Junagadh dispute & Kashmir

[ice_man]

No India will never hold Plebiscite on its part of KashmireIts from official Indian site.
It would be better advice you Pakistani to have plebiscite in your provinces to set an example and to pressurize world to do the same in Kashmir.
Pakistan could have tried that with East Pakistan too in 1971.

and this reinforces our belief why Pakistan never withdrew!! because we can never trust india.....and india ran to the UN for a plebiscite only because it knew in this case its stand was wrong!

 

[R.A.W.]

and this reinforces our belief why Pakistan never withdrew!! because we can never trust india.....and india ran to the UN for a plebiscite only because it knew in this case its stand was wrong!

So you mean to say a theif went to the court because he theft. Sounds amazing............

 

[Goodperson]

and this reinforces our belief why Pakistan never withdrew!! because we can never trust india.....and india ran to the UN for a plebiscite only because it knew in this case its stand was wrong!

What reinforces belief ? Pakistan never intended it was only interested in land,

Non-implementation of UN Resolutions by Pakistan

6. Despite India's completely legal and valid position on Jammu & Kashmir, in order to find a solution to the situation created by Pakistan's aggression, India had accepted the option of holding a plebiscite in J&K. It had, however, been made clear by the Indian leaders that holding of such a plebiscite would be conditional upon Pakistan fulfilling Parts (I) & (II) of the UNCIP resolutions of 13 August, 1948, which inter alia, required that all forces regular and irregular under the control of both sides shall cease fire; Pakistan would withdraw its troops, it would endeavour to secure withdrawal of tribesmen and Pak nationals and India will withdraw bulk of its forces once the UNCIP confirms that the tribesmen and Pak nationals have withdrawn and Pak troops are being withdrawn. India was also to ensure that the state government takes various measures to preserve peace, law and order. Indian acceptance of these UNCIP resolutions was also subject to several conditions and assurances given by UNCIP including that Pakistan would be excluded from all affairs of Jammu & Kashmir, "Azad J & K Government" would not be recognised, sovereignty of J & K government over the entire territory of the state shall not be brought into question, territory occupied by Pakistan shall not be consolidated, and Pakistani troops would be withdrawn completely. Pakistan never fulfilled these assurances.

Preconditions for Plebiscite Never Fulfilled by Pakistan

7. The Government of Pakistan wrecked any possibility of plebiscite being conducted by not implementing part II of the resolution, perhaps because it was fully aware of what the result of such an exercise would be. The Pakistani troops, which were to withdraw from the state, did not do so. As a result normal conditions under which a plebiscite could be held were never created.

8. India had accepted these resolutions, subject to assurances, (mentioned in para 6) and in the hope of having the matter resolved quickly. Pakistan, however, wrecked the implementation of the resolutions at that time by not fulfilling the preconditions. As V.K. Menon stated in the Security Council (763 Meeting, 23 January, 1957): "if an offer is made and it is not accepted at the time it is made, it cannot be held for generations over the heads of those who made it". With Pakistan's intransigence, and passage of time, the offer lapsed and was overtaken by events. In fact, the representative of India (M.C. Chagla) had stated in the Security Council as far back as 1964 (1088 meeting, 5 February 1964): "I wish to make it clear on behalf of my Government that under no circumstances can we agree to the holding of a plebiscite in Kashmir".

9. The then Prime Minister of India, had in a statement in New York, stated on March 31, 1966 that: "any plebiscite today would by definition amount to questioning the integrity of India. It would raise the issue of secession - an issue on which even the United States fought a civil war not so very long ago. We cannot and will not tolerate a second partition of India on religious grounds. It would destroy the very basis of the Indian State." Today, thirty-six years later, the Pakistani position is even more untenable.

 

[ice_man]

@goodperson please read what i wrote before!!! before you make me go around in circles!!!

 

[Goodperson]

@goodperson please read what i wrote before!!! before you make me go around in circles!!!

All the points you rasied do not make sense as they are not facts. My points are taken from Ministry of external affairs site.

1) Indian army killing millions ?

You are still in dream world, You cannot change the history dear.

2) Maharajas subject were not of his religion.

This is point raised by Pakistan not pint of Contention he still was the ruler.

3) lord mountbatten was in a triangle involving nehru & the lords wife!!.

There is lot of theories going around the same Nehru had a Charming personality many more theories could still be formed.

 

[ice_man]

First step Pakistan withdraws.....second step if India thinks that pakistan has withdrawn all tribesmen then they should withdraw themselves and the following is the main reason why pakistan would never withdraw!! and hence the whole UN resolution thing is a drama! by the UN and India

When the Indian forces shall have been reduced to the minimum strength mentioned in (a) above, arrange in consultation with the Commission for the stationing of the remaining forces to be carried out in accordance with the following principles:

1. That the presence of troops should not afford any intimidation or appearance of intimidation to the inhabitants of the State;

2. That as small a number as possible should be retained in forward areas;

3. That any reserve of troops which may be included in the total strength should be located within their present base area.

