No resolution for Kashmir due to UN’s indolence and world’s apathy: Syed Ali Geelani

[Soumitra]

Muslims are already around 15% on total indian population, till 2050, they might reach 25% and from there it will be not so long when they reach 50%. Once they have majority they will be the rulers and will make sure indian occupier terrorists does not massacre Kashmiris.

Sorry Muslims are no longer politically relevant in India. For example in UP where in some districts Muslim Population is 25% BJP fields 0 muslims and still wins 3/4th majority. Parties like SP, BSP field hundreds of muslims but they lose even in Muslim Majority Areas

Same story in Gujarat BJP has no Muslim candidate, Congress does not even talk about Muslims forget about raising the riots issue.

 

[American Pakistani]

Even if Muslims reach a majority population, Kashmir strategy on the Indian end will remain unaltered. The Muslims in India are still Indians first. I'll reiterate, depending on religious commonalities to solve an issue will not work out, has not worked out in the past and will not work out in the future.
You can reduce yourself to thinking that religion will solve it, but truth is, people bond over a shared culture more effectively than religion.

And if your primary concern is the death of Kashmiri people, the solution to that is clear too. Stop joining terrorist factions and fighting the army. Instead, join politics, join schools, join debates anything to better yourselves.

I'm glad we can atleast agree on something. Rising Muslim population will be a win win for both Pakistan and India it seems, as well as Kashmiris.

Stop sending your 7 lakh indian occupier terrorists into IOK to kill and terrorize people.

Sorry Muslims are no longer politically relevant in India. For example in UP where in some districts Muslim Population is 25% BJP fields 0 muslims and still wins 3/4th majority. Parties like SP, BSP field hundreds of muslims but they lose even in Muslim Majority Areas

Same story in Gujarat BJP has no Muslim candidate, Congress does not even talk about Muslims forget about raising the riots issue.

Exactly, when Muslim population rise they will either create their own parties or they will take over bjp and Congress by kicking out radical hindus. No offense to good normal Hindus.

 

[Soumitra]

Exactly, when Muslim population rise they will either create their own parties or they will take over bjp and Congress by kicking out radical hindus. No offense to good normal Hindus.

Dont worry the number wont increase. even a mear threat of the number increasing makes radical Hindus go on an overdrive. It i better for everyone if the population numbers is stable at the current rate

 

[American Pakistani]

Dont worry the number wont increase. even a mear threat of the number increasing makes radical Hindus go on an overdrive. It i better for everyone if the population numbers is stable at the current rate

No matter how much the radical cries, the population is increasing and will increase. I won't be surprise to see 25% Muslim population by 2050

 

[Kuru]

UN resolution call for refrendum in IOK. Get your terrorists out and allow refrendum by handing over the territory to Pakistan. You will loose in seconds

Lie. A simple plain LIE.

UN resolution calls for Pakistan to get out of Pak held Kashmir so that the referendum can take place. Lol how many times you'll get busted ?

West support india because india have cheap as fkk labor which can be used to work for manufacturing cheap products so that the owners of company earns more. Also it have bigger market to dump products and make bucks. That is against Pakistan which is relatively smaller market and less labor. West does not support Palestine because Israel is where the money really is. You must be a bharti living in a cave to not know that.

Yeah you mean "hey nobody supports our stand for XYZ reasons that's why we aren't completing the preconditions for the referendum to take place in Kashmir"

Good going,

It is only indian blood that submits excuses. That' your trademark no one can beat you

So that makes you an Indian too because you're the one making excuses to not conduct the UN referendum in Kashmir.

Pakistan didn' even conduct refrendum and Kashmiris who are liberated demanded for making them province. Whereas in IOK you can see flags of Pakistan all over.

Still you aren't confident enough to conduct a referendum in Kashmir? Why?

7 lakh indian occupier terrorists are non kashmiris. So called hindu pandits are non kashmiris from delhi. Etc etc.

Do you know the difference between military installations and civilian settlements? You said India allowed civilians to settle in Kashmir to change the demographics. Where are those civilians settled again?

