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

[M. Sarmad]

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:


You see, the commission will notify India that the Pakistanis and tribesmen HAVE WITHDRAWN so that this process can then go ahead.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.

.

The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) reached India on 4 Feb 1949. India’s representative Sir Girja Shankar Bajpayee took the position that one time withdrawal of whole of Pakistani forces was a condition precedent to holding a plebiscite. Pakistan’s stand on the other hand, was that only tribesmen and irregular forces have to withdraw at once while withdrawal of her regular forces has to be matched by a proportionate Indian withdrawal. This stand was upheld by the commission. Accordingly after clearing the area of tribesmen and other irregulars, Pakistan withdrew part of her forces (numbering around five thousand). But India didn't reciprocate.

The tribesmen had left Kashmir in Feb 1949 and that's why no Resolution passed by the UN after Feb 1949 mentions tribesmen. Differences arose later only, over the interpretation of the UN Resolution, regarding demilitarization; withdrawal of regular troops and disbanding of Azad Kashmir forces. Hope that clears your doubts.

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

.

It actually comes up with everything I mentioned. You had to download the report. Let me make it easier for you:

https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uplo...hmir-fact-finding-mission-report-1995-eng.pdf

^^ go to the above link ... wait for the report to load ... then go to page 162

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

Well, there you go:

Danger in Kashmir - P. 172

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.

Wish granted !!

Economist of London dated 19th February 1951 commented: “But the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of the majority people of Kashmir have been obstructing the holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite.”

(as quoted in Danger in Kashmir by Josef Korbel, p. 169)

 

[Kuru]

It actually comes up with everything I mentioned. You had to download the report. Let me make it easier for you:

https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uplo...hmir-fact-finding-mission-report-1995-eng.pdf

^^ go to the above link ... wait for the report to load ... then go to page 162

Sir, with all due respect, you're trying to decieve me! No offense.

The para you quoted (page 162) is NOT A PART OF THE REPORT. It is the part of THE RESPONSE OF PAKISTANI REPRESENTATIVE!!!

You made it look like it's a report of ICJ! WHY LIE, Sir?

You're showing me the response by Pakistan here? Really? Do you really expect Pakistan to accept the fact that it's Pakistan which have never completed the preconditions for the referendum to take place in Kashmir?

Did you even read the page 148, sir? Please read it and tell me what the heading says there.

And while you're at it, please also read the Response of the Indian representative from page 99 to 147 in this same book to know why India rejected this report.

I desparately await your response on this.

Well, there you go:

Danger in Kashmir - P. 172

The page 171 of this same book says that Sir Owen himself saw that the incursion and the advance of Pakistani troops into Pak held Kashmir is contrary to the international law. India refused to co-operate because:

(page 171)

1) The Korean war broke out in 1950. North Korea was declared an agressor by the UN as it invaded South Korea. India made elaborate comparisons between the attitude of the United Nations towards Korea and towards Kashmir. If the communists of the North, India argued, invaded the South, Pakistanis also invaded a part of Kashmir. Why then Pakistan wasn't condemned by the UN as were the North Koreans? Why United Nations failed to take actions against Pakistan?

(Page 172)

2) India objected vehemently to any proposal which would treat Pakistan as equal (and not an agressor) or failed to take into account the violation of Kashmir territory by Pakistan.

The point 2 is based on point 1.

Regardless, this book is written by someone named Joseph Korbel claiming to record Sir Owen's comments. IMO, this is highly debatable and it's authenticity cant be determined.Its as good as an opinion piece by some writer ?

Wish granted !!

Economist of London dated 19th February 1951 commented: “But the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of the majority people of Kashmir have been obstructing the holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite.”

(as quoted in Danger in Kashmir by Josef Korbel, p. 169)

Please give me a news link which says that Pakistan declared its intentions to withdraw its troops from Pak held Kashmir for the referendum to take place in Kashmir.

If this has really happened, then it must be all over the internet and won't be hard to find, now will it?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Sir, with all due respect, you're trying to decieve me! No offense.

The para you quoted (page 162) is NOT A PART OF THE REPORT. It is the part of THE RESPONSE OF PAKISTANI REPRESENTATIVE!!!

You made it look like it's a report of ICJ! WHY LIE, Sir?

Duh!!

