No Neighbor Comes To Honor Lance Naik Ahmad Wani's Family on Winning Ashoka Chakra

[Jackdaws]

Well, I know what I am talking about. Still, I googled it to see what you were trying to say.

The very first result that turned up was an article by a well-known Indian Scholar stating :

... Pakistan demurred at first, but agreed. It fell through because Nehru did not accept the conditions in which the plebiscite could be held .... Dixon, on August 15, won Liaquat's clearance for his plan...

https://frontline.thehindu.com/static/html/fl1921/stories/20021025002508200.htm



We don't need to take it to the ICJ as long as UNMOGIP is present in India and Pakistan, and Kashmir remains on the agenda of the UNSC as an unresolved international dispute, even after 47 years of the signing of the Simla Agreement. It's you who believes that UN Resolutions have become invalid now. You guys need to take it to the ICJ if you cannot (or don't want to) expel UNMOGIP from India



Of course, it is not your fault. You guys have been fed propaganda and lies.

I have no clue what you Googled.
According to the Indian commentator Raghavan, it was first Nehru who proposed a partition-cum-plebiscite plan: Jammu and Ladakh would go to India, Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas to Pakistan, and a plebiscite would be held in the Kashmir Valley. Dixon favoured the plan, which bears his name till this day.[36] Dixon agreed that people in Jammu and Ladakh were clearly in favour of India; equally clearly, those in Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas wanted to be part of Pakistan. This left the Kashmir Valley and 'perhaps some adjacent country' around Muzaffarabad in uncertain political terrain. However, according to Dixon, Pakistan "bluntly rejected" the proposal. It believed that the plebiscite should be held in the entire state or the state should be partitioned along religious lines.
Source -

Snedden, Christopher (2005), "Would a plebiscite have resolved the Kashmir dispute?", South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 28 (1): 64–86,

It's obvious who has been fed lies and propaganda.

Well, I know what I am talking about. Still, I googled it to see what you were trying to say.

The very first result that turned up was an article by a well-known Indian Scholar stating :

... Pakistan demurred at first, but agreed. It fell through because Nehru did not accept the conditions in which the plebiscite could be held .... Dixon, on August 15, won Liaquat's clearance for his plan...

https://frontline.thehindu.com/static/html/fl1921/stories/20021025002508200.htm



We don't need to take it to the ICJ as long as UNMOGIP is present in India and Pakistan, and Kashmir remains on the agenda of the UNSC as an unresolved international dispute, even after 47 years of the signing of the Simla Agreement. It's you who believes that UN Resolutions have become invalid now. You guys need to take it to the ICJ if you cannot (or don't want to) expel UNMOGIP from India



Of course, it is not your fault. You guys have been fed propaganda and lies.

Additionally, India offered 1500 sq miles of the valley to Pak after 1962.

Pak rejected it.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/How-Bhutto-wrecked-a-Kashmir-solution/articleshow/7244572.cms

 

[M. Sarmad]

I have no clue what you Googled.
According to the Indian commentator Raghavan, it was first Nehru who proposed a partition-cum-plebiscite plan: Jammu and Ladakh would go to India, Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas to Pakistan, and a plebiscite would be held in the Kashmir Valley. Dixon favoured the plan, which bears his name till this day.[36] Dixon agreed that people in Jammu and Ladakh were clearly in favour of India; equally clearly, those in Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas wanted to be part of Pakistan. This left the Kashmir Valley and 'perhaps some adjacent country' around Muzaffarabad in uncertain political terrain. However, according to Dixon, Pakistan "bluntly rejected" the proposal. It believed that the plebiscite should be held in the entire state or the state should be partitioned along religious lines.
Source -

Snedden, Christopher (2005), "Would a plebiscite have resolved the Kashmir dispute?", South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 28 (1): 64–86,

It's obvious who has been fed lies and propaganda.

Wikipedia .... Seriously??
And who's this Rhagavan chap, anyway?
And why selective quoting, mate? The same article goes on to say:
Another reason India declined Dixon's proposals for a limited plebiscite was that India wanted to keep its own troops in Kashmir during the plebiscite, claiming they were necessary for "security reasons"

It's obvious who has been fed lies and propaganda.

Of course, it is

Have you tried to read the article by the well-known Indian scholar A G Noorani on Dixon Plan posted in the previous post? Please do

Additionally, India offered 1500 sq miles of the valley to Pak after 1962.

