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

[nibba]

These Indiots keep saying Pakistan needs to withdraw forces first out of Kashmir before a plebiscite can be conducted.

But UN resolutions 80 says both India and Pakistan need to withdraw forces to hold a plebiscite.

It cannot be one sided. Its not only Pakistan that has to withdraw forces from Kashmir, it is also India that needs to do this in order
to ensure a free a fair plebiscite. Even Sir Owen Dixon said this.

Owen Dixon blamed India for not holding a plebiscite.

There is not going to be a plebiscite.

Will never happen. All arguments are uttetly pointless.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Junagarh was more prominent than Hyderabad. Paksiatn did try hard for it. Josef talks about it many times in his book.

Jinnah was prepared to engage in discussions about Junagadh's future with Mountbatten, acting as Pakistan's governor-general. However, he declined to involve himself in pressuring Hyderabad to join India, citing his lack of moral or legal jurisdiction due to Hyderabad's non-accession to Pakistan.

And the United Nations Security Council did consider the Junagadh question on 18th and 26th Feb 1948. The Indian response was that even if a plebiscite was held again the result would nearly be the same. And as India had agreed to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir, no further steps were taken. Junagadh issue is linked with the Kashmir issue, even in the UN

 

[Skimming]

Yes.

How can you lie? Most refugees came almost empty handed but they got rehabilitated by dint of their own hardwork.

 

[Jaeger]

I think you are referring to the Jinnah-Mountbatten talks that were held in Nov 1947 (5 days AFTER the Indian occupation of Kashmir)

Jinnah was a man of principles, Jinnah's response to Mountbatten's "offer" was that he could not accept a formula if it was so drafted as to include Hyderabad since he pointed out that Hyderabad did not wish to accede to either Dominion and he could not be a party to coercing them to accession.

Where were Jinnah's "principles", when he accepted accession of Junagarh, despite being 90 percent Hindu majority state and non contiguous to Pakistan on 16 September 1947.

Where as claming that, Kashmir being Muslim majority was rightfully his according to partition formula and further going on to physically invade Kashmir on 22nd October 1947, violating his own standstill agreement with the state.

Infact this entire Kashmir mess is of Jinnah's making, who use to boast that Kashmir toh meri muthi mein hai, but I will take Junagarh and Hyderabad, 90 percent, Hindu majority states which were not even contiguous to Pakistan.

Infact Patel had offered him, to forget Hyderabad and take Kashmir.

The fact is Jinnah lost at his own game, he assumed Kashmir was already his but he will cause problems for India in Hyderabad and Junnagarh.
In the end he neither got Hyderabad or Junnagarh and even lost out in Kashmir.

 

[TopGun786]

How can you lie? Most refugees came almost empty handed but they got rehabilitated by dint of their own hardwork.

Yes.

 

[PradoTLC]

Kashmir belongs to Pakistan .. real india are those smelly Malus..

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Kashmir belongs to Pakistan .. real india are those smelly Malus..

Be a mature and intelligent practical man, just change the name from Srinagar Highway to Kashmir Highway. Else nothing more is possible.

Being a Muslim country based on religious, you may even claim that all Muslim countries belong to you, but who cares.

 

[PradoTLC]

Be a mature and intelligent practical man, just change the name from Srinagar Highway to Kashmir Highway. Else nothing more is possible.

Being a Muslim, you may even claim that all Muslim countries belong to you, but who cares.

Be intellectually honest and not be a typical Indian retard

The rules of partition were very clear.
Muslim majority were to become Pakistan.

Indians being Indians love to re write rules to their settings. India has no business in Kashmir it never did only because of a tyrant of a Hindu ruler signed document signing it of to India?

same case with Hyderabad it never wanted to be with india

I can go on .. but I suggest you do some basic research before routinely getting own ed by me 247

Kashmir is ours that is why you need plug half your infantry there, whereas no soldiers in malu land..

seriously who wants them ?

Reminding hendooo bindooos of what their thug army did

Hyderabad 1948: India's hidden massacre - BBC News

In September and October 1948, soon after independence from Britain, tens of thousands of people were brutally slaughtered in central India.

www.bbc.com

 

[kmc_chacko]

I think solution for entire problem will be lets conduct plebiscite for entire Pakistan, Baloch, G&B, Punjab, Kashmir & Junagarh and ask people to select between Democratic India, Establishment's Pakistan & IK's Medina might there may be permanent peace or might be chances of seeing new boarders alignments.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Be intellectually honest and not be a typical Indian retard

The rules of partition were very clear.
Muslim majority were to become Pakistan.

