We can understand English ...its written First Pakistan to do that , but now no benefit as you have already sold Aksaichin to China and Shimla agreement has superseded first take back Aksaichin
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
@Viper0011. ...dont talk crap!...The revolt you are talking about are not for seperation..they atre called Naxalities..(Read up on it)....By any chance are you a school kid?....As far as sabotage peace inside Baluchistan....You do know that the rebels are begging for Indian support right?....Also please do read up on USA's current stand on Kashmir...at least support our Govenment of USA's stand on this.......also a request put your real flags up!...I am a citizen of this great country...(USA).. holding a PIO card....and I support USA stand on this issue.
We can understand English ...its written First Pakistan to do that ,
No, You don't... It's plain and simple English:
"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Para 52 of Document S/1971)
If he is really from USA..I am sure he is from Arlington, VA....I have met a whole lot of these 2nd generation kids ... who are fed wrong information......I usually just ignore these punks.He says that he's been on the subject for forty years. I say that he has read up Pakistani pamphlets and is spewing out a poorly digested sample.
What an idotic and immature country India is!!! It just baffling. Kashmir is an internationally recognized dispute. Its people dont want to live with India. That too is a known fact. And they are talking Azad Kashmir!
He says that he's been on the subject for forty years. I say that he has read up Pakistani pamphlets and is spewing out a poorly digested sample.
Are you drunk, on drugs, or arithmetically challenged? Four decades?
And I say he knows about the subject more than the Indians we have here on PDF (there are a few exceptions of course) .. ... I have seen you give positive ratings to Indian Members for posting the usual Indian lies and blatantly false propaganda on this subject .... We all have our biases and prejudices, Sir
He says that he's been on the subject for forty years. I say that he has read up Pakistani pamphlets and is spewing out a poorly digested sample.
Yup, 4 decades, meaning 40 years, meaning 1 decade = 10 year * 4 = 40 years!! Tell me that I just made you think that I am an Indian also, with my shinny, superior mathematical skills. Of course, no one else can do better Math than India. Wait, did I just say that? Its a myth......
No, You don't... It's plain and simple English:
"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Para 52 of Document S/1971)
Sir Owen Dixon, the prominent Australian jurist, was a UN appointed official mediator between India and Pakistan. He met with the Indian and Pakistani officials many times to discuss the demilitarization process and exercise of the functions of government during plebiscite period (necessary for holding a free and fair plebiscite). But India was not willing to agree to any form of demilitarization (or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite that were necessary for holding a free and fair plebiscite) and that's why, in the final report submitted by him to the Security Council, he blamed India for halting the process.
Later, the UN in its Resolution No. 98, adopted on 23rd December 1952, after a thorough examination of the matter in the Security Council, proposed a demilitarization plan. But again, India rejected the proposal (Pakistan agreed to it).
So, the UN appointed official mediator blamed India for refusing to accept any demilitarization plan, and later India rejected UN demilitarization proposals (thus proving Sir Owen Dixon right). Now compare it with the Indian State Propaganda/claim: "the plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan refused to withdraw its forces"
In the face of the clear and irrefutable evidence that comes from the UN itself, the Indian claim holds no credibility and the Indian State Propaganda is patently an attempt to deceive the world. The simple truth is that India did not allow the creation of conditions necessary for the holding of a free and fair plebiscite under UN auspices.
I've sat with UN people on either side. Unlike you, I represent no one, I represent the truth. And yes, 40 years, FOUR ZERO years. Back when Gen. Zia had taken over Pakistan and Ms. Gandhi was still alive, jumping and pumping Indian politics!! I've said it many times on here, not everyone on here is a fanboy.
Sometimes, you hear or face the bitter truth. You can try to f*uk with it but it only gets worst. Better to swallow the pride and accept the reality. There is nothing wrong with it. Also, allow me to surprise you more. The most propaganda I've ever seen (even WAY more than Communists did) can now be found in a 4th grader child's text book in India. Like the Vedic times, this stuff about Kashmir where Mr. Jinnah "signed" away the Kashmir. Totally lying about the reality of the fact that apparently the "largest democracy" on the planet claiming nation, un-democratically took over an entire state where 91% of the people had voted against it.
Even today, if per the UN's decision back in the 60's, and respecting the Kashmiri population, a VOTE is conducted, Kashmir would become an independent state in days ( a VOTE is a human and a democratic right of the people to pick how and by whom they want to be governed). This is just the reality. I won't argue more. There is a saying, if you argue with stupids, they would bring you down to their level and will try to beat with stupidity and talk.