Pakistanis condemning Pulwama terror strike on social media

[Jackdaws]

No it hasn't. There isn't any expiration date on the UNSC Resolutions, just as there isn't one on the Durand Agreement demarcating the Afghan-Pakistan border.


Straws, cow droppings, monkey poo ... whatever shite they can find really.

I meant it was before any wars. Unfortunately you not only rejected the district wise plebiscite but also tried to change the status quo by force.

 

[pahadi]

We don't talk, we offer them jobs, loans and their children free education and health services @Desert Fox
https://pakobserver.net/434-militants-surrender-balochistan/
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1851153/1-militant-commander-70-militants-surrender-quetta/
http://pakistan.asia-news.com/en_GB/articles/cnmi_pf/features/2017/12/11/feature-01
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/11/20/70-bra-militants-surrender-weapons-in-quetta/


All was good till they realized that their peaceful struggle will lead them nowhere---so they decided to adopt the method of the Afghans.


Junagadh and Manavadar acceded to Pakistan. Indian army invaded and annexed them.
Nizam chose to remain independent, still Indian army invaded.
Indian army invaded all three areas under the pretext that the majority population of these states is Hindu.
But I guess for the nation whose one founding father seduced the wife of a married man while the other indulged in orgies and homosexuality, being a hypocrite comes natural.

You've got no moral leg to stand on when you claim Kashmir on the basis of instrument of accession. @Desert Fox

Indian govt also provides job, a fixed deposit with 1.5 lac rupees and a monthly stipend of 2000 for those who don't earn a livelihood, after completion of three years they can take out money from FD, they also get loans for setting up their own business, so please do not demonise us...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...-army-majid-khan-surrender-1097159-2017-11-30
http://www.thenorthlines.com/govt-provides-rs-2-5-cr-surrendered-militants-13-years/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.trib...policy-to-win-over-local-militants/632964/amp

 

[Joe Shearer]

Democracy is about freedom of the people. If Pople don't want to be with you, in a democracy they have a right to leave. Look at examples like chekosolvakia, South Sundan, East Timur, etc etc.
Even in Canada, Qubec had a vote to leave. You didn't see Canadian troops murdering Qubecers.

It doesnt' matter at the end of the day what some bihari or Tamil wants. It only matters what Kashmiris want.


There were jews begging for jobs in Nazi Germany.

When you destory their society and don't allow them to any economic prosperity, they will take what they can get.

Including jobs, not security jobs, professional jobs that needed seven years of training and practice? Including jobs in management that people have held for over a decade? It's across the board; they'd have more chances if they completed their education, if they weren't physically held back by a movement that depends on their unemployment and their failure to complete their education to survive, that needs their (administrative expenses) share of subvention money sent across the border (no, not the India-Pakistan border) to meet their household expenses.

You have no idea about the industry that has grown around the unrest; it's big money.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I meant it was before any wars. Unfortunately you not only rejected the district wise plebiscite but also tried to change the status quo by force.

Force was used to change the status quo when India reneged from the UNSC Resolutions. One proposal being shot down does not mean an end to negotiations, as India did.

 

[Peshwa]

1. No you are wrong.
And 2.
India promised Kashmir a vote as part of the treaty with the Maharaja.
This vote has nothing to do with Pakistan or the UN.
You are legally obligated to give a vote.

But again, we know that India really a Religious-Fascist state and not a true democracy.

Please point out what is wrong. Don’t just make the statement, explain your POV. You yourself stated that Democracy allows people the freedom to choose sovereignty over land.
Which instances in history have there been where democratic countries have allowed people to vote sovereignty over land. Or where the definition of democracy is taken as such.
I am eagerly awaiting your response on the same.

Lastly, India is under no legal obligation to provide the people of Kashmir the vote for plebiscite. The U.N. resolutions are non binding. Please provide evidence for this statement.
India did not cut any deal with the MAharaja as part of the instrument of accession of Kashmir. You’re absolutely wrong on both these counts.
But I’ll let some other members here from both sides come in to get their opinion on the same.

@AgNoStiC MuSliM, @Joe Shearer care to weigh in on this matter?

 

[Psychic]

For Indians the very question of autonomous Kashmir let alone a free one is dead after it was attacked in '48 and again '65

So that means Indian leaders lied to the UN when they went running towards it asking for a ceasefire?
Expected from men of zero character and integrity like Nehru.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Which instances in history have there been where democratic countries have allowed people to vote sovereignty over land.

Canada with Quebec and the UK with Scotland come to mind immediately.

 

[Joe Shearer]

British Indian army had 2.5 million men in 1945---Means you guys shouldn't consider ghandhi as your baapu since you were happy under the raj and didn't need independence. @Desert Fox

So you think Zinnah was better?

 

[pahadi]

Pakistan would not kill any Indian state. You can't store water or interfere it as such in Kashmir.

This is the real issue, what if pakistan had Kashmir? With Hindu population? Will you grant them freedom and give this fresh water storage to us?
Lives of 1.2 billion is more important than 6 million people, India is not the devil you people depict, we just want our people to live a good life.
And no outsider can take or buy land in himachal Pradesh, Kashmir, so their state remains their and ruled by their own people, it's more than freedom....

 

[Peshwa]

Canada with Quebec and the UK with Scotland come to mind immediately.

If I’m not mistaken, those were votes for plebiscite ie. The people were asked to choose whether they wanted to join the union.
Democracy as a form of government itself doesn’t guarantee this right to the people. That’s the part that I’m arguing about.
Not providing people of Kashmir the right to plebiscite itself does not make India un-Democratic (if that’s a word).

Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Lastly, India is under no legal obligation to provide the people of Kashmir the vote for plebiscite. The U.N. resolutions are non binding.

The UNSC Resolutions might be 'non-enforceable', but they do represent a commitment to, and agreement on, the means of resolution of the J&K dispute by India, Pakistan and the UN.

Far too much emphasis is placed on the phrase 'binding' when it comes to the UNSC Resolutions. For example, how is the Simla Agreement 'binding' or 'enforceable'? What leads people in India to demand that India withdraw from the IWT? How exactly is the IWT enforceable?

What the UNSC Resolutions, and India & Pakistan's commitment to implement them, represent is a broad agreement on how to resolve the dispute. They are no more enforceable or binding than the Simla Agreement or IWT, were either party to just choose to walk away from them.

 

[Psychic]

Indian govt also provides job, a fixed deposit with 1.5 lac rupees and a monthly stipend of 2000 for those who don't earn a livelihood, after completion of three years they can take out money from FD, they also get loans for setting up their own business, so please do not demonise us...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...-army-majid-khan-surrender-1097159-2017-11-30
http://www.thenorthlines.com/govt-provides-rs-2-5-cr-surrendered-militants-13-years/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.trib...policy-to-win-over-local-militants/632964/amp

Jobs ----along with actions like these don't work well hand in hand
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/indian-forces-used-human-shields-in-pulwama-encounter.602934/

The sheer scale of atrocities committed by the Indian state overshadows such superficial acts and instead, fuels the freedom struggle

 

[Jackdaws]

We don't talk, we offer them jobs, loans and their children free education and health services @Desert Fox
https://pakobserver.net/434-militants-surrender-balochistan/
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1851153/1-militant-commander-70-militants-surrender-quetta/
http://pakistan.asia-news.com/en_GB/articles/cnmi_pf/features/2017/12/11/feature-01
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/11/20/70-bra-militants-surrender-weapons-in-quetta/


All was good till they realized that their peaceful struggle will lead them nowhere---so they decided to adopt the method of the Afghans.


Junagadh and Manavadar acceded to Pakistan. Indian army invaded and annexed them.
Nizam chose to remain independent, still Indian army invaded.
Indian army invaded all three areas under the pretext that the majority population of these states is Hindu.
But I guess for the nation whose one founding father seduced the wife of a married man while the other indulged in orgies and homosexuality, being a hypocrite comes natural.

You've got no moral leg to stand on when you claim Kashmir on the basis of instrument of accession.
You can't have it both ways.
@Desert Fox

Another blatant lie.

Junagadh acceded to Pak. Nawaz Bhutto kept requesting Pak to send food and material to its citizens in Junagadh. Only when the Govt. of Junagadh collapsed did Bhutto invite India to take over the reins of Junagadh. Even then, a plebiscite was held in Junagadh.

But I guess hypocrisy comes naturally to someone whose founding father after arguing about Muslim majority states was trying to get Jodhpur, Jaisalmer to join Pak. And asking Nehru to not sell his bungalow in Bombay so he can come back. Apparently he even bought shares in Air India. And I don't even want to get into his personal life and habits.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If I’m not mistaken, those were votes for plebiscite ie. The people were asked to choose whether they wanted to join the union.
Democracy as a form of government itself doesn’t guarantee this right to the people. That’s the part that I’m arguing about.
Not providing people of Kashmir the right to plebiscite itself does not make India un-Democratic (if that’s a word).

Correct me if I’m wrong.

Democracy doesn't deny this 'right' to people either. And the complicating factor is that the status of J&K is disputed between two countries, and is recognized as such.

Another blatant lie.

Junagadh acceded to Pak. Nawaz Bhutto kept requesting Pak to send food and material to its citizens in Junagadh. Only when the Govt. of Junagadh collapsed did Bhutto invite India to take over the reins of Junagadh. Even then, a plebiscite was held in Junagadh.

But I guess hypocrisy comes naturally to someone whose founding father after arguing about Muslim majority states was trying to get Jodhpur, Jaisalmer to join Pak. And asking Nehru to not sell his bungalow in Bombay so he can come back. Apparently he even bought shares in Air India. And I don't even want to get into his personal life and habits.

The government in Junagadh collapsed because of the Indian imposed embargo. You can't starve and blockade a people and then claim 'they invited us in on their own' once they decide to surrender under duress.

 

[Peshwa]

The UNSC Resolutions might be 'non-enforceable', but they do represent a commitment to, and agreement on, the means of resolution of the J&K dispute by India, Pakistan and the UN.

Far too much emphasis is placed on the phrase 'binding' when it comes to the UNSC Resolutions. For example, how is the Simla Agreement 'binding' or 'enforceable'? What leads people in India to demand that India withdraw from the IWT? How exactly is the IWT enforceable?

What the UNSC Resolutions, and India & Pakistan's commitment to implement them, represent is a broad agreement on how to resolve the dispute. They are no more enforceable or binding than the Simla Agreement or IWT, were either party to just choose to walk away from them.

As is the the case with most legal agreements which have clauses for abolishment. The out clause being non compliance with the pre requisites.

UN resolutions are as you said a framework for solving the issues. NOT enforceable by either party including the U.N. if either party feels that the pre-reqs are not met, the plebiscite or vote itself is non binding on either party to enforce.