Indians being Indians love to re write rules to their settings. India has no business in Kashmir it never did only because of a tyrant of a Hindu ruler signed document signing it of to India?

same case with Hyderabad it never wanted to be with india

I can go on .. but I suggest you do some basic research before routinely getting own ed by me 247

Kashmir is ours that is why you need plug half your infantry there, whereas no soldiers in malu land..

seriously who wants them ?

Reminding hendooo bindooos of what their thug army did

Hyderabad 1948: India's hidden massacre - BBC News

In September and October 1948, soon after independence from Britain, tens of thousands of people were brutally slaughtered in central India.

www.bbc.com

Seriously, man!!!

You, people, don't know the history or are not being taught it.

First of all, Kashmir was never intended to be a part of Pakistan in any scenario, and even before and after independence, it was intended to be a free country. However, your leaders simply drew blood by sending armed individuals to occupy a free region.

Then everyone knows the history, how India got involved and it became part of India.

Second, learn about Junagarh. Jinnah tried to get a Hindu majority state and did everything but failed. Why did he forget that India and Pakistan are divided according to the beliefs of Hindus and Muslims, respectively?

means - tera kutta kutta aur mera kutta Tomy, if we do anything, that is fine; if others do the same, then they are wrong? Wht the F*

There were many things, but I don't wish to lecture on history here. In short, "Kashmir was and supposed to never be part of Pakistan."

The problem with most Pakistanis is that they have been taught with wrong history which is written by their establishment

 

[TopGun786]

I think solution for entire problem will be lets conduct plebiscite for entire Pakistan, Baloch, G&B, Punjab, Kashmir & Junagarh and ask people to select between Democratic India, Establishment's Pakistan & IK's Medina might there may be permanent peace or might be chances of seeing new boarders alignments.

Trying to be smart and sarcastic at the same time?
Did you have your daily dose of that major organic drink this morning?

 

[CallSignMaverick]

Pakistan logic: Junagarh is Pakistan's territory because the Muslim king of the Hindu majority Junagarh acceded to Pakistan.

Also Pakistan: Kashmir is Pakistan's territory because it's a muslim majority region even if it's Hindu king acceded to India.


Laying claim on one contradicts your claim on the other.

 

[VkdIndian]

That modified route proposed by the UNCIP (i.e. 13 Aug 48 and 5 Jan 49 Resolutions) was ACCEPTED by India

India accepted the resolutions, but not the method of their implementation.

What was the requirement of McNaughton report? It was because Paksiatn didn’t want to implement the first resolution 47 as it is. Since it required Paksiatn to remove it’s forces and the supplement to it clarified few aspects which made it more palatable to Paksiatn.

The main issues that cropped were not with the resolutions per se but with the modalities that required for their implementation. Both Paksiatn and India had reservations about them. That is what required protracted discussions. To start with, it was Pakistan that caused all delays due to it’s demand of clear roadmap to plebiscite.

Putting the entire blame on India would be incorrect and unfair.

 

[VkdIndian]

Furthermore, the determination of "who was right and who wasn't" had to be made by the arbitrator chosen by India itself.

India never chose one. It was recommended by UN resolution but India decided to not go on that route.

Jinnah didn’t want to coerce Hyderabad to join Paksiatn but he did play it poorly w.r.t Junagadh. He did display a weakness there.

Josef writes “It should be stated, without describing in any way the nature of this conflict, that both sides used it (Junagadh) to strengthen their position on Kashmir. The Pakistan representative pointed to the inconsistent attitude of India, which refused to respect the validity of the Junagadh ruler's accession to Pakistan, and yet insisted upon the legality of the Kashmir Maharaja's accession to India. India protested, by the same token, against Pakistan's contradictory approach of defending the steps taken by the ruler of Junagadh as legally correct, but rejecting the validity of the steps taken by the Kashmir ruler.”

Both the nations tried to outsmart the other. Paksiatn failed, India succeeded.

The accusations that India was never keen on Plebiscite could be correct or incorrect.
The moment never came because both the nations played their part in creating roadblocks and the moment never arrived.

Paksiatn was the main culprit in the beginning and India towards later part, during the negotiations with UN delegations. The accusations that India was the sole culprit are completely incorrect.

 

[kmc_chacko]

Did you have your daily dose of that major organic drink this morning?

Can you please elaborate "major organic drink"