Need to factor in our 106km border with Afghanistan: NSA

[Echo_419]

we can't stop you from whining. please continue

Bahut purana thread hai yeh

already have



now that you ask so politely
come take it man

Bahut purana thread hai yeh

 

[Hindustani78]

BJP is in government, So it is not surprise they won in by-elections, Let we play fair. Do plebiscite on both sides of Kashmir.

The UN Security Council passed Resolution 39 in January 1948, establishing a special commission to investigate the conflict, and passed Resolution 47 in April of the same year, which ordered the Pakistani army to retreat from Jammu and Kashmir and for a plebiscite to be held in which those habiting in Jammu and Kashmir would determine their nationality. Pakistan failed to remove their military presence, and so India argued that the plebiscite could not go ahead.

 

[Spring Onion]

Bahut purana thread hai yeh




Bahut purana thread hai yeh

hahaha han tabhi main bhi sochon k ye itna purana border phir kahan say aa gaya. i thought it is new thread

 

[Hindustani78]

Is gilgit baltistan part of azad Kashmir?

Jammu Province, Kashmir Province,and the Frontier Ilaquas (Frontier Areas) made up the state’s three large administrative units.

Chenani Jagir and Poonch Jagir were incorporated into Jammu Province

Frontier Ilaquas consisted of the Ladakh Wazarat, the Gilgit Agency, the vassal states of Hunza and Nagar, and the tribal region of Chilas

Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir had become a frontier between the British colonial empire and Russian imperial projects in Central Asia.

The land-settlement assessments in the state began in 1887,carried out by an officer of the British colonial government.

“the people of the Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh and the frontier regions, including Poonch and Chenani Ilaquas.”

A working committee of the National Conference fi rst articulated the concept of popular sovereignty as a right of Jammu and Kashmir state subjects in its Naya Kashmir(New Kashmir) Manifesto, which the party adopted in
1944.

Sovereign rule by the people of the state, defined as “the people of the Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh and the frontier regions, including Poonch and Chenani Ilaquas.This notion of self-rule was extended in the call for āzād kashmīr
(Liberted/Free Kashmir)at a meeting sponsored by the Kashmir Kisan Mazdoor Party in May 1946.

National Conference, the Muslim Conference, the Dogra Party, and the Praja Parishad.

 

[M. Sarmad]

The UN Security Council passed Resolution 39 in January 1948, establishing a special commission to investigate the conflict, and passed Resolution 47 in April of the same year, which ordered the Pakistani army to retreat from Jammu and Kashmir and for a plebiscite to be held in which those habiting in Jammu and Kashmir would determine their nationality. Pakistan failed to remove their military presence, and so India argued that the plebiscite could not go ahead.

The Latin maxim "Nullus oommodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" (No advantage may be gained from one’s own wrong) means in Kashmir context that India cannot frustrate attempts to create conditions ripe for a troop withdrawal and ceasefire in order to avoid carrying out its obligations to hold a plebiscite.


The 'terms' of the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir that you have mentioned require an agreement between India, Pakistan and UNSC appointed mediators on demilitarization. There is no requirement for a unilateral and unconditional withdrawal upon Pakistan.



India claims that acceptance of Resolution 47 (1948) was stated by Nehru to be conditional on the withdrawal of Pakistani forces from territory within the 1947 boundaries of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, in accordance with the terms of that Resolution. Pakistani forces have, of course, never been withdrawn.


The factual position is as under:-


(a) The demilitarization of Jammu and Kashmir was to take place in a synchronized manner on both sides of the ceasefire line. It was India which refused to implement the process of demilitarization.


(b) The proof of Indian refusal to demilitarize is to be found in the report of Sir Owen Dixon (an eminent Australian Jurist and United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan) to the Security Council, contained in Document S-1971, in which he concluded as follows:-

"In the end, I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperilled."(Para 52 of Document S/1971).


(c) It should also be noted that after a thorough examination of the matter the Security Council in its Resolution No. 98(1952), adopted on 23rd December 1952, allowed both India and Pakistan to maintain a limited number of their forces on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization in order to maintain law and order. This number was to be between 3000-6000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistani side and 12000-18000 remaining on the Indian side of the cease-fire line. Pakistan agreed to this proposal; India did not.


(d) To claim, in the face of this clear and irrefutable evidence, that the plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan refused to withdraw its forces, is patently an attempt to deceive the world. The simple truth is that India did not allow the creation of conditions necessary for the holding of a free and fair plebiscite under UN auspices.

 

[Hindustani78]

The Latin maxim "Nullus oommodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" (No advantage may be gained from one’s own wrong) means in Kashmir context that India cannot frustrate attempts to create conditions ripe for a troop withdrawal and ceasefire in order to avoid carrying out its obligations to hold a plebiscite.


