Major Gaurav Arya's -5 Myths about Kashmir perpetrated by Pakistan !

[Indian wonk]

No, it wasn't. Hari was in a car en route to Delhi throughout that day. And even if you did, you didn't show it to anyone!

Well Mountbatten will vouch for India because he was the one who recommended that India sign an IoA before committing troops to protect Kashmir

1) Maharaja of J&K signed a standstill agreement with both India and Pakistan on Aug 12th

2) Pakistan acted beyond the terms of the Standstill Agreement by applying economic and other pressures against Kashmir for its accession. Supplies of food, salt, petrol and other essential commodities were cut-off, and so also the only rail link with the state.
Tribal raiders covertly led by the Pakistani Army officers started crossing the frontiers of the state in the third week of October.

3) The Maharaja asked for help on Oct 24th 1947 ,
IoA a general template which was used for other IoAs was signed on Oct 26th
Indian troops enter on Oct 27th.

 

[HamWatan]

*Repeats part where Patiala troops were present in Kashmir prior to the tribal attack, with RSS members like Golwalkar being there even before that*

 

[M. Sarmad]

it was signed on Oct 26th 1947 . We signed dozens of instrument of Ascension doesn't mean we have to show it to every one or anyone.

You may have signed dozens or hundreds of accession treaties, it really doesn't matter. Accession of Kashmir is different from accession of any other Indian Princely State as the accession has been placed before the UN Security Council for arranging a ratification or otherwise by the people of the State under the auspices of the United Nations. Therefore, the arrangement caused through the accession of 26 October 1947 has been taken over by the interests of 195 countries of the UN (including Pakistan as a member nation of UN and as a party). Pakistan as a party to the dispute administers two administrations of the State on its side of cease fire line.

Well Mountbatten will vouch for India because he was the one who recommended that India sign an IoA before committing troops to protect Kashmir

1) Maharaja of J&K signed a standstill agreement with both India and Pakistan on Aug 12th

2) Pakistan acted beyond the terms of the Standstill Agreement by applying economic and other pressures against Kashmir for its accession. Supplies of food, salt, petrol and other essential commodities were cut-off, and so also the only rail link with the state.
Tribal raiders covertly led by the Pakistani Army officers started crossing the frontiers of the state in the third week of October.

3) The Maharaja asked for help on Oct 24th 1947 ,
IoA a general template which was used for other IoAs was signed on Oct 26th
Indian troops enter on Oct 27th.

Standstill Agreement on Kashmir was offered to Pakistan by Maharaja Hari Singh himself, of his own accord; Pakistan accepted that and it is now an international document.

A similar offer was made to India but India didn't sign such an agreement. So, over Jammu and Kashmir, only two parties – Pakistan and Kashmir were left. In the presence of the Standstill Agreement, no other ‘accord’ as to the status of Jammu and Kashmir (including Accession Treaty) could be made at all under international law.

Even the Maharaja in his letter to Governor General of India had to give an "explanation" ... He alleged that Pakistan had violated the agreement and he had no choice left but to accede the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India ... But as the UN rejected the Indian claim and didn't declare Pakistan an aggressor state, these allegations remain unsubstantiated. And until and unless these allegations are proven in any international court, Maharaja's accusations and "explanation" carries no weight .... Hope that helps

 

[Indian wonk]

india captured and did referendum and made it part of india...... same rule should be seen with respect to kashmir ....

In April 1948, the UN Council passed a resolution calling for Pakistan to withdraw from all of Jammu and Kashmir and India to reduce its forces to the minimum level, following which a plebiscite would be held to ascertain the people’s wishes.
However, no withdrawal was ever carried out, India insisting that Pakistan had to withdraw first which Pakista didn't carry out .
The Pakistanis knew and feared that Sheikh Abdullah was firmly with India and given his mass following in Kashmir, a plebiscite would have handed India a landslide victory.
Moreover,the territorial integrity of the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir has been further compromised with Pakistan handing over a part of the Gilgit and Baltistan region to China in 1963. For a true plebiscite, this area too needs to be included. An unlikely possibility since it would need to be freed of Chinese garrisons in occupation there.

Standstill Agreement on Kashmir was offered to Pakistan by Maharaja Hari Singh himself, of his own accord; Pakistan accepted that and it is now an international document.

A similar offer was made to India but India didn't sign such an agreement. So, over Jammu and Kashmir, only two parties – Pakistan and Kashmir were left. In the presence of the Standstill Agreement, no other ‘accord’ as to the status of Jammu and Kashmir could be made at all under international law.

