...because its the UN...its wants to keep its decision as neutral as possible, irrespective of who's right and who's wrong.
Yes, because once again, the world doesn't want to take sides.
Oh please - If you are going to pass that puerile tripe off as an argument then we are done here.
What does "neutrality" in international arbitration, or any arbitration for that matter, mean?
Was "world pressure" over Kargil "neutral"?
Let me know when you have a rebuttal based on reason and facts.
Indian congress leaders agreed to split India very reluctantly, if you realize.
The British were no longer in charge. They were wrapping up and leaving.
There is nothing colonialist about my comments:
India, before the idea of Pakistan was created, was envisioned by all Indian leaders, Muslims, HIndus and Sikhs as a secular republic.
India isn't some foreign country that is occupying land. Every Indian has an equal stake in the country and is treated equally. This goes against the basic principle of colonialism.
The Congress leadership had no choice, the Muslims had spoken. It was our choice to carve out our own nation from the colony that the British were leaving, as it was yours to carve out a nation called India.
There was an "agreement between" the British, Pro Pakistan leadership and the Congress, on the status and nature of the colony after they left - that status was to be the division of the colony into two countries. India never existed as a nation before 1947, as you so rightly pointed out, it was but an idea, as was Pakistan. How long the idea existed before fulfillment is irrelevant - that other ideas came around and proved just as strong is not.
To suggest that "India agreed", indicates a desire, to me, of trying to present an impression of "control" over Pakistan's very existence, as if you gave charity - that is offensive. "India" could not agree to anything, since "India" did not exist at that point.
I'm afraid that sometimes the right leadership is needed to show the correct path.
That is for each nation and its people to decide - The alternative is to live through "wars to spread democracy and freedom" in perpetuity.
However, for all historical, geographical, cultural reasons, Kashmir is part of India. India's first PM was a kashmiri, and Kashmiris have played an important role in throughout the history of India, ancient and modern.
Yeah, i wonder why that argument didn't work at the UN.
You might as well claim Pakistan as well - Liaquat Ali Khan was born in the area now called India, as was Musharraf, not to mentions the millions of immigrants from the area that now comprises India.
The two countries, India and Pakistan, were created out of the same colony, an argument based on "culture, history and geography" is one that Pakistan can make just as forcibly. There never was a unified entity before the British, so "India" can claim "historical ties" only as much as Pakistan can.
The only deciding factor left is the expression of the kashmiris wishes about which country
they wish to join.