@good person

i have to quote myself for you!!!!!!! this is why PAKISTAN never withdrew from AZAD KASHMIR because we had scene how the indians had annexed junagadh and hyderabad! so this time we thought no way are we falling for the talk!

now as for indian army killing millions hasn't the indian army killed millions in kashmir till date

and if MAHRAJAH was the rightful ruler and the will of his subjects was supposed to be ignored then why did india annex jugardh saying the will off the people should be heard!!!

come on their are articles of nehru getting it on with the LORD's wife! let's leave it out shall we!

 

[Goodperson]

@good person

i have to quote myself for you!!!!!!! this is why PAKISTAN never withdrew from AZAD KASHMIR because we had scene how the indians had annexed junagadh and hyderabad! so this time we thought no way are we falling for the talk!

now as for indian army killing millions hasn't the indian army killed millions in kashmir till date

s1QM0F4crr8[/media] - DIVIDE INDIA (100 PERCENT TRUE SHOWING WITH WESTERN EYES).SHOULDONE DAY KASHMIR AND KHALISTAN WILL GET FREEDOM . HELP FOR KASHMIR AND KHALISTAN

and if MAHRAJAH was the rightful ruler and the will of his subjects was supposed to be ignored then why did india annex jugardh saying the will off the people should be heard!!!

come on their are articles of nehru getting it on with the LORD's wife! let's leave it out shall we!

You are not sticking to factsand your counter arguments were feeble.

Khalisthan insurgency is dead and so will be Kashmirs insurgency fate.

I thought you will come up with facts not usual rants. I am no more interested in continuing discussions with you.

 

[deckingraj]

C ice_man there are two ways of discussing things..
a)No matter what i am not going to change my stand..
b) Well why not learn from the discussion or challenge the other person by logic


Just look at your these three posts...i am ignoring other's like indian army killing millions etc because i would like to have constructive discussion with you or any other pakistani friend

what???? junagaradh is a part of india end of story!!! hafeez mohammed saeed their is a case lodged against him...if he is guilty he will be tried if he is innocent we will let him walk...!! but we are not going to give a judgement until proof is brought forward!

first one you are saying for hafeez saeed there is no evidence and hence cannot be tried...

and india's justice is really BLIND!! jagdish tytler is a free man(behind golden temple issue)

advani ran for presidency ( behind the babri masjid issue)

none of the cases against anyone in india have ever been solved even though clear evidence is available!

second one when i showed that how indian agencies got colonel purohit arrested against Malegaon blast ans raised suspicion for hjis involvement in Smjahuta express you just changed the topic and gave me examples of Jagdish Tytler ...Advani etc etc....I being a sikh want TYtler to die but then again what evidence are you talking about??? I mean lets have a constructive argument rather than saying Indian justice system is blind blah blah...

@goodperson please read what i wrote before!!! before you make me go around in circles!!!

In your last statement you said go around in circles...If that is true what the above two posts are about...Isnt it a bit hypocritical??


Now please let me know if you want to have constructive argument or not...I am more than willing to learn about history if you have some information and would like to correct myself or vice versa...So let me try and hope you would reciprocate in the same manner...

well this sadly is an INDIAN dream that might be realized under the current MR.10%....but in reality we can never make LoC the international border because that is not Pakistans stand that is solely INDIA's stand on the issue!!

Are you kidding me...Thats not indian dream that is the only possible solution..its called being practical..Indian dream is get whole of Kashmir because we say it is out integral part...but then we also know if the solution is not amicalble(accepted by both) region will never see peace..and thats why pragmatic people on both sides see LOC as IB...And what mr 10% are you talking about...there has not been any progress on this front after emergency in Pak by Musharraf..In other words no matter how much u hate zardari he has made no concessions(neither he can)...because in india we have strong believe that in Pakistan Army is a state in itself and no soltion is final unless there is a nod from Army.. Here's a link of what Musharraf says (you will find its not just indian dream)

Musharraf regrets his ‘political misstep’ that derailed ‘possible Kashmir resolution’

and in your post you brought up siachen as well buddy india INVADED siachen so its not an ego issue it is an issue of OUR land being taken up by the enemy very similar infact identical to the issue of KARGIL! infact i will go out here on a limb and say if Siachen never happened KARGIL would have never happened!