On 12th August 1947 the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir offered ‘Stand Still Agreement” to both India and Pakistan through an identical telegram. The text of the telegram is: “Jammu and Kashmir Government would welcome Standstill Agreements with India (Pakistan) on all matters on which these exist at present moment with outgoing British India Government. It is suggested that existing arrangements should continue pending settlement of details. Reply from Government of Pakistan sent on August I5 1947,was, “Your telegram of the 12th. The Government of Pakistan agrees to have a Standstill Agreement and Kashmir for the continuance of the existing arrangements pending settlement of details and formal execution. Reply from Government of India was, “Government of India would be glad if you or some other Minister duly authorized in this behalf could fly to Delhi for negotiating Standstill Agreement between Kashmir Government and India dominion. Early action is desirable to maintain intact existing agreements and administrative arrangements.”
The representative of Kashmir did not visit Delhi and the Standstill Agreement got delayed between the State and the Dominion of India.

Pakistan violated the standstill agreement in October 1947.
The government of Pakistan sponsored a tribal raid in Kashmir on 22nd October 1947. Maharaja Hari Singh was forced by the circumstances to approach government of India on 24th October 1947 for military help but the later put the condition of formal accession of the technically independent country with Indian Union prior to the deployment of Indian troops in the state. On 26th October Maharaja Hari Singh submitted his Instrument of Accession to the government of India and early in the morning the Indian troops landed at Srinagar Airport to combat the Pakistani tribes and soldiers (on leave) in Kashmir.

 

[M. Sarmad]

In April 1948, the UN Council passed a resolution calling for Pakistan to withdraw from all of Jammu and Kashmir and India to reduce its forces to the minimum level, following which a plebiscite would be held to ascertain the people’s wishes.
However, no withdrawal was ever carried out, India insisting that Pakistan had to withdraw first which Pakista didn't carry out .
The Pakistanis knew and feared that Sheikh Abdullah was firmly with India and given his mass following in Kashmir, a plebiscite would have handed India a landslide victory.
Moreover,the territorial integrity of the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir has been further compromised with Pakistan handing over a part of the Gilgit and Baltistan region to China in 1963. For a true plebiscite, this area too needs to be included. An unlikely possibility since it would need to be freed of Chinese garrisons in occupation there.

Wrong again. Pakistan has never refused to withdraw its troops. It was decided that Pakistan will begin withdrawing its troops as soon as the UN commission notified it. But the UN Commission never notified Pakistan as India refused to accept any demilitarization proposal made by the UN. At least 11 such proposals were made. India rejected them all. Pakistan had even told the UN that it was ready to withdraw its troops from Kashmir in favor of UN troops regardless of Indian reaction to such a proposal. There is a reason for which the UN appointed official mediator Sir Owen Dixon blamed India (not Pakistan) for halting the process.

Pakistan violated the standstill agreement in October 1947.
The government of Pakistan sponsored a tribal raid in Kashmir on 22nd October 1947. Maharaja Hari Singh was forced by the circumstances to approach government of India on 24th October 1947 for military help but the later put the condition of formal accession of the technically independent country with Indian Union prior to the deployment of Indian troops in the state. On 26th October Maharaja Hari Singh submitted his Instrument of Accession to the government of India and early in the morning the Indian troops landed at Srinagar Airport to combat the Pakistani tribes and soldiers (on leave) in Kashmir.

^^ Unsubstantiated allegations only. The UN did not declare Pakistan an aggressor state in Kashmir. Such allegations and accusations carry no weight

 

[khanmubashir]

Indian army crimes r investigate in Kashmir ???
Says the guy whose country couldn't even sentence the people (hindutva fanatics) behind Sikh genocide of 85
4000 Muslim death in babri mosque which itself was done while case was in Indian courts and no sentence of rapists and murderer of 2000 Gujarat muslim

And a Pak Kashmiri british Br told him they're not free if his bs was true Kashmiri EU Parliamentarian like Lord Nazir who get vote from these constituencies would not be pro Pak and anti India

Indians r expert in making Bollywood bs but unlike them others eat bull not bs

 

[Indian wonk]

Pakistan has never refused to withdraw its troops. It was decided that Pakistan will begin withdrawing its troops as soon as the UN commission notified it. But the UN Commission never notified Pakistan and India refused to accept any demilitarization proposal made by the UN. At least 11 such proposals were made. Pakistan had told the UN that it was ready to withdraw its troops from Kashmir in favor of UN troops regardless of Indian reaction to such a proposal. There is a reason for which the UN appointed official mediator Sir Owen Dixon blamed India (not Pakistan) for halting the process.

