Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[DesiGuy]

yep and you can see some of these examples as evidences on this forum.


just look at 2 comment above my post.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Stop trolling.

 

[Parashuram1]

I don't think this would be possible because there is a large pro-Indian Kashmiri community of the native Pandits who had been displaced from the state and therefore granting the separatists' wishes against the wishes of the original inhabitants along with many other pro-democratic present-day Kashmiri natives.

I have been to Anantnag city in Kashmir (since it is my wife's hometown). I was surprised to see that barring a certain amount of separatists that are seen shouting on the T.V, most of the valley people are tired of violence and want daily provisions like electricity, water, education etc and are happy to be called Indians.

It was a pleasant surprise contrary to what neutral stance people here in Europe maintain. This might sound a little unbelievable to most Pakistani fellow members, but I assure you that this is the scenario. The residents in the province are tired of external terrorism and bomb explosions.

Now even Pakistani citizenship faces the same dangers because of terrorist outfits operating in their country.

 

[Spitfighter]

Nowhere close to refusing to honor the resolutions period, which is India's current position, and has been for several decades.

The point is that Pakistan has violated the UNSC resolutions on several occasions.

However, Pakistan remains committed to the underlying principle of Kashmiris determining their destiny through a plebiscite, whereas India does not.

True, unless they want a country of their own.

Pakistan has not willfully refused to implement the resolutions, so no, Pakistan is not on that list.

How about the NPT?

Perhaps I should have put better punctuation in there ... 'Pressure India to implement its commitments and pressure India to negotiate with Pakistan on how to arrive at the goal of plebiscite'.

Its time to assess the situation realistically. India will not allow any interference in Kashmir and its not like anyone's in a hurry to pressure us in the first place.

Nothing in the resolutions suggests 'defunctness' based on whether an insurgency occurred or not, in fact, the resolutions remain valid until replaced by new resolutions or the resolution of the dispute between the concerned parties.

Ok.

Kashmir, UN Security Council Resolution 80


"3. Requests the two Governments to take all necessary precautions to ensure that (heir agreements
regarding the cease-fire shall continue to be faithfully observed, and "calls upon them to take all
possible measures to ensure the creation and maintenance of 'an atmosphere favourable to the
promotion of further negotiations;"

The insurgency has created an atmosphere that is unfavorable to the furthering of negotiations for the foreseeable future.

We can go in circles forever.

It is wiser to address the strategic concerns of both parties rather than whip a dead horse. The resolutions are defunct. A new approach is needed.

Pakistan does have the moral high ground - we stand for giving the Kashmiris the right to self-determination per the UNSC resolutions and the commitments to them of plebiscite by India and Pakistan, whereas India stands for occupation of J&K and a refusal to let Kashmiris decide their future as India herself committed to.

What if the Kashmiris decide they want their own state? What does Pakistan stand for then?

Like I said, instead of wasting time trying to up one each other, we should focus our efforts on looking for real, workable solutions. We will never see an end to the dispute until and unless everyone's concerns are addressed.

Once again, focus on the issue. At this point it doesn't really matter as to who has the moral high ground or who did what, a situation exists and a feasible solution (i.e one that coherently addresses the concerns of all parties) must be found.

And you continue to point out why Pakistan has the high moral ground by continuing to willfully declare India's intent to violate its commitment to the UNSC and the Kashmiri people, the commitment of plebiscite.

Once again with the moral high ground. Let's make something clear here, Pakistan does not support Kashmiri freedom, it backs a resolution that forces them to accede to either India or Pakistan.

What good is your so called 'moral high ground' if the majority of Kashmiris aren't interested in joining either nation? how is this decades old resolution relevant to our time?

The excuse of a 'weak government' is a poor excuse. Even if one assumes the PA calls the shots instead of the GoP, why would the GoP not coordinate with the PA on negotiations with India and why would any proposal not amenable to the PA even be put forward? After all, as you pointed out, the PA as an institution backed Musharraf's peace efforts and proposals, which were some of the most significant for decades.

Musharraf was a military dictator, he had the power and the means to push through a resolution which is why the PA backed him in the first place. With him gone and Zardari's popularity in the gutter it is unlikely that the GoP will be able to do the same.

India is doing little to indicate it is interested in resolving the dispute, as indicated by the following statement:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...an-insists-kashmir-territorial-dispute-5.html

False.

"Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon said He called for adopting ‘creative approaches’ to settle issues with China and Pakistan".

India wants to put an end to the dispute, you just have to come around to the idea. Lets see how things turn out in the next 4 years or so.

So what exactly are you threatening Pakistan with by suggesting 'nothing will change'?
India appears to have indicated 'nothing will change' all on its own.

I'm no one to threaten anyone with anything. All I'm saying is that Pakistan will gain nothing by nurturing these so called 'freedom fighters'. Violence isn't going to help anyone, not us, not you and certainly not the Kashmiris.

 

[Jackdaws]

It's a simple enough question. I just want to know why invade an independent country and then ask for its independence?

 

[Jackdaws]

Oh but JuD is a charitable organization - is it not?!?! Never seen the Red Cross or Salvation Army talk about taking over a region by force.

 

[karan.1970]

Oh but JuD is a charitable organization - is it not?!?! Never seen the Red Cross or Salvation Army talk about taking over a region by force.

Dont be so uncharitable towards JuD. They distribute terror for free.. Don't they??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

First, refusing to withdraw your citizens and tribesmen, then constitutionally incorporating Northern Areas leaving it in a limbo, then ceding territory to China, then blatantly violating the cease fire agreement in 1965.

Those holy UN resolutions became defunct in 1965. Thank Ayub for that.

Nonsense, as has been pointed out to you before.

UNSC resolution :http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc13aug48.htm

TRUCE AGREEMENT

Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in Part I, both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.

1. (l) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavor to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

As the language of the resolution clearly indicates, the withdrawal of regular and irregular forces was contingent upon negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN appointed commission, and rightly so, since the militarization of the conflict meant that one side could attempt to seize control in case of a unilateral, unconditional withdrawal by the other.

Second, Pakistan has not incorporated Gligit-Baltistan into its constitution as Pakistani territory - that it did not do so in fact was the subject of a lot of criticizm from the people of the region. Pakista has therefore not tried to unilaterally change the status of the territory as India did by incorporating j&K into its constitution as an Indian State.

Third, yes, Pakistan did indeed try and spark a rebellion in J&K, but only because it had become increasingly clear that India had little interest in allowing the Kashmiris to determine their future through a plebiscite. So while the attempt to spark an insurgency can be termed a violation of the ceasefire agreement, it is far less serious than the Indian violation of the right to self-determination for the Kashmiris, which is the bed-rock principle of the UNSC resolutions.

The resolutions do not become 'defunct' with a ceasefire violation, they become defunct only when replaced with a new set of resolutions or a resolution of the dispute between the parties concerned.

And Nehru had indicated long before 1965 that India would violate its commitment to a plebiscite:

On April 2, 1956, he himself had made statements at a press conference, which suggested that he had, indeed, ruled out a plebiscite. A question was put to him: "An inference has been drawn that you do not want now any plebiscite to be held in Kashmir. Is it correct?" Nehru replied: "Largely so; I shall explain myself. What I have said was that we have tried and discussed the question of plebiscite for six or seven years, but the preconditions have not been fulfilled. Meanwhile, other things have taken place, like the military aid etc., which have increased tremendously the difficulties of this problem. It is not that I am not willing to discuss this problem still further. But as a practical person I say this leads to a blind alley. We have, therefore, to discuss it from another point of view in regard to conditions that have arisen now and try to come to an agreement."

Offer of a settlement on the basis of the ceasefire line was the logical corollary. Nehru made this offer while addressing a public meeting in New Delhi on April 18, 1956. "I am willing to accept that the question of the part of Kashmir which is under you should be settled by demarcating the border on the basis of the present ceasefire line. We have no desire to take it by fighting."

Nehru's legacy in foreign affairs

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes. That's something Pakistan should be hammering at over and over in the U.N. and bilaterally. Instead we have either Pakistani plots for conquest (according to Ms. Bhutto) and/or this terrorism stuff. All of which serves to make Pakistan look bad and India look good internationally. (Furthermore, Pakistanis choose not to perceive that many Kashmiris don't want such violence.)

Pakistan has been 'hammering at the issue', at the UN and at any international forum it gets a chance to.

But the fact of the matter is that once India decided to violate her commitment to the UNSC resolutions there was nothing that could be done through the UN to force her to allow the Kashmiris to exercise their promised right to self-determination.