Pak rejected it.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/How-Bhutto-wrecked-a-Kashmir-solution/articleshow/7244572.cms

Post a neutral source and we can discuss this as well.

 

[RPK]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1089094707022565382

 

[Jackdaws]

Wikipedia .... Seriously??
And who's this Rhagavan chap, anyway?
And why selective quoting, mate? The same article goes on to say:
Another reason India declined Dixon's proposals for a limited plebiscite was that India wanted to keep its own troops in Kashmir during the plebiscite, claiming they were necessary for "security reasons"



Of course, it is

Have you tried to read the article by the well-known Indian scholar A G Noorani on Dixon Plan posted in the previous post? Please do



Post a neutral source and we can discuss this as well.

Lol. When it suits you an India.source is kosher. When it doesn't it is not. But here is a Pak source -

https://books.google.com/books/about/India_vs_Pakistan.html?id=7oFoDwAAQBAJ

I guess you will have an excuse about that too.

And I have given you the relevant citation as well for the previous source - not that it matters.

 

[Pakhtoon yum]

Which religion, I never mentioned or brought in any religion ?? I was stating a universal truth based on hard facts. Where is the proof about the existence of some so called heaven or hell?? Now your are embarrassing yourself. This is 21st century dude, be realistic. LOL

Aww boo boo, playing innocent. Very cute

 

[M. Sarmad]

Lol. When it suits you an India.source is kosher. When it doesn't it is not. But here is a Pak source -

https://books.google.com/books/about/India_vs_Pakistan.html?id=7oFoDwAAQBAJ

I guess you will have an excuse about that too.

And I have given you the relevant citation as well for the previous source - not that it matters.

Let me remind you, my friend, you claimed that it was a FACT that Dixon Plan was accepted by India and rejected by Pakistan.

You were told that the opposite was true and it was India (not Pakistan) that rejected Dixon plan.

In response, you quoted Wikipedia article (selectively) stating that Pakistan, according to Dixon, rejected the proposal bluntly. You were told that Wikipedia was no reliable source and that even the article you yourself posted clearly stated that India rejected the proposal.


We don't have to rely on secondary sources to know who rejected (or accepted) the Dixon Plan. Sir Owen Dixon submitted his official report to the UNSC. Document S/1791 of 15 Sept 1950. If you don't have access to that document,

Owen Dixon proposed:

1) Demilitarization:

Withdrawal of Pakistani troops from Kashmir first, then withdrawal of Indian troops, followed by disbandment and disarmament of Azad Kashmir and Kashmir State Forces.

Pakistan accepted the proposals, India rejected them giving reasons mentioned in the said report

2) Azad Kashmir:

Sir Owen Dixon suggested that the administration of this area be entrusted to local magistrates who in turn would be supervised by UN officials. India rejected this too stating that Pakistan was being treated as equal.

3) Northern Areas:

Sir Owen Dixon suggested that administration of northern areas be conducted by political agents representing the United Nations. India rejected this as well, stating that recognition of this plan would recognize Pakistan's right to be in that portion of the State.


Thus all attempts by Sir Owen Dixon to solve the problem of demilitarization as a necessary pre-requisite of plebiscite came to naught due to Indian refusal.


Dixon, however, did not give up and in an attempt to keep the negotiations open, he suggested three procedures which if adopted would bypass the problem of demilitarization.

First, he proposed a single coalition apolitical government/administration whose chairman was to be appointed by the UN. India rejected this proposal.

In his second attempt, he suggested region by region or allocating of regions to either country which would unquestionably vote for them and limiting the plebiscite to the Valley. Pakistan, for the first time, objected to it stating that Plebiscite should be carried out in the entire State. India conditionally accepted it claiming territory which according to Owen Dixon was 'unreasonable'.

For the third and final attempt, Sir Owen Dixon suggested partition along religious lines with a plebiscite in the demilitarized valley under the administration of the UN. Pakistan was reluctant initially but Liaquat accepted the plan. In an exchange of cables, Nehru rejected the idea — to Dixon's annoyance. They are annexed to the Report.

Having exhausted all possible means of reconciliation, Sir Owen Dixon reported the failure of his mission to the UNSC:

"In the end, I became convinced that India's agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the 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 abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Page 16, Para 52 of Document S/1791)



@Areesh ... And here we have Indians trying to tell us that India accepted the Dixon Plan, Pakistan rejected it

@Joe Shearer, your views, sir
@AgNoStiC MuSliM

 

[Joe Shearer]

@M. Sarmad

Sir I will be happy to contribute to any thread that is not damaged ab initio. This thread is an open incitement to religious hatred of India and of Indians. It was initiated by one of the most hardened and brazen 'haters'. The last straw is your own participation in that wallowing in religious hatred.