The 'terms' of the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir that you have mentioned require an agreement between India, Pakistan and UNSC appointed mediators on demilitarization. There is no requirement for a unilateral and unconditional withdrawal upon Pakistan.



India claims that acceptance of Resolution 47 (1948) was stated by Nehru to be conditional on the withdrawal of Pakistani forces from territory within the 1947 boundaries of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, in accordance with the terms of that Resolution. Pakistani forces have, of course, never been withdrawn.


The factual position is as under:-


(a) The demilitarization of Jammu and Kashmir was to take place in a synchronized manner on both sides of the ceasefire line. It was India which refused to implement the process of demilitarization.


(b) The proof of Indian refusal to demilitarize is to be found in the report of Sir Owen Dixon (an eminent Australian Jurist and United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan) to the Security Council, contained in Document S-1971, in which he concluded as follows:-

"In the end, I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperilled."(Para 52 of Document S/1971).


(c) It should also be noted that after a thorough examination of the matter the Security Council in its Resolution No. 98(1952), adopted on 23rd December 1952, allowed both India and Pakistan to maintain a limited number of their forces on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization in order to maintain law and order. This number was to be between 3000-6000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistani side and 12000-18000 remaining on the Indian side of the cease-fire line. Pakistan agreed to this proposal; India did not.


(d) To claim, in the face of this clear and irrefutable evidence, that the plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan refused to withdraw its forces, is patently an attempt to deceive the world. The simple truth is that India did not allow the creation of conditions necessary for the holding of a free and fair plebiscite under UN auspices.

It was the irregulars from North West Frontier province backed by Pakistan Military who carried out raids in the princely state of kashmir and Jammu, Plebiscite would have been held when the invading forces from pakistan would have withdraw on the first place. Indian Establishment was having instrument of Accession as well as the popular support of the people of Jammu Province, Kashmir Province,and the Frontier Ilaquas (Frontier Areas) consisted of the Ladakh Wazarat, the Gilgit Agency, the vassal states of Hunza and Nagar, and the tribal region of Chilas.

 

[graphican]

Once US/NATO forces pull out of Afghanistan, Indian assets will be minced within months in Afghanistan.

 

[M. Sarmad]

It was the irregulars from North West Frontier province backed by Pakistan Military who carried out raids in the princely state of kashmir and Jammu, Plebiscite would have been held when the invading forces from pakistan would have withdraw on the first place. Indian Establishment was having instrument of Accession as well as the popular support of the people of Jammu Province, Kashmir Province,and the Frontier Ilaquas (Frontier Areas) consisted of the Ladakh Wazarat, the Gilgit Agency, the vassal states of Hunza and Nagar, and the tribal region of Chilas.

Indian Forces were present in J&K even before the "alleged" tribal invasion. Ever heard about Poonch uprising ?


And those "irregulars" had withdrawn by Feb 1951 anyway. But no plebiscite was held as India refused to accept any demilitarization plan


From 1949 to 1952 eleven proposals (for demilitarization) were made which India rejected. Pakistan was even prepared to pull out its troops in favor of the UN troops irrespective of the Indian reaction to such a proposal and told the UN that it made no conditions.

There was a reason why the UN appointed official mediator (i.e Sir Owen Dixon) blamed India (and not Pakistan) for halting the process






India had popular support of Kashmiris ??


The London Economist stated that "the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [the Kashmiri people]...has been obstructing a holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite. From this the world opinion can only conclude that India really has no confidence that the vote would go in its favour" The Economist (London), Feb 18, 1950


Don't trust the English Press ?

This comes from "Indian" sources:

Writing to the Chief Minister of West Bengal, B.C. Roy on 29 June 1953, Nehru confided “If there was a plebiscite, a great majority of Muslims in Kashmir would go against us.” They had “become frightened of the communal elements in Jammu and in India.” He had “this feeling of our losing grip in Kashmir.” [Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 22, pp.204-5]


In 1996 was published a Note Nehru had written to Sheikh Abdullah on 25 August 1952 from Sonamarg in Kashmir. It is a document of cardinal importance. It laid bare Nehru’s entire approach to the questions; his strategy and tactics. He revealed that “towards the end of 1948” he concluded that “there were only two possibilities open to us, continuance of the war in a limited way; (2) some kind of a settlement on the basis of the existing military situation”. He had accepted the UNCIP resolutions to get a ceasefire; not to hold a plebiscite. “We are superior to Pakistan in military and industrial power,” With the passage of time Pakistan will “accept a settlement which we consider fair, whether in Kashmir or elsewhere”.