See Nehru's mindset through his own words and actions:

Nehru's legacy in foreign affairs

And your usage of the term 'terrorism' is only accurate and acceptable provided you also accept the fact that the US was founded by terrorists and on the basis of terrorism. Beyond that I will have to ask you not to flame and regurgitate dishonest propaganda on a Pakistani forum.

Let's save the off-topic stuff for another thread.

Fair enough.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The point is that Pakistan has violated the UNSC resolutions on several occasions.

I have already indicated how UN resolutions did not in fact call for a unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan, and instead called for negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN commission to determine the details of the withdrawal, so the Pakistani refusal to withdraw cannot be considered a violation of the resolutions since conditions on withdrawal acceptable to both sides were never arrived at.

The other point on which Pakistan is criticized is the attempt to spark a rebellion in Kashmir in 1965. As I pointed out in my response to Toxic, Nehru's comments and actions clearly indicate that it was India that had already determined that it would not seek to grant the Kashmiris the right to self determination, and would prefer the status quo of the LoC as a border. Pakistan's resort to covert means to instigate a rebellion was a response to the Indian violation of her commitment to the UNSC resolutions and the right to plebiscite for the Kashmiris.

On April 2, 1956, he himself had made statements at a press conference, which suggested that he had, indeed, ruled out a plebiscite. A question was put to him: "An inference has been drawn that you do not want now any plebiscite to be held in Kashmir. Is it correct?" Nehru replied: "Largely so; I shall explain myself. What I have said was that we have tried and discussed the question of plebiscite for six or seven years, but the preconditions have not been fulfilled. Meanwhile, other things have taken place, like the military aid etc., which have increased tremendously the difficulties of this problem. It is not that I am not willing to discuss this problem still further. But as a practical person I say this leads to a blind alley. We have, therefore, to discuss it from another point of view in regard to conditions that have arisen now and try to come to an agreement."

Offer of a settlement on the basis of the ceasefire line was the logical corollary. Nehru made this offer while addressing a public meeting in New Delhi on April 18, 1956. "I am willing to accept that the question of the part of Kashmir which is under you should be settled by demarcating the border on the basis of the present ceasefire line. We have no desire to take it by fighting."

True, unless they want a country of their own.

I think Pakistan has moved towards the option of having an 'independent Kashmir' as one solution:

"There has been no change in our foreign policy. We want an independent Kashmir. We want the Kashmir issue to be resolved in accordance with the wishes of the people," Basit told newsmen in Islamabad.
'Independent Kashmir' will ensure peace in South Asia: Pak - Express India

But again, even the old position of sticking to the UNSC resolutions that called for a choice between India and Pakistan, which India denies the kashmiris after years of promising it to them, places Pakistan on a higher moral ground than India.

We are willing to implement a plebiscite and allow the Kashmiris to decide, India is not.

How about the NPT?

What about it? Is Pakistan a signatory to the treaty?

Its time to assess the situation realistically. India will not allow any interference in Kashmir and its not like anyone's in a hurry to pressure us in the first place.

Whether India allows or not is irrelevant, as should be obvious by now in terms of Pakistani influence in the State. And your comment does not indicate anything constructive in terms of moving forward.

Ok.

Kashmir, UN Security Council Resolution 80


"3. Requests the two Governments to take all necessary precautions to ensure that (heir agreements
regarding the cease-fire shall continue to be faithfully observed, and "calls upon them to take all
possible measures to ensure the creation and maintenance of 'an atmosphere favourable to the
promotion of further negotiations;"

The insurgency has created an atmosphere that is unfavorable to the furthering of negotiations for the foreseeable future.

We can go in circles forever.

It is wiser to address the strategic concerns of both parties rather than whip a dead horse. The resolutions are defunct. A new approach is needed.

Nonsense, as I pointed out through Nehru's comments earlier, India had already embarked on the road of 'not furthering negotiations' and trying to have the LoC turned into the IB before Operation Gibraltar.

What has created an 'unfavorable environment' is India's attitude of occupying and subjugating the Kashmiris and denying them the right to self-determination.

