Kashmir Referendum

[March]

I was wondering, why is it that most people in Pakistan [Despite being a Pakistani myself], demand that a referendum should be held in Kashmir for whether the people of Kashmir wish to join India or Pakistan. While the UN did pass a resolution, demanding a plebiscite to be held in the Princely State of Kashmir; the resolution also mentioned the need for Pakistan to withdraw its troops.

1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours:

(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State;

I have noticed that while most people blame India for not having allowed a referendum in Kashmir, it is actually Pakistan that failed to fulfill the terms of the UN Resolution on its part. Would it not be necessary for Pakistan to first withdraw from parts of Kashmir that it occupied in 1947 before a plebiscite may be held? Nowadays, the part of the UN Resolution which demanded withdrawal from the Pakistan Army and the Tribals is rather ignored or perhaps suppressed.

Moving on, even if lets say; Pakistan does withdraw from Kashmir.. I believe UN no longer has any job in Kashmir. For as we all know, as agreed in the Simla Agreement between Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto; the Kashmir Issue would now only be between Pakistan and India and no Third Party which completely voids any UN Plebiscite. As is mentioned here

(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line.

Now would it not be considered unfair, if Pakistan continues to demand a UN Resolution in Kashmir despite the Simla Agreement? India was rather lenient to Pakistan during the agreement by returning 90,000 POWs and 13,000 km² of land seized in West Pakistan. Surely, before Pakistan demands any UN Resolution; it would only be fair for Pakistan to first hand over 90,000 Soldiers and the 13,000 km² to India.

The only option Pakistan has is actually hope that the Indians decide to be generous and hold a plebiscite. Other than that, we do not really have any option. Well, we could always wage jihad

 

[March]

Well, I really didn't know what to post about so I went with Kashmir.

And if the Moderators can access ones IP Address, they'd know I am from Pakistan.

Besides, the facts made me side with India on the issue.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

I was wondering, why is it that most people in Pakistan [Despite being a Pakistani myself], demand that a referendum should be held in Kashmir for whether the people of Kashmir wish to join India or Pakistan. While the UN did pass a resolution, demanding a plebiscite to be held in the Princely State of Kashmir; the resolution also mentioned the need for Pakistan to withdraw its troops.

1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours:

(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State;

I have noticed that while most people blame India for not having allowed a referendum in Kashmir, it is actually Pakistan that failed to fulfill the terms of the UN Resolution on its part. Would it not be necessary for Pakistan to first withdraw from parts of Kashmir that it occupied in 1947 before a plebiscite may be held? Nowadays, the part of the UN Resolution which demanded withdrawal from the Pakistan Army and the Tribals is rather ignored or perhaps suppressed.

Moving on, even if lets say; Pakistan does withdraw from Kashmir.. I believe UN no longer has any job in Kashmir. For as we all know, as agreed in the Simla Agreement between Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto; the Kashmir Issue would now only be between Pakistan and India and no Third Party which completely voids any UN Plebiscite. As is mentioned here

(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line.

Now would it not be considered unfair, if Pakistan continues to demand a UN Resolution in Kashmir despite the Simla Agreement? India was rather lenient to Pakistan during the agreement by returning 90,000 POWs and 13,000 km² of land seized in West Pakistan. Surely, before Pakistan demands any UN Resolution; it would only be fair for Pakistan to first hand over 90,000 Soldiers and the 13,000 km² to India.

The only option Pakistan has is actually hope that the Indians decide to be generous and hold a plebiscite. Other than that, we do not really have any option.

--
Welcome to pdf..
thanks for being sane ..logical.. practical..
but be redy to get a humors comments you ever read in your life time for this post ..

 

[OrionHunter]

I was wondering, why is it that most people in Pakistan [Despite being a Pakistani myself], demand that a referendum should be held in Kashmir for whether the people of Kashmir wish to join India or Pakistan. While the UN did pass a resolution, demanding a plebiscite to be held in the Princely State of Kashmir; the resolution also mentioned the need for Pakistan to withdraw its troops.

1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours:

(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State;

I have noticed that while most people blame India for not having allowed a referendum in Kashmir, it is actually Pakistan that failed to fulfill the terms of the UN Resolution on its part. Would it not be necessary for Pakistan to first withdraw from parts of Kashmir that it occupied in 1947 before a plebiscite may be held? Nowadays, the part of the UN Resolution which demanded withdrawal from the Pakistan Army and the Tribals is rather ignored or perhaps suppressed.

Moving on, even if lets say; Pakistan does withdraw from Kashmir.. I believe UN no longer has any job in Kashmir. For as we all know, as agreed in the Simla Agreement between Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto; the Kashmir Issue would now only be between Pakistan and India and no Third Party which completely voids any UN Plebiscite. As is mentioned here

(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line.

Now would it not be considered unfair, if Pakistan continues to demand a UN Resolution in Kashmir despite the Simla Agreement? India was rather lenient to Pakistan during the agreement by returning 90,000 POWs and 13,000 km² of land seized in West Pakistan. Surely, before Pakistan demands any UN Resolution; it would only be fair for Pakistan to first hand over 90,000 Soldiers and the 13,000 km² to India.