Noel-Baker believed that Britain had already alienated the Arabs on the question of Palestine and Israel and the latter might be further inflamed if Britain wobbled on Kashmir. "t was important to avoid the danger of antagonising the whole of Islam by appearing to side with India against Pakistan," as he stated on record.

Besides, Noel-Baker also believed that, because it contained a majority of Muslims, Kashmir quite properly belonged to Pakistan. Consequently the British delegation brushed aside India's complaint and asserted that fighting could only stop if arrangements for a fair plebiscite were reached.

Unsubstantiated allegations only. The UN did not declare Pakistan an aggressor state. Such allegations and accusations carry no weight

This is the reason for lack of trust between both countries.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Noel-Baker believed that Britain had already alienated the Arabs on the question of Palestine and Israel and the latter might be further inflamed if Britain wobbled on Kashmir. "t was important to avoid the danger of antagonising the whole of Islam by appearing to side with India against Pakistan," as he stated on record.

Besides, Noel-Baker also believed that, because it contained a majority of Muslims, Kashmir quite properly belonged to Pakistan. Consequently the British delegation brushed aside India's complaint and asserted that fighting could only stop if arrangements for a fair plebiscite were reached.

Irrelevant opinions carry no weight in international law

 

[Indian wonk]

In 1972, following the Indo Pak war of 1971 India and Pakistan signed the Shimla agreement agreeing to resolve all their differences through bilateral negotiations. The United States, United Kingdom and most Western governments have since supported this approach.

 

[M. Sarmad]

This is the reason for lack of trust between both countries.

Well, India itself took the Kashmir Dispute to the UN and alleged that Pakistan had committed aggression in Kashmir. Pakistan responded and clarified its position and was successful in convincing the international community that they were not the aggressors. What's your point ?

In 1972, following the Indo Pak war of 1971 India and Pakistan signed the Shimla agreement agreeing to resolve all their differences through bilateral negotiations. The United States, United Kingdom and most Western governments have since supported this approach.

Simla Agreement does not (and cannot) supersede UN Resolutions. The UN refuses to accept the Indian interpretation of the Simla Agreement.

 

[KAI KAI Baloch]

In April 1948, the UN Council passed a resolution calling for Pakistan to withdraw from all of Jammu and Kashmir and India to reduce its forces to the minimum level, following which a plebiscite would be held to ascertain the people’s wishes.
However, no withdrawal was ever carried out, India insisting that Pakistan had to withdraw first which Pakista didn't carry out .
The Pakistanis knew and feared that Sheikh Abdullah was firmly with India and given his mass following in Kashmir, a plebiscite would have handed India a landslide victory.
Moreover,the territorial integrity of the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir has been further compromised with Pakistan handing over a part of the Gilgit and Baltistan region to China in 1963. For a true plebiscite, this area too needs to be included. An unlikely possibility since it would need to be freed of Chinese garrisons in occupation there.



On 12th August 1947 the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir offered ‘Stand Still Agreement” to both India and Pakistan through an identical telegram. The text of the telegram is: “Jammu and Kashmir Government would welcome Standstill Agreements with India (Pakistan) on all matters on which these exist at present moment with outgoing British India Government. It is suggested that existing arrangements should continue pending settlement of details. Reply from Government of Pakistan sent on August I5 1947,was, “Your telegram of the 12th. The Government of Pakistan agrees to have a Standstill Agreement and Kashmir for the continuance of the existing arrangements pending settlement of details and formal execution. Reply from Government of India was, “Government of India would be glad if you or some other Minister duly authorized in this behalf could fly to Delhi for negotiating Standstill Agreement between Kashmir Government and India dominion. Early action is desirable to maintain intact existing agreements and administrative arrangements.”
The representative of Kashmir did not visit Delhi and the Standstill Agreement got delayed between the State and the Dominion of India.

Pakistan violated the standstill agreement in October 1947.
The government of Pakistan sponsored a tribal raid in Kashmir on 22nd October 1947. Maharaja Hari Singh was forced by the circumstances to approach government of India on 24th October 1947 for military help but the later put the condition of formal accession of the technically independent country with Indian Union prior to the deployment of Indian troops in the state. On 26th October Maharaja Hari Singh submitted his Instrument of Accession to the government of India and early in the morning the Indian troops landed at Srinagar Airport to combat the Pakistani tribes and soldiers (on leave) in Kashmir.