Troop withdrawals, whether bilateral, unilateral or negotiated, were technicalities in support of the overarching goal of conducting a plebiscite to resolve the dispute. Indian obstinacy and stonewalling over a few thousand troops here and there (while maintaining a numerical advantage over Pakistani troops) was quite clearly an attempt to destroy by any means possible the attempt to create conditions that would allow for a resolution of the dispute per the wishes of the Kashmiris.

What if the Kashmiris decide they want their own state? What does Pakistan stand for then?

See Foreign Office comments above.

Like I said, instead of wasting time trying to up one each other, we should focus our efforts on looking for real, workable solutions. We will never see an end to the dispute until and unless everyone's concerns are addressed.

Once again, focus on the issue. At this point it doesn't really matter as to who has the moral high ground or who did what, a situation exists and a feasible solution (i.e one that coherently addresses the concerns of all parties) must be found.

Workable solutions besides a single plebiscite in the entire state have been proposed, I still see no sign from the Indians of moving away from the status quo.

Once again with the moral high ground. Let's make something clear here, Pakistan does not support Kashmiri freedom, it backs a resolution that forces them to accede to either India or Pakistan.

See foreign office comments above, and Pakistan's position of allowing the Kashmiris to exercise self-determination to chosee which nation they wish to be a part of is a far better and 'moral' position than the Indian position of militarily occupying and subjugating the Kashmiris, raping their women and torturing and massacring its residents for speaking out for their rights.

What good is your so called 'moral high ground' if the majority of Kashmiris aren't interested in joining either nation? how is this decades old resolution relevant to our time?

The resolutions are relevant since they support a moral and representative solution to the resolution of the J&K dispute - allowing the people to exercise their right of self-determination to choose which nation they wish to be a part of.

The right to self-determination has not expiration date.

Musharraf was a military dictator, he had the power and the means to push through a resolution which is why the PA backed him in the first place. With him gone and Zardari's popularity in the gutter it is unlikely that the GoP will be able to do the same.

Musharraf had power by virtue of being the COAS - any COAS would enjoy similar authority, though obviously not as much as Musharraf given he was also Chief Executive of the country. But my point is that the Indian pretext of not negotiation because they do not know who to negotiate with is flawed since the GoP will coordinate with the PA on sensitive issues like Kashmir, so any negotiations with the GoP will likely also be approved by the PA.

And Musharraf was backed by the PA, its commanders, in proposing some dramatically new solutions to resolving the dispute. That would indicate the PA is amenable to a resolution of the dispute and dialog with India.

False.

"Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon said He called for adopting ‘creative approaches’ to settle issues with China and Pakistan".

Err .. not false - perhaps you should read the article again more carefully. His first quote:

“It is possible to discuss the dispute once it becomes clear that Pakistan is no more insisting on dividing or exchanging the territory, or talking about settling the status of the territory,” Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon said

India wants to put an end to the dispute, you just have to come around to the idea. Lets see how things turn out in the next 4 years or so.

On the contrary, Pakistan is the one looking to resolve the dispute, evidenced by the 'out of the box' proposals forwarded by Musharraf and the back channel dialog on them that almost led to a breakthrough.

I'm no one to threaten anyone with anything. All I'm saying is that Pakistan will gain nothing by nurturing these so called 'freedom fighters'. Violence isn't going to help anyone, not us, not you and certainly not the Kashmiris.

*Shrug* Not that I support the idea of Pakistan extending insurgents fighting Indian occupation support again, but Pakistan will not lose anything by doing so either.

 

[karan.1970]

I have already indicated how UN resolutions did not in fact call for a unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan, and instead called for negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN commission to determine the details of the withdrawal, so the Pakistani refusal to withdraw cannot be considered a violation of the resolutions since conditions on withdrawal acceptable to both sides were never arrived at.

The other point on which Pakistan is criticized is the attempt to spark a rebellion in Kashmir in 1965. As I pointed out in my response to Toxic, Nehru's comments and actions clearly indicate that it was India that had already determined that it would not seek to grant the Kashmiris the right to self determination, and would prefer the status quo of the LoC as a border. Pakistan's resort to covert means to instigate a rebellion was a response to the Indian violation of her commitment to the UNSC resolutions and the right to plebiscite for the Kashmiris.

So Agno, a couple of thoughts here..

1. If the negotiations that needed to be completed before the plebiscite never got completed, then how can the said plebiscite be done?