There are interesting views that have been expressed, interesting interpretations of widely known facts, and interesting positions taken by those who were asked to take impartial positions and mediate. All these are difficult to examine in this frenzied atmosphere.

This is not a moderation issue. It is an issue for the members to consider. If even senior members with a reputation for balance and dispassionate consideration slip into their professions of faith before even coming to the exposition of facts, it becomes impossible to participate. As long as thought leaders such as yourself put themselves at the side of the canaille, it is difficult to converse above the shouting.

As I have already stated, my views are received with hostility by both sides, and this is likely to continue.

The Indian side is hostile to any sympathetic consideration about the present needs of the citizens of the Valley, or to any criticism of the bureaucratic interference and the ignorance and shallow treatment by Indian politicians of those needs of the Indian citizens who have been participating in the democratic process that are mandatory.

The Pakistani side is hostile to any comment on the inequity of an openly and self-confessed promoter of aggression claiming equal treatment, and clinging to the fig-leaf of the absence of a considered condemnation of the initial actions by Pakistan's financed and led irregulars, and the participation of responsible persons in the establishment on the prompting of the very highest political personalities; the question of discussing the legality or the tenability of the administration of West Jammu or the erstwhile Gilgit-Baltistan seems equally outlandish, and is far from a possibility except for a clinically-confirmed masochist.

For that reason, I had indicated earlier that there is no reason for me to invite such opprobrium, and had suggested that these discussions be conducted elsewhere, where the half-crazed ravings of some posts by arguably unbalanced members is absent.

That offer stands. Your invitation would have been welcome in any other context. In this present thread, it has little attraction.

 

[Jackdaws]

Let me remind you, my friend, you claimed that it was a FACT that Dixon Plan was accepted by India and rejected by Pakistan.

You were told that the opposite was true and it was India (not Pakistan) that rejected Dixon plan.

In response, you quoted Wikipedia article (selectively) stating that Pakistan, according to Dixon, rejected the proposal bluntly. You were told that Wikipedia was no reliable source and that even the article you yourself posted clearly stated that India rejected the proposal.


We don't have to rely on secondary sources to know who rejected (or accepted) the Dixon Plan. Sir Owen Dixon submitted his official report to the UNSC. Document S/1791 of 15 Sept 1950. If you don't have access to that document,

Owen Dixon proposed:

1) Demilitarization:

Withdrawal of Pakistani troops from Kashmir first, then withdrawal of Indian troops, followed by disbandment and disarmament of Azad Kashmir and Kashmir State Forces.

Pakistan accepted the proposals, India rejected them giving reasons mentioned in the said report

2) Azad Kashmir:

Sir Owen Dixon suggested that the administration of this area be entrusted to local magistrates who in turn would be supervised by UN officials. India rejected this too stating that Pakistan was being treated as equal.

3) Northern Areas:

Sir Owen Dixon suggested that administration of northern areas be conducted by political agents representing the United Nations. India rejected this as well, stating that recognition of this plan would recognize Pakistan's right to be in that portion of the State.


Thus all attempts by Sir Owen Dixon to solve the problem of demilitarization as a necessary pre-requisite of plebiscite came to naught due to Indian refusal.


Dixon, however, did not give up and in an attempt to keep the negotiations open, he suggested three procedures which if adopted would bypass the problem of demilitarization.

First, he proposed a single coalition apolitical government/administration whose chairman was to be appointed by the UN. India rejected this proposal.

In his second attempt, he suggested region by region or allocating of regions to either country which would unquestionably vote for them and limiting the plebiscite to the Valley. Pakistan, for the first time, objected to it stating that Plebiscite should be carried out in the entire State. India conditionally accepted it claiming territory which according to Owen Dixon was 'unreasonable'.

For the third and final attempt, Sir Owen Dixon suggested partition along religious lines with a plebiscite in the demilitarized valley under the administration of the UN. Pakistan was reluctant initially but Liaquat accepted the plan. In an exchange of cables, Nehru rejected the idea — to Dixon's annoyance. They are annexed to the Report.

