third eye
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 18,519
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
all of u epople (idnians) going on hwo about how pakistan never withrew her troops therefore india enver had to compeltle the plebisticite
ILL REMIND YOU THA TPAKISTAN DEMANDED THAT INDIA WITHDREW HER TROOPS IN ORDER TO HOLD THE PLEBISTICITE IN JUNAGADH amd inda reufed and forced the plebisticite anyway.
so by that logic its hypocritical not to hold the plebisiticte in kashmir JUST because pak never wihtdrew form kashmir; because a referneudum was held in junagarh even though india never withdrew from junagarh.
oh its ok for the indian military to occupy a state acceded to paksitan, but not the **** military to occupy a state acceded to inida.
its ok for india to force a referndum in a **** acceded state; but its not ok for pakistan to force a refernedum in an inidan acceded state.
india maintains it had the right no to hold a plebistice in kashmir based on the fact that pakistan never compelted her terms of negotiation; but india forgets that a plebistice in junagarh was held even though india never completed the terms of agreement for it.
indians position is that the isntrument of accesion is final and irrevocable. except in the case on junagarh (coughs**)
also
two things you might not know
the UN REVISED the reosltion passed in 49 (that called for the withdrawal of pak troops and a referendum in kashmir) to withdrawal of INDIAN AND PAKISTANI TROOPs and then a referendum. guess waht. pakistan agreed on all seven points. india refused.
why did india refuse?
and the toher thing ou mgiht not know is that the isntrument of accession conatined a subclause - which called for a referendum. seeing as the referndum was never carried out; the accession process was neevr completed.
Isn't the spell check option available to all ?