Don't expect me to spoonfeed you as if you are my s0n.

You disappointed me, again. Seems I have to teach you some English as if you're my son. No worries, I'll do it anyway.

You said the following:

You brought bhartis from bangali and dravida and maharatra to change demographics in IOK. Now you play politics on hindu pandit. All those are bangali and dravida and mataratrian. I say get them out of IOK now.

Now, I ask again, (if you understand English that is)

1) where are those "bangali and dravida and maharatra" are settled in Kashmir?

2) How many non-kashmiri families have been settled in Kashmir by India?

3) Why Pakistan doesn't have any law (like India) to prevent Pakistanis to settle in pak held Kashmir?

If you don't understand English, you can refer to a dictionary and then give me a link proving your claim, just a free advice.

It is you who is farting nonsense. Seems like a true product of modhi.

Yeah sure, whatever makes you happy

Pakistan is under no obligation to withdraw its troops from Kashmir unilaterally. The obligation of Pakistan to withdraw its troops from the state of Jammu and Kashmir does not devolve until both sides conclude a truce agreement to govern the withdrawal of not only Pakistan forces but also the bulk of the Indian armed forces from the state, the withdrawals to be carried out in a synchronized manner.

I never said Pakistan has to unilaterally pull out the troops. I only asked why Pakistan isn't implementing the UN pre-conditions of pulling out the troops. Of course it has to be done by both but the difference is that Pakistan has to pull out everyone from disputed area (including those who were allowed to settle in there by you). On the other hand, India will reduce the troops to minimum to maintain the law and order.

India doesn't have to pull out entire troops from there.

• In the first step, Pakistan was asked to use its "best endeavours" to secure the withdrawal of all tribesmen and Pakistani nationals, putting an end to the fighting in the state.
• In the second step, India was asked to "progressively reduce" its forces to the minimum level required for keeping law and order. It laid down principles that India should follow in administering law and order in consultation with the Commission, using local personnel as far as possible.

Here's a link to UN website: http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/1948.shtml

That's the precondition which Pakistan never met. Why?

And let me remind you it's India (not Pakistan) that has rejected all demilitarization plans proposed by the Commission and that's why both sides failed to conclude a truce agreement (thus halting the process). There's a reason for which the UN appointed official mediator blamed India and not Pakistan for halting the process !!

1) I'm not aware of India refusing to implement the process of demilitarization for the referendum to take place. A link will be appreciated.

I'm not aware who that mediator guy is and why does it even matter what he says. Why? Because the pre condition isn't met by Pakistan. Then why should we care what a foreigner has to say about us? How can you blame us for something which comes later in the second step when the first step isn't even met?

 

[M. Sarmad]

I never said Pakistan has to unilaterally pull out the troops. I only asked why Pakistan isn't implementing the UN pre-conditions of pulling out the troops. Of course it has to be done by both but the difference is that Pakistan has to pull out everyone from disputed area (including those who were allowed to settle in there by you). On the other hand, India will reduce the troops to minimum to maintain the law and order.

India doesn't have to pull out entire troops from there.

• In the first step, Pakistan was asked to use its "best endeavours" to secure the withdrawal of all tribesmen and Pakistani nationals, putting an end to the fighting in the state.
• In the second step, India was asked to "progressively reduce" its forces to the minimum level required for keeping law and order. It laid down principles that India should follow in administering law and order in consultation with the Commission, using local personnel as far as possible.

Here's a link to UN website: http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/1948.shtml

That's the precondition which Pakistan never met. Why?

Pakistan has never refused to implement the UN pre-condition (if you like to put it that way) of withdrawing its troops from Pak Administered Kashmir when notified by the Commission. It was agreed upon (b/w Pakistan, India and the UN) that India will start withdrawing the bulk of its troops when the Pak troops "are being withdrawn" (yes, that too is the part of the UN resolutions which Indians deliberately try to ignore).... But as India didn't accept any demilitarization plan (and the number of Indian troops that were to remain in the State) proposed by the Commission, The UN Commission never notified Pakistan to begin withdrawing it's troops and therefore no withdrawal took place.

As per the established and recognized maxim of law that "No one can take advantage of own wrong" , India cannot blame Pakistan for not withdrawing its troops when it is India itself which did not accept any demilitarization proposal made by the Commission. At least 11 proposals were made by the Commission between 1949 and 1952. Pakistan accepted them but India rejected them. Pakistan went as far as telling the UN that it was ready to withdraw all of its troops from Pak Administered Kashmir in favor of UN troops regardless of Indian reaction to such a proposal ... And you still think anyone outside India would blame Pakistan for not meeting the "pre-condition" ???

 

[Kuru]

Pakistan has never refused to implement the UN pre-condition (if you like to put it that way) of withdrawing its troops from Pak Administered Kashmir when notified by the Commission. It was agreed upon (b/w Pakistan, India and the UN) that India will start withdrawing the bulk of its troops when the Pak troops "are being withdrawn" (yes, that too is the part of the UN resolutions which Indians deliberately try to ignore).... But as India didn't accept any demilitarization plan (and the number of Indian troops that were to remain in the State) proposed by the Commission, The UN Commission never notified Pakistan to begin withdrawing it's troops and therefore no withdrawal took place.

As per the established and recognized maxim of law that "No one can take advantage of own wrong" , India cannot blame Pakistan for not withdrawing its troops when it is India itself which did not accept any demilitarization proposal made by the Commission. At least 11 proposals were made by the Commission between 1949 and 1952. Pakistan accepted them but India rejected them. Pakistan went as far as telling the UN that it was ready to withdraw all of its troops from Pak Administered Kashmir in favor of UN troops regardless of Indian reaction to such a proposal ... And you still think anyone outside India would blame Pakistan for not meeting the "pre-condition" ???

Thanks for replying like an adult (unlike some teenager here who claims to be an American).

An authentic link will be appreciated which shows India refusing to implement the process of demilitarization for the referendum to take place.

Moreover, the UN website says this:

2. The Government of India should
(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the council's resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that the arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order.

Link: http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/1948.shtml

So the first step is Pakistan withdrawing from Pak held Kashmir. The paragraph above shows the second step which India will do when the preconditions are met by Pakistan.

I hope it's clear to you now.

 

[RoadRunner401]

What about China's help in this regard as a major and rising power?

The reason why there has been no forward movement on Kashmir has been in part due to stubbornness by Indians but more importantly due to the article of faith issue (as Z.A. Bhutto put it) that you've proclaimed: even if there is agreement for a free and fair vote on accession the only result Pakistanis are prepared to accept is accession to Pakistan. That, combined with Pakistan's extensive record of of supporting "stateless" actors in the region and assassinating pro-independence and pro-Indian Kashmiri political leaders (see Shuja Nawaz' Crossed Swords for details) strongly implies that the run-up to the vote will be horribly bloody and more blood will follow afterwards. So until Pakistanis like yourself mature it will be much better for Kashmiris that there be no "progress" on the issue, yes?

United Nations called for a plebiscite in Kashmir to decide this issue. Pakistan accepted; India refused the UN resolution.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Thanks for replying like an adult (unlike some teenager here who claims to be an American).

An authentic link will be appreciated which shows India refusing to implement the process of demilitarization for the referendum to take place.

Moreover, the UN website says this:

2. The Government of India should
(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the council's resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that the arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order.

Link: http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/1948.shtml

So the first step is Pakistan withdrawing from Pak held Kashmir. The paragraph above shows the second step which India will do when the preconditions are met by Pakistan.

I hope it's clear to you now.

Let me post the UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948 to clear your confusion:

Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948.
(Document No.1100, Para. 75, dated the 9th November, 1948)

...........
...........

PART II
TRUCE AGREEMENT

Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as
outlined in Part I, both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of
a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their
Representatives and the Commission.

A.

(1) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir
constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of
Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its
troops from that State.

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the
State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein
who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered
by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.

B.