He was not bothered about what “Pakistan did or what the United Nations might do.” But he was “worried to find that the leaders of Kashmir were not so clear in their minds about the present or the future.” He was not worried about the wishes of the people either. They were “not what are called a virile people. They are soft and addicted to easy living.” Like Indira Gandhi, he felt that they were interested in “an honest administration and cheap and adequate food. If they get this, then they are more or less content.” The State would retain its “autonomy in most respects.” The leaders must shed doubt as doubt “percolates to their followers.” His recipe was clear. “Make the people think that the association of Kashmir State with India is an accomplished and final fact, and nothing is going to undo it.” [Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 19, pp.322-330. ed. S. Gopal, Nehru Memorial Fund, OUP, Second Series.]

 

[Hindustani78]

Once US/NATO forces pull out of Afghanistan, Indian assets will be minced within months in Afghanistan.

Well Afghans are seeing what Indian Establishment is doing for Afghan nation.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Indian Forces were present in J&K even before the "alleged" tribal invasion. Ever heard about Poonch uprising ?


And those "irregulars" had withdrawn by Feb 1951 anyway. But no plebiscite was held as India refused to accept any demilitarization plan


From 1949 to 1952 eleven proposals (for demilitarization) were made which India rejected. Pakistan was even prepared to pull out its troops in favor of the UN troops irrespective of the Indian reaction to such a proposal and told the UN that it made no conditions.

There was a reason why the UN appointed official mediator (i.e Sir Owen Dixon) blamed India (and not Pakistan) for halting the process






India had popular support of Kashmiris ??


The London Economist stated that "the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [the Kashmiri people]...has been obstructing a holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite. From this the world opinion can only conclude that India really has no confidence that the vote would go in its favour" The Economist (London), Feb 18, 1950


Don't trust the English Press ?

This comes from "Indian" sources:

Writing to the Chief Minister of West Bengal, B.C. Roy on 29 June 1953, Nehru confided “If there was a plebiscite, a great majority of Muslims in Kashmir would go against us.” They had “become frightened of the communal elements in Jammu and in India.” He had “this feeling of our losing grip in Kashmir.” [Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 22, pp.204-5]


In 1996 was published a Note Nehru had written to Sheikh Abdullah on 25 August 1952 from Sonamarg in Kashmir. It is a document of cardinal importance. It laid bare Nehru’s entire approach to the questions; his strategy and tactics. He revealed that “towards the end of 1948” he concluded that “there were only two possibilities open to us, continuance of the war in a limited way; (2) some kind of a settlement on the basis of the existing military situation”. He had accepted the UNCIP resolutions to get a ceasefire; not to hold a plebiscite. “We are superior to Pakistan in military and industrial power,” With the passage of time Pakistan will “accept a settlement which we consider fair, whether in Kashmir or elsewhere”.

He was not bothered about what “Pakistan did or what the United Nations might do.” But he was “worried to find that the leaders of Kashmir were not so clear in their minds about the present or the future.” He was not worried about the wishes of the people either. They were “not what are called a virile people. They are soft and addicted to easy living.” Like Indira Gandhi, he felt that they were interested in “an honest administration and cheap and adequate food. If they get this, then they are more or less content.” The State would retain its “autonomy in most respects.” The leaders must shed doubt as doubt “percolates to their followers.” His recipe was clear. “Make the people think that the association of Kashmir State with India is an accomplished and final fact, and nothing is going to undo it.” [Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 19, pp.322-330. ed. S. Gopal, Nehru Memorial Fund, OUP, Second Series.]

I would have given you positive ranting for this... But!!

 

[graphican]

Well Afghans are seeing what Indian Establishment is doing for Afghan nation.

4 powerless leaders and a bridge sticker. Is that India's survival policy in Afghanistan? Good, keep it up! There should be some memory of Indian existence in Afghan and that dam sticker would do the job, for sure.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Well Afghans are seeing what Indian Establishment is doing for Afghan nation.

And Quite Ironically, this dam has been built by "Hindus" on the Harirud River that originates from the western extension of Hindu Kush Mountain Range ...... Hindu Kush means "kills the Hindu"

 

[Hindustani78]

Indian Forces were present in J&K even before the "alleged" tribal invasion. Ever heard about Poonch uprising ?


And those "irregulars" had withdrawn by Feb 1951 anyway. But no plebiscite was held as India refused to accept any demilitarization plan


From 1949 to 1952 eleven proposals (for demilitarization) were made which India rejected. Pakistan was even prepared to pull out its troops in favor of the UN troops irrespective of the Indian reaction to such a proposal and told the UN that it made no conditions.

There was a reason why the UN appointed official mediator (i.e Sir Owen Dixon) blamed India (and not Pakistan) for halting the process

ia had popular support of Kashmiris ??


The London Economist stated that "the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [the Kashmiri people]...has been obstructing a holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite. From this the world opinion can only conclude that India really has no confidence that the vote would go in its favour" The Economist (London), Feb 18, 1950


Don't trust the English Press ?