You missed my point...I am saying that we are fighting even on Siachen(i am not talking about why)...it was used as a metaphor that it is nothing but our ego...I know it has been talked all over again...but there is a difference between Siachen and Kargil...Here are my thoughts and i would request you please challenge them with your counter points...

a) Demarcation - As per shimla agreement LOC was clearly demarcated but the siachen part as it was/is unhabitable...Though we both are so stupid to even fight for land which is tactically and startegically of no importance but ego/prestige..Here aer our respective government stands on them

dispute is essentially about the alignment of the Line of Control (LoC) north of its terminal point at NJ 9842. Pakistan insists that it goes northeastwards and therefore, the glacier lies in Pakistani territory, while India says that the LoC must follow a geographical feature, ie, the Soltoro ridge and so, Siachin glacier is within India.

Again please note that no actual demarcation..Its just perception which is in contrast different to Kargil

b) Timing of the issue - Just before Kargil India Pak took a bold step and then comes the famous Lahore Bus trip...The timing of Kargil was really bad and and lot have been said about it..whereas when it comes to Siachen both sides were fighting due to a cartographic controversy about what side controls the glacier.. Can you suggest any such confusion or controversy for Kargil???

c) International Reaction - The less we talk about it the more better.. You very well know how world reacted against Kargil vs Siachen(even though nukes played a big part in it along with timing) but nevertheless Pakistan almost got isolated her on Kargil issue..Did india got the same treatment on Siachen??? I am not sure please fill in...

What say???

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Once Indian Government id ready to arrest the RAW Indian Colonel that bombed the Samjotha Train Express and killed 93 Pakistan citizens and injured 180, we can disucss Qari Saeed. Indian terrorism also has to part of the issue.

Whether India finds and punishes the perpetrators of the Samjhauta express has nothing to do with Hafiz Saeed (unless he is the perpetrator).

Hafiz Saeed will be arrested and tried when there is credible evidence against him implicating him in the Mumbai attacks, which as of now has not been provided by India.

India has provided evidence implicating the two masterminds of Mumbai, Shah and Lakhvi, and that is why they are behind bars and being tried, with half a dozen others.

End of story on that count.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Read historical facts

Kashmirs accession to India

1. The Accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India, signed by the Maharaja (erstwhile ruler of the State) on 26th October, 1947, was completely valid in terms of the Government of India Act (1935), Indian Independence Act (1947) and international law and was total and irrevocable. The Accession was also supported by the largest political party in the state, the National Conference. In the Indian Independence Act, there was no provision for any conditional accession. The Instrument of Accession executed by the Maharaja was the same as the ones executed by over 500 princely states in India. There has been no complication in any of the other cases. There would have been none in this case either, except for Pakistan's action in sending in tribal invaders first (in October 1947) and its own regular troops later (May 1948).

2. Lord Mountbatten's acceptance of the Instrument of Accession was unconditional. He said: "I do hereby accept this Instrument of Accession". The Instrument of Accession was complete with the offer and acceptance.

3. There can, therefore, be no question of negotiating on the question of accession of the State of Jammu & Kashmir to India.


Its only Pakistan which calls it a disputed territory.

Have you heard any country conducting referendum of its own territory ? Just because neighbor eyes the real estate just because of religion?

If Pakistan was the only country to consider it disputed and if the accession was legal and final, the UNSC would not have ruled it disputed, nor would the Indian Govt. herself have accepted that position.

And in fact, under the rules of partition, disputed accessions were not final until a plebiscite was held, which is why India held plebiscites in Junagadh and Hyderabad after militarily occupying them, and which is why the UNSC passed resolutions calling for a plebiscite. Do you think they pulled that out of thin air?

Your argument presented above arguing the accession was final and legal is a blatant lie.

Also, regarding the 'conditions' you keep mentioning, as I pointed out before - India cannot argue about 'conditions' unless it re-commits to the UNSC resolutions. Furthermore, the argument of 'Pakistan not fulfilling conditions' is a canard that I have debunked in my exchange with Bandit on this thread: http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/7904-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.html

Continue the discussion on 'conditions' there please.

Back to topic, enough hijacking. We are now discussing Kashmir, Siachen and Hafiz Saeed here

 

[brahmastra]

self delete

 

[ice_man]

@deckingraj



second one when i showed that how indian agencies got colonel purohit arrested against Malegaon blast ans raised suspicion for hjis involvement in Smjahuta express you just changed the topic and gave me examples of Jagdish Tytler ...Advani etc etc....I being a sikh want TYtler to die but then again what evidence are you talking about??? I mean lets have a constructive argument rather than saying Indian justice system is blind blah blah...

ok let's play it your way.....well see i guess we want HAFEEZ hanged but then again lack of evidence similar to the lack of evidecne against tytler & parohit has lead hafeez to be a free man and that is what i implied! but IF HAFEEZ is GUILTY he will be tried under our law & justice will prevail! no quiestion about it!