(1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and
Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the
situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having
occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that
the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the
Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in
stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

(2) Pending the acceptance of the conditions for a final settlement of the situation in the State
of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the
moment of cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the
Commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and
order. The Commission will have observers stationed where it deems necessary.

(3) The Government of India will undertake to ensure that the Government of the State of
Jammu and Kashmir will take all measures within their power to make it publicly known that
peace, law and order will be safeguarded and that all human and political rights will be
guaranteed.

.................
.................




India seeks to fasten on Pakistan a responsibility to withdraw troops from Jammu and Kashmir unilaterally and unconditionally, by quoting out of context a certain provision of UN Commission’s resolution of 13 August 1948, that is, Part 11, paragraph A.I. India deliberately suppresses the other paragraphs of Part II. The Indians are guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. These subsequent paragraphs make it obvious that the obligation of Pakistan to withdraw its troops from the state of Jammu and Kashmir does not devolve until both sides conclude a truce agreement to govern the withdrawal of not only Pakistan forces but also the bulk of the Indian armed forces from the state, the withdrawals to be carried out in a synchronized manner.

The reciprocal obligations of the two sides as to the modalities of demilitarization, have been persistently sought to be confused by India so as to mislead the world into believing that the obligation of withdrawal devolves on Pakistan unilaterally. A reference to the provisions of Part II of the resolution of 13 August, 1948 and the elucidations given by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan to the Government of Pakistan, have established beyond any possibility of dispute the reciprocal nature of the undertaking given by the two sides to withdraw their armed forces from the state of Jammu and Kashmir

An authentic link will be appreciated which shows India refusing to implement the process of demilitarization for the referendum to take place.

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 (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.


(Pakistan's Official Position, Source: ICJ Report on Kashmir 1995, pp 162-3 https://www.icj.org/category/publications/reports/page/35/

Also, Josef Korbel, Danger in Kashmir, p. 172
and The Statesman, 15 September 1950 )

 

[VCheng]

United Nations called for a plebiscite in Kashmir to decide this issue. Pakistan accepted; India refused the UN resolution.

Okay. Great. Now what comes next?

 

[RoadRunner401]

Okay. Great. Now what comes next?

"now what"? Generals get billions of dollars on both sides of the border and politicians get to use the issue to get reelected

 

[VCheng]

"now what"? Generals get billions of dollars on both sides of the border and politicians get to use the issue to get reelected

Makes sense, I can suppose.

 

[Kaniska]

"now what"? Generals get billions of dollars on both sides of the border and politicians get to use the issue to get reelected

Not only general, in Indian side, both Pro and Anti Indian camps are pampered with money by RAW and Integelligence agencies to play a controlled anti India game in valley...So every one is enjoying the comfort starting with Generals, politicians of valley, Hurriyats, militants and of course group of media too only at the expense of wasatge of generation of Kashmie valley youth who are shown the dream of Azadi...

 

[American Pakistani]

Lie. A simple plain LIE.

UN resolution calls for Pakistan to get out of Pak held Kashmir so that the referendum can take place. Lol how many times you'll get busted ?

Lol, more crying like a tod, waiting for its milk.

Pakistan will never pull out its troops from liberated lands and give indian terrorists free hand to sneak in. Just yesterday Pakistan killed 4 of your intruding terrorists.

Yeah you mean "hey nobody supports our stand for XYZ reasons that's why we aren't completing the preconditions for the referendum to take place in Kashmir"

Good going,

Isn't it funny that even after having enormous market, much bigger economy, claiMs of being more diplomatically advanced and influential, etc etc, India has failed to make even a little difference in Pakistan's policy? Most recently even your isolation attempt failed when even Russians, Brazilians refused to call pakistan with a name in Indian wishlist

Good going

So that makes you an Indian too because you're the one making excuses to not conduct the UN referendum in Kashmir.

Still you aren't confident enough to conduct a referendum in Kashmir? Why?

No, I'm from Sindh which is the father of India.

I would rather be an African than to be called a bharti.