This comes from "Indian" sources:

Writing to the Chief Minister of West Bengal, B.C. Roy on 29 June 1953, Nehru confided “If there was a plebiscite, a great majority of Muslims in Kashmir would go against us.” They had “become frightened of the communal elements in Jammu and in India.” He had “this feeling of our losing grip in Kashmir.” [Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 22, pp.204-5]


In 1996 was published a Note Nehru had written to Sheikh Abdullah on 25 August 1952 from Sonamarg in Kashmir. It is a document of cardinal importance. It laid bare Nehru’s entire approach to the questions; his strategy and tactics. He revealed that “towards the end of 1948” he concluded that “there were only two possibilities open to us, continuance of the war in a limited way; (2) some kind of a settlement on the basis of the existing military situation”. He had accepted the UNCIP resolutions to get a ceasefire; not to hold a plebiscite. “We are superior to Pakistan in military and industrial power,” With the passage of time Pakistan will “accept a settlement which we consider fair, whether in Kashmir or elsewhere”.

He was not bothered about what “Pakistan did or what the United Nations might do.” But he was “worried to find that the leaders of Kashmir were not so clear in their minds about the present or the future.” He was not worried about the wishes of the people either. They were “not what are called a virile people. They are soft and addicted to easy living.” Like Indira Gandhi, he felt that they were interested in “an honest administration and cheap and adequate food. If they get this, then they are more or less content.” The State would retain its “autonomy in most respects.” The leaders must shed doubt as doubt “percolates to their followers.” His recipe was clear. “Make the people think that the association of Kashmir State with India is an accomplished and final fact, and nothing is going to undo it.” [Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 19, pp.322-330. ed. S. Gopal, Nehru Memorial Fund, OUP, Second Series.]

http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/46-51/Chapter 8/46-51_08-16-The India-Pakistan question.pdf

I have already read the UN report and you are even most welcome to read it by yourself, take your time and try to understand its because Jammu and Kashmir is having religious importance for the Ancient Rig vedic tribes of Indian nation.

Pakistan Establishment was not willing to withdraw its military and this is the reason that in 1955 , Jammu and Kashmir Assembly resolution was adopted that the whole Jammu and Kashmir State (Jammu Province, Kashmir Province,and the Frontier Ilaquas (Frontier Areas) consisted of the Ladakh Wazarat, the Gilgit Agency, the vassal states of Hunza and Nagar, and the tribal region of Chilas) is integral part of Republic of India.

 

[M. Sarmad]

......... in 1955 , Jammu and Kashmir Assembly resolution was adopted that the whole Jammu and Kashmir State (Jammu Province, Kashmir Province,and the Frontier Ilaquas (Frontier Areas) consisted of the Ladakh Wazarat, the Gilgit Agency, the vassal states of Hunza and Nagar, and the tribal region of Chilas) is integral part of Republic of India.

The United Nations Security Council had already clarified in its Resolution 91 dated March 30, 1951 that it would not consider elections held only in Indian administered Kashmir to be a substitute for a free and impartial plebiscite including the people of the entire state Jammu and Kashmir.

So, the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly had no legal authority to decide the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (or any part of it) to India or Pakistan. (Indian state Holding sham elections at gunpoint in Kashmir is another story. )

That's why this accession is not accepted outside India, and Jammu and Kashmir still remains as an unresolved international dispute on the agenda of Security Council whose final accession (to India or Pakistan) is yet to be decided

 

[Hindustani78]

And Quite Ironically, this dam has been built by "Hindus" on the Harirud River that originates from the western extension of Hindu Kush Mountain Range ...... Hindu Kush means "kills the Hindu"

Hindu Kush are Mountain range and the name itself clearly knows who are Hindus.

Kush is name of son of Lord Rama.

The United Nations Security Council had already clarified in its Resolution 91 dated March 30, 1951 that it would not consider elections held only in Indian administered Kashmir to be a substitute for a free and impartial plebiscite including the people of the entire state Jammu and Kashmir.

So, the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly had no legal authority to decide the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (or any part of it) to India or Pakistan.

That's why this accession is not accepted outside India, and Jammu and Kashmir still remains as an unresolved international dispute on the agenda of Security Council whose final accession (to India or Pakistan) is yet to be decided

have you read the UN document ?

Jammu and Kashmir Assembly have adopted resolution in 1955 by conducting free and fair elections that the entire Jammu and Kashmir is integral part of Republic of India.

Majority of the resident of Princely state of Kashmir and Jammu were in favor of Indian Union.

4 powerless leaders and a bridge sticker. Is that India's survival policy in Afghanistan? Good, keep it up! There should be some memory of Indian existence in Afghan and that dam sticker would do the job, for sure.

Instead of that try to see the Afghan Parliament and how Republic of India and Afghan nation are working to make solid foundations of Democracy.