conclusive results, it’s time to withdraw.

Knowledgeable Indians know very well that they cannot defend India's position in front of the UN. They have tried their best, and they have failed.

For example, In 1957 Krishna Menon delivered an unprecedented eight-hour speech defending India's stand on Kashmir (concluding with Menon's collapse on the Security Council floor). To date, the speech is the longest ever delivered in the United Nations. The text of that speech is available online. No one has ever presented the Indian case on Kashmir better than him. He said everything the Indians say today. He blamed Pakistan and argued that Kashmir had acceded to India and the UN resolutions had become irrelevant and all other similar stuff we listen from the Indians every day. But the UN rejected the Indian position and passed another resolution reaffirming that the accession of Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through a free and fair plebiscite.


India's best diplomats/delegates have failed in convincing the International Community (the UN) that Kashmir's accession to India is valid and complete. That is a dead end, for India ..