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

[hussain0216]

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

His motherland is Kashmir

He has disgraced himself and his family infront of his people

He has no honour and only hell fire awaits him for allying with idolaters against his own people

 

[Jackdaws]

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

Come back when you read the ICJ report on Kashmir - but let me make it easier for you

M eanwhile, the U nited N ations had continued its concern with
Jam m u and Kashmir. In M arch 1950 the U N appointed Sir Owen
Dixon, the distinguished Chief Justice of Australia, its representative
in India and Pakistan. In the course of his mission Sir Owen raised
with the Prime M inisters of both countries the possibility of regional
plebiscites, either throughout the various regions within the State or in the Valley of Kashm ir alone, leading to a partition of the State.
N ehru showed interest in the plan, probably believing that Sheikh
Abdullah could ensure a vote for India in a plebiscite in the Valley.
However, the plan was rejected by both Sheikh Abdullah himself and by the Pakistani Prim e M inister, Liaquat Ali Khan. Dixon, in his
report to the U nited Nations in Septem ber 1950, rejected the idea of a plebiscite of the entire State, saying: «The interest of the people, the
justice as well as the perm anence of the settlement, and the imperative
necessity of avoiding a n o th e r refugee problem , all p o in t to the
wisdom of adopting partition as the principle of settlem ent and of
abandoning that of an overall plebiscite. But in addition the economic
and geographic considerations point in the same direction.* However,
the Dixon plan — probably the best hope then available for a peaceful
and perm anent solution to the Kashmir dispute — fell to the ground.

Page 18 of the report
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...WMAN6BAgJEAE&usg=AOvVaw2GTcvIRbS9xP9j0vPG4aYA

 

[M. Sarmad]

Come back when you read the ICJ report on Kashmir - but let me make it easier for you

M eanwhile, the U nited N ations had continued its concern with
Jam m u and Kashmir. In M arch 1950 the U N appointed Sir Owen
Dixon, the distinguished Chief Justice of Australia, its representative
in India and Pakistan. In the course of his mission Sir Owen raised
with the Prime M inisters of both countries the possibility of regional
plebiscites, either throughout the various regions within the State or in the Valley of Kashm ir alone, leading to a partition of the State.
N ehru showed interest in the plan, probably believing that Sheikh
Abdullah could ensure a vote for India in a plebiscite in the Valley.
However, the plan was rejected by both Sheikh Abdullah himself and by the Pakistani Prim e M inister, Liaquat Ali Khan. Dixon, in his
report to the U nited Nations in Septem ber 1950, rejected the idea of a plebiscite of the entire State, saying: «The interest of the people, the
justice as well as the perm anence of the settlement, and the imperative
necessity of avoiding a n o th e r refugee problem , all p o in t to the
wisdom of adopting partition as the principle of settlem ent and of
abandoning that of an overall plebiscite. But in addition the economic
and geographic considerations point in the same direction.* However,
the Dixon plan — probably the best hope then available for a peaceful
and perm anent solution to the Kashmir dispute — fell to the ground.

Page 18 of the report
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...WMAN6BAgJEAE&usg=AOvVaw2GTcvIRbS9xP9j0vPG4aYA

Well, I have been trying to discuss this ^^ (the International Commission of Jurists') 1995 report on Kashmir with Indians here on PDF since 2014. Glad that you brought it up:

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), based in Geneva, passed a resolution in 1993 proclaiming Kashmir's accession to India as bogus and null and void.


Kashmir: not an integral part of India - thenews.com.pk

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Kashmir: The origins of the dispute

http://icj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/...hmir-fact-finding-mission-report-1995-eng.pdf

(The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is an international human rights non-governmental organization based in Geneva. The Commission itself is a standing group of 60 eminent jurists(including senior judges, attorneys and academics) dedicated to ensuring respect for international human rights standards through the law. Commissioners are known for their experience, knowledge and fundamental commitment to human rights.)


ICJ sent a fact finding mission to Kashmir in 1995. The final report published not only challenged the accession of Kashmir to India, it went on to say "If as the ICJ mission has concluded , the people of Kashmir have a right for self determination, it follows that their insurgency is legitimate " ... (p.84-98)

http://www.icj.org/category/publications/reports/page/33/

This report not only challenges the accession of Kashmir to India, it declares Kashmir insurgency to be legitimate. And it goes on to completely reject Indian position on Simla Agreement:

The people of Jammu and Kashmir were not parties to the Agreement and neither India nor Pakistan, both of which had conflicts of interest with the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir can be regarded as having authority to bind them. The members of the ICJ mission do not see, therefore, how the Simla Agreement can be regarded as having deprived the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir of any rights of self-determination to which they were entitled at the time of the Agreement... (p.92)

And

Both India and Pakistan should recognise and respond to the call for self-determination for the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir within its 1947 boundaries, inherent in the relevant United Nations resolutions. The United Nations should re-activate its role as a catalyst in this process. (p.98)


https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/after-the-surgical-strikes.452792/page-4#post-8760085

====

EDIT: And there is nothing in this report regarding Dixon plan that you have not been told already:

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'.

 

[Placemat]

His motherland is Kashmir

He has disgraced himself and his family infront of his people

He has no honour and only hell fire awaits him for allying with idolaters against his own people

Indians are his people. All nonsense about siding with idolators or non idolatira are just political.
When no one knows what happens after dearth let's not talk about hell fire or heaven virgin's.

 

[Jackdaws]

Well, I have been trying to discuss this ^^ (the International Commission of Jurists') 1995 report on Kashmir with Indians here on PDF since 2014. Glad that you brought it up:







This report not only challenges the accession of Kashmir to India, it declares Kashmir insurgency to be legitimate. And it goes on to completely reject Indian position on Simla Agreement:

The people of Jammu and Kashmir were not parties to the Agreement and neither India nor Pakistan, both of which had conflicts of interest with the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir can be regarded as having authority to bind them. The members of the ICJ mission do not see, therefore, how the Simla Agreement can be regarded as having deprived the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir of any rights of self-determination to which they were entitled at the time of the Agreement... (p.92)

And

Both India and Pakistan should recognise and respond to the call for self-determination for the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir within its 1947 boundaries, inherent in the relevant United Nations resolutions. The United Nations should re-activate its role as a catalyst in this process. (p.98)


https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/after-the-surgical-strikes.452792/page-4#post-8760085

====

EDIT: And there is nothing in this report regarding Dixon plan that you have not been told already:

Yes, i agree to that aspect. It was written from a neutral perspective and blamed both India and Pak for the mess. Both the countries roundly rejected it which only serves to highlight the fact that it must be written from a NPOV.