Having exhausted all possible means of reconciliation, Sir Owen Dixon reported the failure of his mission to the UNSC:

"In the end, I became convinced that India's agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the 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 abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Page 16, Para 52 of Document S/1791)



@Areesh ... And here we have Indians trying to tell us that India accepted the Dixon Plan, Pakistan rejected it

@Joe Shearer, your views, sir
@AgNoStiC MuSliM

Nice dodge and side stepping of Bhutto Swaran Singh talks.

Anyhow, Dixon put forth multiple plans and India's stance of rejecting plans was based on giving a legal basis to Pak occupation of a territory. On the other hand, Pak rejection of the Dixon plan which divided state along religious lines and conducting a plebiscite was based on no logic except wanting to perpetuate the crisis.

 

[Areesh]

@Areesh ... And here we have Indians trying to tell us that India accepted the Dixon Plan, Pakistan rejected it

Victims of their own lies

 

[M. Sarmad]

Nice dodge and side stepping of Bhutto Swaran Singh talks.

Anyhow, Dixon put forth multiple plans and India's stance of rejecting plans was based on giving a legal basis to Pak occupation of a territory. On the other hand, Pak rejection of the Dixon plan which divided state along religious lines and conducting a plebiscite was based on no logic except wanting to perpetuate the crisis.

'Bhutto-Sawaran Singh' talks was not what we were discussing, not sure what you mean by 'Dodge and stepping aside'.

And no, Dixon did not put forth 'multiple plans'. His original plan was rejected by India, to keep the negotiations open, he suggested different procedures which if adopted would bypass the problem of demilitarization. But he failed to win clearance from India for those proposals as well, frustrated, he resigned, and in his official report to the Security Council on Sept 15, 1950, he put the blame on the party he thought was responsible (i.e India).

And wrong again, Pakistan did not reject partition along religious lines. the Talks broke down because India first made unreasonable claims regarding areas that should go to India without a plebiscite, and later it did not accept the conditions suggested by Dixon in which 'a free and fair' plebiscite could be held in the 'limited area'.

As for reasons/rationale behind Indian rejection of the plan, we can of course discuss that but let me remind you, my friend, that here you tried to tell us that India accepted the Plan and Pakistan rejected it, and that whoever believed otherwise had done selective reading of history by design (or by mistake).

 

[Jackdaws]

'Bhutto-Sawaran Singh' talks was not what we were discussing, not sure what you mean by 'Dodge and stepping aside'.

And no, Dixon did not put forth 'multiple plans'. His original plan was rejected by India, to keep the negotiations open, he suggested different procedures which if adopted would bypass the problem of demilitarization. But he failed to win clearance from India for those proposals as well, frustrated, he resigned, and in his official report to the Security Council on Sept 15, 1950, he put the blame on the party he thought was responsible (i.e India).

And wrong again, Pakistan did not reject partition along religious lines. the Talks broke down because India first made unreasonable claims regarding areas that should go to India without a plebiscite, and later it did not accept the conditions suggested by Dixon in which 'a free and fair' plebiscite could be held in the 'limited area'.

As for reasons/rationale behind Indian rejection of the plan, we can of course discuss that but let me remind you, my friend, that here you tried to tell us that India accepted the Plan and Pakistan rejected it, and that whoever believed otherwise had done selective reading of history by design (or by mistake).

Of course India accepted the Dixon plan and Pak rejected it. It is a matter of recorded history. You can deny it all you want.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Of course India accepted the Dixon plan and Pak rejected it. It is a matter of recorded history. You can deny it all you want.

Your willful ignorance and self-deception do not harm us in any way.

 

[Jackdaws]

Your willful ignorance and self-deception do not harm us in any way.

You can continue to live in lalaland and deny documented historical facts. I wouldn't expect anything else.

 

[M. Sarmad]

You can continue to live in lalaland and deny documented historical facts. I wouldn't expect anything else.

UN Document S/1791, 15 Sept 1950
Come back when you have read it.

 

[Placemat]

Hell fire awaits him for his betrayal

There is no he'll not heaven. He just became a martyr by being true to his motherland.

The struggle of Kashmir is a legitimate Jihad as they are under a non Muslim occupation , their women children and properties are not safe and they are attacked . Any Muslim who fight and side with the occupier can't become a shaheed , he will die and testify to God that he fight and work against his own brothers and sisters while knowing that they been oppressed .

All bullshit. There is no testify to God. If at all there is a God, that God wouldn't care what he did or did not do. Don't give religious bs here.

The villagers are scared because of Pakistan controlled terrorists