Have u read what i wrote???? Try to bring counter argument after reading it!!!!

 

[Indian wonk]

Irrelevant opinions carry no weight in international law

You do know that holding plebicite by India is under a non-binding resolution Chap VI art 35 of UN

 

[M. Sarmad]

You do know that holding plebicite by India is under a non-binding resolution Chap VI art 35 of UN

As for the binding nature of the UN Resolutions and India's chapter VI mantra:


The UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir are neither "Unenforceable" nor "Non-binding" ...


1) UN maintains that "NO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CAN BE DESCRIBED AS UNENFORCEABLE."


2) There always has been a general inability of the Permanent Five to agree upon imaginative and expansive applications of Chapter VI ... In Somalia, the Security Council deployed the UN's first operation, UNOSOM I, in mid-1992 to separate warring combatants and help delivery of humanitarian relief ....

UNOSOM I entered and operated without invoking Chapter VII

Further Reading: http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/6/1/1305.pdf



3) India approached UN under Chapter VI of the UN charter , BUT the decision taken by UN reflected that its resolutions were not based exclusively on this chapter .... The resolutions , apart from chapter VI , are based upon other chapters , including chapter VII

The fact that there does not exist any provision for the deputing of UN peace keeping mission under chapter VI makes it obvious that UN resolutions were not exclusively based on chapter VI .... The interim measures which included cease fire and deputation of United Nations Military Observer Group were based on Article 40 of chapter VII ...

Besides chapter VI and VII , UN resolutions are based on other chapters also(i.e Article 1 , Chapter I (2) and Article 55 , Chapter IX) ...

^^ And this is not my personal opinion. That is Rosalyn Higgins' opinion on 'Kashmir Resolutions and under which chapter they were passed' .. Source: 'Higgins, Rosalyn. United Nations Peace Keeping 1946-67: Documents and Commentary. London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1970. (349-51)

(Rosalyn Higgins is an expert on International Law; a Doctor of Juridical Science. She has served as a Judge in the International Court of Justice for fourteen years (and was elected President in 2006). Her competence has been recognised by many academic institutions, having received at least thirteen honorary doctorates)




4) While a recommendation under Chapter VI by itself "may not" be binding, this is not the case in the Kashmir dispute. Here, the parties have consented to be bound by the resolutions of 13 August and 5 January. (13 M. WHITEMAN, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 360 (1968).



5) The UNSC Resolutions endorsed a binding agreement between India and Pakistan reached through the mediation of UNCIP, that a plebiscite would be held, under agreed and specified conditions. A letter dated December 23, 1948, from India's Secretary-General of the Ministry of External Affairs to the Representative of UNCIP, stated that the Indian Prime Minister's acceptance of the 5 January resolution was conditioned on Pakistan's acceptance of the resolution. By this letter, India consented to be bound by the resolution of 5 January and, through this, the resolution of 13 August as well. (Aide Memoire No. 1, Letter Dated 23 December 1948 From the Secretary General of the Ministry of External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations of the Government of India to Mr. Alfredo Lozano, Representative of UNCIP at 23, U.N. Doc. S/1196 (1949)




6) Self-Determination as a Binding Rule of International Law

Four instances may inform the principle of self-determination with a legal dimension.

(i) The principle of self-determination is binding upon the parties, whether they have adopted it as the basis or as a criterion for the settlement of a particular issue or dispute. In the peace treaties after World War I, and in the cases of Kashmir (after 1948), the Saar Territory (1955), and Algeria’s struggle for independence, the principle of self-determination was chosen as a basis for negotiation, and in the Agreement on Ending War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam (1973) the parties expressly recognized the South Vietnamese people’s right to self-determination.


http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873





7) The binding nature of these UN resolutions (as acknowledged by Indian officials)



Finally some quotes from Indian officials on Kashmir exemplifying their commitment to plebiscite rather than forced accession as history has found them do :-

We adhere strictly to our pledge of plebiscite in Kashmir; a pledge made to the people because they believe in democratic government; We don't regard Kashmir as a commodity to be trafficked in -Krishna Menon (Press statement in London, reported in the Statesman, New Delhi, 2nd August, 1951)

The Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible -Letter from Govt. of India to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, 11th September, 1951

I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken.
-Krishna Menon (Statement at UN Security Council, 24th January, 1957)

The resolutions of January 17, 1948 and the resolutions of the UNICP, the assurances given, these are all resolutions which carry a greater weight; that is because we have accepted them, we are parties to them, whether we like them or not. -Krishna Menon, (Statement at UN Security Council, 20th February, 1957)

These documents (UNCIP reports) and declarations and the resolutions of the Security Council are decisions; they are resolutions, there has been some resolving of a question of one character or another, there has been a meeting of minds on this question where we have committed ourselves to it. -Krishna Menon, (Statement at the Security Council, 9th October, 1957)


India believes that sovereignty rests in the people and should return to them. -Krishna Menon, (The Statesman, Delhi, 19th January, 1962)





Therefore, India is bound by word and deed to leave the future of Kashmir to the will of its people.

 

[Indian wonk]

The UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir are neither "Unenforceable" nor "Non-binding" ...

Chapter VI, on the other hand, emphasized the role for disputants in settling
their disputes and did not empower the UN to actively enforce its policies against
States. Although clearly important insofar as it envisaged Council - read Permanent
Five - involvement in many situations that did not rise to the level of a 'breach of
the peace.


Thus,
from its earliest days, the members of the Council proved unable to agree
upon any dynamic interpretation of Chapter VI. Rather, its members fell back on
those articles that, on their face, suggested a limited role in solving the handful of
disputes it addressed


Similarly, in 1957, when the Council attempted to pass a new
resolution on Kashmir that included provisions objectionable to India, the Soviet
Union threatened a veto and the Council replaced it with an innocuous resolution

Given the perpetual
kinesis of those States on most international issues, the prospects for any type of
overall Council strategy under Chapter VI seem rather dim. Thus, the Council does
not appear on the verge of a coherent approach to the dilemma of the neutral peace-
maker vs. the principled legitimizer, even if that were possible. And the age-old
need to distinguish between issues that merit its attention and those to direct to other
diplomatic players remains only partially addressed.

Moreover, those perpetually unsolved conflicts in Cyprus,
Kashmir, and the Middle East remain beyond solution by mere Council
recommendation,

From the very source you quoted

The binding nature of these UN resolutions (as acknowledged by Indian officials)

Parliament Resolution on Jammu and Kashmir

Following increasing terrorist violence and Pakistan’s attempts to highlight the Kashmir dispute, both houses of the Indian Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution on February 22, 1994, emphasizing that Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of India, and that Pakistan must vacate parts of the State under its occupation. The text of the resolution follows.

"This House note with deep concern Pakistan's role in imparting training to the terrorists in camps located in Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, the supply of weapons and funds, assistance in infiltration of trained militants, including foreign mercenaries into Jammu and Kashmir with the avowed purpose of creating disorder, disharmony and subversion:

reiterates that the militants trained in Pakistan are indulging in murder, loot and other heinous crimes against the people, taking them hostage and creating an atmosphere of terror;

Condemns strongly the continued support and encouragement Pakistan is extending to subversive and terrorist activities in the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir;

Calls upon Pakistan to stop forthwith its support to terrorism, which is in violation of the Simla Agreement and the internationally accepted norms of inter-State conduct and is the root cause of tension between the two countries reiterates that the Indian political and democratic structures and the Constitution provide for firm guarantees for the promotion and protection of human rights of all its citizens;

regard Pakistan's anti-India campaign of calumny and falsehood as unacceptable and deplorable.

notes with deep concern the highly provocative statements emanating from Pakistan urges Pakistan to refrain from making statements which vitiate the atmosphere and incite public opinion;

expresses regret and concern at the pitiable conditions and violations of human rights and denial of demoractic freedoms of the people in those areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which are under the illegal occupation of Pakistan;

On behalf of the People of India,

Firmly declares that-


(a) The State of Jammu & Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part of India and any attempts to separate it from the rest of the country will be resisted by all necessary means;


(b) India has the will and capacity to firmly counter all designs against its unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity;


and demands that -


(c) Pakistan must vacate the areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which they have occupied through aggression; and resolves that -


(d) all attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of India will be met resolutely."


The Resolution was unanimously adopted. Mr. Speaker: The Resolution is unanimously passed.


February 22, 1994



http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/count...arliament_resolution_on_Jammu_and_Kashmir.htm

 

[MBT 3000]

delusional cow piss drinker