2. In 1965, if Pakistan deduced that India is not going to hold the plebiscite and tried to achieve that through alternate means and failed, then today Pakistan has no moral (and definitely not legal) ground to ask India to fulfil the so called committment. That died along with the attempt to incite the rebellion..
At the end of the day, as per you, we did something bad, you tried to avenge it by force and failed. Now you can not go back to square zero and start all over again with the plebiscite theory..

[/QUOTE]

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So Agno, a couple of thoughts here..

1. If the negotiations that needed to be completed before the plebiscite never got completed, then how can the said plebiscite be done?

The negotiations were primarily stalled on troop levels and the withdrawal conditions. The UN, through its commission, endorsed the proposal of 3000 troops on the Pakistani side and 18000 on the Indian side. Pakistan agreed, India did not.

The Indian excuse was that it wanted a full withdrawal of Pakistani forces - think about that without an Indian bias for a second. In a military conflict, why would any nation expect the other to unilaterally withdraw and leave open the possibility of the land being negotiated over to be occupied by the other side?

The core of the UN resolutions was that the dispute would be resolved through plebiscite, the demilitarization of the State was in order to allow the Kashmiris to vote in an atmosphere free of the threat of coercion and force from the military of either side. IMO India deliberately stonewalled these negotiations because she had no intent of conducting a plebiscite.

2. In 1965, if Pakistan deduced that India is not going to hold the plebiscite and tried to achieve that through alternate means and failed, then today Pakistan has no moral (and definitely not legal) ground to ask India to fulfil the so called committment. That died along with the attempt to incite the rebellion..
At the end of the day, as per you, we did something bad, you tried to avenge it by force and failed. Now you can not go back to square zero and start all over again with the plebiscite theory.

Pakistan did not have to 'deduce' anything - the comments you yourself posted of Menon and others (in the other thread), along with Nehru's comments above, quite clearly indicate that India had determined it would not hold a plebiscite. Pakistan's attempt to try and instigate a rebellion was in the face of existing Indian refusal to implement the resolutions, and an attempt to force India to do so.

So Pakistan does have moral ground to call for the implementation of the resolutions despite operation Gibraltar, it was the Indians that decided not to implement the resolutions years before Op. Gibraltar took place.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It's a simple enough question. I just want to know why invade an independent country and then ask for its independence?

The tribal invasion was in response to the brutalities of the dictator Maharajah.

There was an indigenous movement for freedom by local Kashmiris against the dictator, before the tribal invasion, that was brutally suppressed by the Maharajah. Entire villages were burnt down and men, women and children massacred by the Maharajah's forces in cracking down on the rebellion against his dictatorship.

Subsequently, tens of thousands of refugees poured out of Kashmir into Pakistan. This coincided with the partition massacres and news of entire trains full of massacred Muslims arriving from India.

That is what led to the tribal force being organized to defeat the dictator Maharajah, and the subsequent low level Pakistani support for that tribal force.

 

[karan.1970]

The negotiations were primarily stalled on troop levels and the withdrawal conditions. The UN, through its commission, endorsed the proposal of 3000 troops on the Pakistani side and 18000 on the Indian side. Pakistan agreed, India did not.

The Indian excuse was that it wanted a full withdrawal of Pakistani forces - think about that without an Indian bias for a second. In a military conflict, why would any nation expect the other to unilaterally withdraw and leave open the possibility of the land being negotiated over to be occupied by the other side?

The core of the UN resolutions was that the dispute would be resolved through plebiscite, the demilitarization of the State was in order to allow the Kashmiris to vote in an atmosphere free of the threat of coercion and force from the military of either side. IMO India deliberately stonewalled these negotiations because she had no intent of conducting a plebiscite.
.

Even then, at the end of the day, the negotiations never got completed and who stonewalled will be another he said, she said.. I am sure if someone googles it, he will find a contradicting indian stance on why negotiations failed because of pakistan...

Pakistan did not have to 'deduce' anything - the comments you yourself posted of Menon and others (in the other thread), along with Nehru's comments above, quite clearly indicate that India had determined it would not hold a plebiscite. Pakistan's attempt to try and instigate a rebellion was in the face of existing Indian refusal to implement the resolutions, and an attempt to force India to do so.

So Pakistan does have moral ground to call for the implementation of the resolutions despite operation Gibraltar, it was the Indians that decided not to implement the resolutions years before Op. Gibraltar took place.