The only option Pakistan has is actually hope that the Indians decide to be generous and hold a plebiscite. Other than that, we do not really have any option.

You can't be a Pakistani! What you wrote is blasphemous! You may even get a negative rating for this unpatriotic post!!

Now let the trolling begin!

 

[March]

You can't be a Pakistani! What you wrote is blasphemous! You may even get a negative rating for this unpatriotic post!!

Well seems like I am in lots of trouble.

 

[third eye]

Well, I really didn't know what to post about so I went with Kashmir.

And if the Moderators can access ones IP Address, they'd know I am from Pakistan.

Besides, the facts made me side with India on the issue.

Good luck.

 

[I.R.A]

Now would it not be considered unfair, if Pakistan continues to demand a UN Resolution in Kashmir despite the Simla Agreement? India was rather lenient to Pakistan during the agreement by returning 90,000 POWs and 13,000 km² of land seized in West Pakistan. Surely, before Pakistan demands any UN Resolution; it would only be fair for Pakistan to first hand over 90,000 Soldiers and the 13,000 km² to India.

Don't know about the flags but can anyone explain if I missed something in history? What is this and when did this happen?

Welcome to pdf..
thanks for being sane ..logical.. practical..
but be redy to get a humors comments you ever read in your life time for this post ..

If you look at what I have underlined and bold, the first thing to go is Sanity, then logic and cannot say anything about being practical.

 

[March]

Don't know about the flags but can anyone explain if I missed something in history? What is this and when did this happen?




If you look at what I have underlined and bold, the first thing to go is Sanity, then logic and cannot say anything about being practical.

Just google the terms of the Simla Agreement.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Well, I really didn't know what to post about so I went with Kashmir.

And if the Moderators can access ones IP Address, they'd know I am from Pakistan.

Besides, the facts made me side with India on the issue.

Machaaaaan!!!! Now I've seen everything!

 

[ares]

Don't know about the flags but can anyone explain if I missed something in history? What is this and when did this happen?




If you look at what I have underlined and bold, the first thing to go is Sanity, then logic and cannot say anything about being practical.

"Between 90,000 and 93,000 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces including paramilitary personnel were taken as Prisoners of War by the Indian Army and 13000km² of Pakistani territory in West Pakistan was seized.

India treated all the POWs in strict accordance with the Geneva Convention and released more than 90,000 Pakistani PoWs in fivemonths.The accord also gave back the 13,000 km² of land that Indian troops had seized in West Pakistan during the war, though India retained a few strategic areas"

West Pakistan | rehangupta

 

[I.R.A]

Just google the terms of the Simla Agreement.

So you are sure that India had seized 13000sqkm of West Pakistan and nothing happened in East Pakistan?

And now you expect Pakistan to give back India its own 90,000 soldiers (if all of them were soldiers at all) and territory of its own?

 

[Jf Thunder]

if we follow the UN resolution, what is the guarantee that India wouldn't just occupy the rest of Kashmir and never hold a referendum, either UN asks India to do the same, and deploys its own UN peace keeping force for the referendum, its a no go.

 

[ares]

if we follow the UN resolution, what is the guarantee that India wouldn't just occupy the rest of Kashmir and never hold a referendum, either UN asks India to do the same, and deploys its own UN peace keeping force for the referendum, its a no go.

Well there are No guarantees in life, IF India hold a referendum and wins, what is the guarantee that Pakistan will handover P.OK and GB? None!!

Otherwise you keep your part, we keep our, and carry on with your lives.

 

[Jf Thunder]

"Between 90,000 and 93,000 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces including paramilitary personnel were taken as Prisoners of War by the Indian Army and 13000km² of Pakistani territory in West Pakistan was seized.

India treated all the POWs in strict accordance with the Geneva Convention and released more than 90,000 Pakistani PoWs in fivemonths.The accord also gave back the 13,000 km² of land that Indian troops had seized in West Pakistan during the war, though India retained a few strategic areas"

West Pakistan | rehangupta

and which strategic areas were those?

Well there are No guarantees in life, IF India hold a referendum and wins, what is the guarantee that Pakistan will handover P.OK and GB? None!!

Otherwise you keep your part, we keep our, and carry on with your lives.

if the referendum is to be help it is common sense that GB and AJK will be under UN or Indian control, so Pakistan couldnt do anything, now would the inverse be also true?

 

[pursuit of happiness]

Don't know about the flags but can anyone explain if I missed something in history? What is this and when did this happen?




If you look at what I have underlined and bold, the first thing to go is Sanity, then logic and cannot say anything about being practical.

--
i read it..
it simple..
pak backtracking from shima agreemnt .. on kashmir.. mean agreemt is void.. so POW handover void.. so please handover ..
as its you dont accpet shimala.. not we..
it cant be like we dont accept kashmir part on simla but pow no commet .. cant work like that