I was only trying to educate you.. But you seem to have some serious comprehension issues... Nowhere did I say that it was commission's report, I said it was Pakistan's official position, here's what I posted :

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

Your lack of comprehension skills is not my problem, mate

Regardless, this book is written by someone named Joseph Korbel claiming to record Sir Owen's comments. IMO, this is highly debatable and it's authenticity cant be determined.Its as good as an opinion piece by some writer ?

An opinion piece by some writer????? Seriously????


FYI, that "someone" named Josef Korbel was actually a founding member and the Chairman of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (which was established by the UN Security Council to investigate and mediate the Kashmir dispute) , and Sir Owen Dixon was the UN appointed official mediator between the governments of India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir dispute !!.... . And let me remind you that India itself took the dispute to the United Nations asking it to mediate .....

 

[Kuru]

Duh!!

I was only trying to educate you.. But you seem to have some serious comprehension issues... Nowhere did I say that it was commission's report, I said it was Pakistan's official position, here's what I posted :

Your lack of comprehension skills is not my problem, mate

Sir, why you're trying educate me of what a Pakistani Representative has to say to ICJ?

According to you, I have comprehension issue, okay, but according to me, you lack basic debating skills, sir.

I requested you to provide an authentic link showing India refusing to implement the process of demilitarization for the referendum to take place

Here's what I said..

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

And, in reply to this, you giving me the response of a Pakistani Representative to ICJ as an authentic link? No offense but it's laughable really.

Should I also quote the response of the Indian representative to the ICJ? Will you consider that too as a "factual position" (the way you put it) to educate yourself? Will you accept that too?

FYI, that "someone" named Josef Korbel was actually a founding member and the Chairman of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (which was established by the UN Security Council to investigate and mediate the Kashmir dispute) , and Sir Owen Dixon was the UN appointed official mediator between the governments of India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir dispute !!

That "someone" - who according to you is now the most authentic person - has also written something which I quoted in my previous reply. You seem to have conveniently ignored that part. So let me take you through it again.

Here it is..

The page 171 of this same book says that Sir Owen himself saw that the incursion and the advance of Pakistani troops into Pak held Kashmir is contrary to the international law.

Also, on page 171 from the same book you are giving me:

(page 171)

India refused to co-operate because:

1) The Korean war broke out in 1950. North Korea was declared an agressor by the UN as it invaded South Korea. India made elaborate comparisons between the attitude of the United Nations towards Korea and towards Kashmir. If the communists of the North, India argued, invaded the South, Pakistanis also invaded a part of Kashmir. Why then Pakistan wasn't condemned by the UN as were the North Koreans? Why United Nations failed to take actions against Pakistan?

(And again from Page 172)

2) India objected vehemently to any proposal which would treat Pakistan as equal (and not an agressor) or failed to take into account the violation of Kashmir territory by Pakistan.

The point 2 is based on point 1.

And let me remind you that India itself took the dispute to the United Nations asking it to mediate .....

Yes because our intentions were always clear. It's you who is trying to run away from the UN resolution.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Sir, why you're trying educate me of what a Pakistani Representative has to say to ICJ?

According to you, I have comprehension issue, okay, but according to me, you lack basic debating skills, sir.

Not according to me, it's there in front of everyone to see ... Next time before accusing someone of lying and deceiving, make sure you properly understand (or at least try to) what is actually being said ..

I requested you to provide an authentic link showing India refusing to implement the process of demilitarization for the referendum to take place

Already provided in post# 99 & 106

And, in reply to this, you giving me the response of a Pakistani Representative to ICJ as an authentic link? No offense but it's laughable really.

Read again, carefully. I have quoted what the UN appointed official mediator (between the governments of India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir dispute) had said on this matter, as was recorded by the Chairman UNCIP (United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan). This was later quoted by the Government of Pakistan while responding to ICJ .. laughable ??? not really

That "someone" - who according to you is now the most authentic person - has also written something which I quoted in my previous reply. You seem to have conveniently ignored that part. So let me take you through it again.

What actually is laughable and funny is that first you ask for "proof" of Indian refusal to implement the process, and when you are provided with irrefutable proof (directly from the horse's mouth) you go in to "denial" phase ...

As for what he has written about the Indian position, we all know what Indian position was/is and that it has never been accepted by the UN ... India wanted the UN to declare Pakistan an aggressor State in Kashmir but the UN didn't .... End of story .. Why the desperation ? Again, laughable and funny

It's you who is trying to run away from the UN resolution.

Your argument/baseless allegation has been thoroughly discussed and summarily refuted .. You however are free to believe in whatever you want, after all you are an Indian... Have a nice day