So the word deduce was used by me in the literal sense and not to imply that the deduction was incorrect. So when Pakistan itself came to terms with the fact that India is not going to hold a plebiscite and hence tried alternate means and failed, how can it then go back to the original point of plebiscite..

While Pakistan can argue about holding moral high ground for Op Gibralter (and I would agree to that arguement), it certainly does not hold any ground to go back and ask for the original solution of plebiscite after failing in Op Gib because by initiating Op G, Pakistan itself removed its support from the plebiscite solution (even if it was due to India's not implementing it to begin with)...

 

[toxic_pus]

Nonsense, as has been pointed out to you before.

UNSC resolution :http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc13aug48.htm


As the language of the resolution clearly indicates, the withdrawal of regular and irregular forces was contingent upon negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN appointed commission, and rightly so, since the militarization of the conflict meant that one side could attempt to seize control in case of a unilateral, unconditional withdrawal by the other.

The usual rubbish.

The violation that I spoke of was Pakistan’s refusal to remove its ‘citizens and tribesmen’. Demilitarization had nothing to do it. It is hilarious how everytime I raise this question, you quickly resort to how demilitarization was subject to negotiation. So once again. Why weren’t the Pakistani ‘citizens and tribesmen’ withdrawn?

Now if you argue that these ‘citizens and tribesmen’ were part of ‘irregular forces’ meant to fend any ‘attempt to seize control’ of territory by India, you practically validate India’s refusal to the UN sanctioned troop strength. If India had accepted the UN proposal, then India would have been left with a measly 18,000 troops, excluding armour, while Pakistan would be have been able to retain 6,000 of its regular troops, excluding armour, and thousands of armed and semi-trained ‘citizens and tribesmen’, which also included PA regulars. By the end of 1950 the number had swelled to a mammoth ‘80,000’.

Remember, India had insisted on retaining a higher number of military personnel together with armour because of the existence of this ‘irregular force’ in the guise of ‘citizens and tribesmen’, called ‘Azad Kashmir Force’.

Second, Pakistan has not incorporated Gligit-Baltistan into its constitution as Pakistani territory - that it did not do so in fact was the subject of a lot of criticizm from the people of the region. Pakista has therefore not tried to unilaterally change the status of the territory as India did by incorporating j&K into its constitution as an Indian State.

I stand corrected. Northern Areas actually have no status. Neither is it part of Pakistan not is it part of ‘Azad Kashmir’. Limbo is however a correct observation.

J&K was incorporated into the constitution of India on the basis of Instrument of Accession. Section 6(1) of The India Act, and Section 7 of The Independence Act, made that valid. Pakistan did not have any writ to something of that sort.

Third, yes, Pakistan did indeed try and spark a rebellion in J&K, but only because it had become increasingly clear that India had little interest in allowing the Kashmiris to determine their future through a plebiscite. So while the attempt to spark an insurgency can be termed a violation of the ceasefire agreement, it is far less serious than the Indian violation of the right to self-determination for the Kashmiris, which is the bed-rock principle of the UNSC resolutions.

[...]

And Nehru had indicated long before 1965 that India would violate its commitment to a plebiscite:

A lame and equally pathetic excuse.

There was no ‘violation of the right to self-determination for the Kashmiris’, because firstly, the resolutions do not provide a time limit for holding of plebiscite and secondly, the plebiscite itself was subject to conditions, one of which entirely depended on Pakistan, and Pakistan alone. Nehru’s ruling out of plebiscite was because the ‘pre conditions’ weren’t fulfilled and because of ‘practical’ impossibilities that had cropped up with the passage of time. His position was vetted by Gunar Jarring, the President of Security Council, in 1957 and again a year later by Dr Frank Graham, UNCIP representative. Nehru however hadn’t closed doors for settlement of Kashmir issue.

The resolutions do not become 'defunct' with a ceasefire violation, they become defunct only when replaced with a new set of resolutions or a resolution of the dispute between the parties concerned.

When a party to an agreement – which the Cease Fire Agreement was – willfully violates the terms and conditions of the said agreement, it no longer remains binding on the other party. The agreement becomes invalid. The Cease Fire agreement became invalid that way. Since all other subsequent resolutions were directly dependent on or connected to this Cease Fire agreement, those became defunct. Simple.