Pakistan is very confident, but indians cannot be trusted. Pakistan can allow UN troops but no indian troops in entire Kashmir region.

Do you know the difference between military installations and civilian settlements? You said India allowed civilians to settle in Kashmir to change the demographics. Where are those civilians settled again?

So now you come up with another nonsense excuse of military installation. What a bharti you have proved to be. Read that article again, it is your occupier terrorists who are creating Israeli style settlements for hindu radicals falsely calling them as hindu pandit. As per indians your military doesn' do anything unless approved by Indian govt so india is equally involved.

You disappointed me, again. Seems I have to teach you some English as if you're my son. No worries, I'll do it anyway.

I'll teach you "everything", just like a father teaches his son. Don't you worry.

You said the following:
Now, I ask again, (if you understand English that is)

No I don't understand indian english, because I don't work for a call center or scam center of india. You can carry on with your student working in one of your facility.

1) where are those "bangali and dravida and maharatra" are settled in Kashmir?

Ask the New York times author who wrote the article. It is same as if you ask me about your parents. What kind of nonsense question was that.

2) How many non-kashmiri families have been settled in Kashmir by India?

Again same question? Is it common to ask one question a dozen times in a call enter or scam center? Ok, as I said I'll teach you everything like a father teaches his son, I'll tell you what I got from several articles. Your indian govt plans to create Israeli style settlements to dump hindu radicals initially somewhere around 300k.

The BJP is declaring that Kashmiri resistance has driven out nearly 200,000–300,000 Hindu Pandits. In shipping in 300,000 ultra-rightwing Hindus loyal to the BJP in warn-torn Kashmir, Modi will be able to expand his surveillance network, and guarantee that BJP politicians will continue to win electoral victories in the future.

https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/india-to-build-israeli-style-settlements-in-kashmir

3) Why Pakistan doesn't have any law (like India) to prevent Pakistanis to settle in pak held Kashmir?

I see parrot traits are quite visible here.

I would ask you to prove if pakistanis are settling in Azad kashmir. In fact, it is Kashmiris who are pushing Islamabad to declare them as province of Pakistan. Unlike indians declared IOK as indian state, Pakistan has not done any such move.

If you don't understand English, you can refer to a dictionary and then give me a link proving your claim, just a free advice.

Should I learn call center of india's English or scam institute of india's English.

Yeah sure, whatever makes you happy

Your entertaining posts spiced with parrot traits makes me happy. It's like watching a circus without paying for it. Btw you know, I now came to the conclusion that all bhartis are same wrt parrot traits, initially I thought it was just arnab ghoswamia.

 

[Kuru]

(1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and
Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the
situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having
occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that
the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the
Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in
stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

I'm sorry but youre missing the very first line of the para you yourself quoted, sir. Let me take you through this same para here:

(1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and
Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the
situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having
occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that
the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the
Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in
stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

You see, the commission will notify India that the Pakistanis and tribesmen HAVE WITHDRAWN so that this process can then go ahead. Pakistani forces will then start withdrawing AND THATS WHEN we'll start REDUCING our forces to minimum required for maintaining the law and order.

All in all, Pakistan will have to ACT FIRST, isn't it? Our actions come later at the second stage. Why Pakistan doesn't declare it's intentions to do these things for the formulation of this truce agreement?

If it has, I'm quite unsure why no newspapers reported it? If I missed it, please help me here, thanks.

(b) The proof of Indian refusal to demilitarize is to be found in the report of Sir Owen Dixon (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.


(Pakistan's Official Position, Source: ICJ Report on Kashmir 1995, pp 162-3 https://www.icj.org/category/publications/reports/page/35/

Also, Josef Korbel, Danger in Kashmir, p. 172
and The Statesman, 15 September 1950 )

your first link doesnt come up with anything specific that you mentioned above.

Your second link is a Google book which has no prevew available.

The best way to prove your claim would be a news piece which explicitly mentions that Pakistan agreed to withdraw from pak held Kashmir for the referendum to take place and India refused it.

I look forward to your response with such news links. Thanks.