Are you kidding me...Thats not indian dream that is the only possible solution..its called being practical..Indian dream is get whole of Kashmir because we say it is out integral part...but then we also know if the solution is not amicalble(accepted by both) region will never see peace..and thats why pragmatic people on both sides see LOC as IB...And what mr 10% are you talking about...there has not been any progress on this front after emergency in Pak by Musharraf..In other words no matter how much u hate zardari he has made no concessions(neither he can)...because in india we have strong believe that in Pakistan Army is a state in itself and no soltion is final unless there is a nod from Army.. Here's a link of what Musharraf says (you will find its not just indian dream)



well firstly LoC means LINE OF CONTROL so whoever controls whicever part its his so Kargil is actually not crossing the border my friend! and ehance you will never hear of skrimishes in punjab or sindh between indian army & pak army! but you will always hear about skrimishes in the LoC region! both sides try to get the upper hand....

and you go on to say the "timing was wrong" well the timing was wrong in terms of military preparedness!! our army discounted the airforce factor completely....but that is another discussion for another day! and you said it was musharraf's dream and not just india's well this link will be a good read for you

Musharraf defends Kargil, says he brought Kashmir to the negotiation table

so see calling it "pragmatic" or "integral" part of india is concluding the negotiation before even starting!

i said before indian cannot come to table with a mind set that kashmir is our integral part and the pragmatic solution is to make LoC the International Border! that is a conclusion india has already planned how can we talk further!

if you want my honest opinon there is no point of "DILAOUGE" with india when india comes to the table with a conclusion already in mind....both sides need to be flexible


@agnostic muslims i thought this thread was about similarities between junagardh & kashmir annexation

 

[PlanetWarrior]

IMO India and Pakistan needs to step back some 50 years and should try to forget the past 50 years of bloodshed and turmoil in resolving the Kashmir issue. It is sad that the bloodshed and turmoil happened but for negotiations to start it must be fresh. If Pakistan is concerned with making the wishes of ordinary Kashmiris come true then it must impress that upon India in discussions. Maybe two negotiators from both sides who put aside bitterness of past 50 years are needed ? Everybody else has offered to mediate on Kashmir issue and even the English who caused the problem insulted India and Pakistan by doing so as well. India and Pakistan are not 3rd rate barbaric countries in the world that they cannot solve a simple problem between themselves which is causing a large problem ? Kasmir must be approached with an open mind by both parties and with the best interest of Kashmiris in mind. Any selfish interests will result in problems again. If Kashmir is the catalyst for peace between India and Pakistan then all other issues are not important. Kalistan etc are irrelevant to the issue of Kashmir.

 

[ice_man]

IMO India and Pakistan needs to step back some 50 years and should try to forget the past 50 years of bloodshed and turmoil in resolving the Kashmir issue. It is sad that the bloodshed and turmoil happened but for negotiations to start it must be fresh. If Pakistan is concerned with making the wishes of ordinary Kashmiris come true then it must impress that upon India in discussions. Maybe two negotiators from both sides who put aside bitterness of past 50 years are needed ? Everybody else has offered to mediate on Kashmir issue and even the English who caused the problem insulted India and Pakistan by doing so as well. India and Pakistan are not 3rd rate barbaric countries in the world that they cannot solve a simple problem between themselves which is causing a large problem ? Kasmir must be approached with an open mind by both parties and with the best interest of Kashmiris in mind. Any selfish interests will result in problems again. If Kashmir is the catalyst for peace between India and Pakistan then all other issues are not important. Kalistan etc are irrelevant to the issue of Kashmir.

see well you say come to the table with an open mind & yet you say Pakistan should impress upon india it is concerned about kashmiris! this is the problem INDIA always says pakistan should do the following bla bla bla! & whenever foreign powers have tried to mediate between india & pakistan the INDIANS have said kashmir what kashmir its our internal matter!

so see firstly india should come to the table with an open mind!

 

[PlanetWarrior]

see well you say come to the table with an open mind & yet you say Pakistan should impress upon india it is concerned about kashmiris! this is the problem INDIA always says pakistan should do the following bla bla bla! & whenever foreign powers have tried to mediate between india & pakistan the INDIANS have said kashmir what kashmir its our internal matter!

so see firstly india should come to the table with an open mind!

My point being that Pakistan should impress upon India that it is not entering into discussions to claim Kashmir as its property but rather seeking to realise the wishes of the Kashmiris. Lets face it that if Pakistan unilaterally claims Kashmir as its property then there really is no point in India entering into discussions. In that case the Indian attitude will stand as it is which is "I got it . Now come and try and take it away from me"