RamGorur
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2010
- Messages
- 184
- Reaction score
- 0
None of which created a 'right to self-determination.'Yes - unlike other territories incorporated into the modern States of India and Pakistan, the Kashmiris were not given the choice to choose which state to become a part of, a right established by India's commitment to the same, as well as her actions in Junagadh and Hyderabad, and the UN Millennium Declaration.
Pakistan refused more than it accepted, and accepted only those that it found favorable. Pakistan didn't accept the definition of 'local authority', refused to disarm and disband Azad Force, and violating cease fire agreement, augmented the Azad Force (UN is on record confirming this), adamantly stuck to its demand that the 'nature of forces' on either side be equal, etc. etc.Nonsense - instead of raising the same red-herring and canards time and time again, read through the UNSC resolutions thread and respond there. Pakistan was not under an obligation to withdraw militarily - various UN commissions were formed to come up with demilitarization and plebiscite plans, that India rejected, and therefore could not be implemented. Many of those demilitarization plans Pakistan in fact accepted.
Hyderabad never acceded to Pakistan and India never argued that 'self-determination' was legitimate. What India had argued was that if IoA is to be reversed (or confirmed) in case of a dispute between the ruler and the people, the only way it can be so done is by the people. It was not a question of 'right to self-determination' but of a mechanism for dispute resolving.Also don't forget the part where India invaded and occupied the States of Junagadh and Hyderabad, where the former had acceded to Pakistan, and India argued that accession was meaningless and 'self-determination' was legitimacy, at least as far as Hindu's were concerned.
Last edited: