"SCO is about to admit India and Pakistan as full members"

[PakShah]

No head of state including "close allies" of Pakistan like the Chinese, Saudis, Turks and even the US raise the UN resolutions for resolving the Kashmir dispute.

They all emphasize bilateral negotiations to resolve the conflict which is basically what is India's position and what Pakistan agreed to and signed up to under ZAB in the Shimla agreement.

And when SCO admits India as a full member it will re-emphasize this fact.

Not to mention the many violations of the same UN resolution pre-conditions that Pakistan is guilty of. If Pakistan herself has no regard for the UN resolutions, then why complain about India?

And who respect's the Shimla agreement?
The Kargil War proves the Shimla agreement was a joke.
Can you please bring up the UN precedents Pakistan broke, I pretty sure me and RR would be happy to have a look at with close examination.
Otherwise, stop fooling yourself, Sir Owen Dixon placed the blame on India for not cooperating.
I think that proves alot.

Do have any evidence that the UN condemned Pakistan for not cooperating?

Not to mention EjazR, China also has territorial disputes with India.
Why hasn't China and India solved their disputes?
Why did China and India have to go war in 1962?
Seriously, there is no wonder why there are so many countries that strongly dislikes India.

 

[roadrunner]

Who do you think will fill the vacuum? Pakistan? We saw...err...are seeing what happened/happens.

China? Do they have any vision whatsoever for the region - except maybe hoard the natural resources?

Russia? Do they have the political will and military resources to sustain?

SCO is like a high school club of wannabes. Its got to do more with trade, counter-terrorism exchanges and maybe a little of military exercises here and there. Nothing more.

There's no point doing joint military exercises if the organization is only about trade

 

[senselesstalk]

Rules - I thought they are only meant to be broken.

A new rule in UNSC club - Those who can break the rules are allowed for UNSC.......

 

[Varad]

rubbish



This is UNCIP's quote ^^



The above quote is not from UNCIP ^^. you've just put it in quotes.

you are a devious but not very intelligent individual.



"agrees" being the keyword here (Pakistan did agree to withdraw its troops down to 6,000 as UNCIP had suggested)

Not "Pakistan must withdraw all troops"



Another obvious lie. I dont know why you bother. It does not say Pakistan has withdrawn all its troops. It says that a) the tribesmen have gone (which they did), and b) that Pakistan starts withdrawing its troops, see underlined bit next (which it did).

After this all occurred UNCIP tried to get India to reduce its troop numbers down to 18,000. It refused. That led to UNCIPs quote above of India at fault.



I dont know why you're lying so blatantly. You're not fooling anyone outside of India.

None of the quotes you've mentioned say Pakistan must remove ALL its army before India agrees to withdraw.

Use your brain. If Pakistan removes all its troops, India will be able to attack and overrun Kashmir. That is why UNCIP did not ask Pakistan to withdraw ALL its troops. A balance of troops from both sides was needed.

LOL, you are taking the statement of a retired UNCIP official as a accusation on India.Wonderful, but please provide me a source which says Pakistan will not remove all of its armed forces and where India was asked to reduce its troop to 18000.

I have given you the exact resolution wordings please stop living in a denial mode, it'll hurt you only.

 

[drunken-monke]

Use your brain. If Pakistan removes all its troops, India will be able to attack and overrun Kashmir. That is why UNCIP did not ask Pakistan to withdraw ALL its troops. A balance of troops from both sides was needed.

BS. BullllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllShitttttttttttttttttttt.

As per the history and your first Air Cheif Marshal, it was Pakistan who promoted insurgency in Independent State of Jammu and Kashmir. Srinagar was just 20 km away from being captured. Maharaja of J&K seeked help of India. but India was unable to provide the help unless they merged J&K into India. India airlifted their security men to Srinagar and drived insurgents back to the present LOC. They would have driven all out of J&K but a sad move by Jawajarlal Neharu to raise this issue at UN halted the Indian march due to ceasefire.

In 1965 again Pakistan sent its troops in Kashmir, but they were driven out, in retaliation India attacked Punjab which led to the second war between India and Pakistan. A myth that is been taught at Pakistan's educational system that India lost the war.

1971 was a political disaster for pakistan. India won the war in 12 days. India also captured a major part of Kashmir (Pak Occupied) but returned it to Pakistan in Shimala agreement.

In kargil 1999, do I have to remind what happened??

SO in all and on India never attacked Pak Occupied Kashmir without Provocation. And if it had to capture Kashmir then, the captured part wouldn't have been returned to Pakistan in Shimala agreement.

Hence your comment of India attacking Kashmir and overrun it is flawed.

About SCO, china is the muscle of organization. Defence pacts are light years away, but economic co-operation can deffinately challenge the dictatorship NATO.

regards

 

[Galaxy]

There's no point doing joint military exercises if the organization is only about trade

What trade ?? SCO is not created for Trade. India-China-Russia already have 200 Billion $ of Trade with or without SCO. Trade is not increased by Group but individual countries. Pakistan has very less trade with China.

 

[roadrunner]

LOL, you are taking the statement of a retired UNCIP official as a accusation on India.Wonderful, but please provide me a source which says Pakistan will not remove all of its armed forces and where India was asked to reduce its troop to 18000.

I have given you the exact resolution wordings please stop living in a denial mode, it'll hurt you only.

India needed to withdraw down to 18,000, Pakistan till 6000:

UN resolution 98 of 23RD December 1952
Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3,000 and 6,000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line and between 12,000 and 18,000 armed forces remaining on the India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952




After this Sir Owen Dixon, Head of the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) stated that, “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 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 freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled."

The first bit about Pakistan not having to remove ALL its armed forces is just you being unable to read. If you can't read English I'm not going to explain it when you refuse to believe what I'm saying.

 

[roadrunner]

BS. BullllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllShitttttttttttttttttttt.

none of what you wrote has anything to do with the UN resolutions.

---------- Post added at 07:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:10 AM ----------

What trade ?? SCO is not created for Trade. India-China-Russia already have 200 Billion $ of Trade with without SCO. Trade is not increased by Group buy individual countries. Pakistan has very less trade with China.

i'm agreeing with you. SCO isn't about trade.

 

[drunken-monke]

none of what you wrote has anything to do with the UN resolutions.

I was just replying to your claim that India would have attacked Kashmir and overun it.
regards

 

[Varad]

India needed to withdraw down to 18,000, Pakistan till 6000:

UN resolution 98 of 23RD December 1952
Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3,000 and 6,000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line and between 12,000 and 18,000 armed forces remaining on the India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952




After this Sir Owen Dixon, Head of the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), in his report to the Security Council on 15 September 1950. He stated that, “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 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 freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled."

The first bit about Pakistan not having to remove ALL its armed forces is just you being unable to read. If you can't read English I'm not going to explain it when you refuse to believe what I'm saying.

I dont need to argue with you further. Just see what you have posted. You have posted that both sides were to withdraw their troops to a certain number as stated in 23rd December 1952 resolution. Then you say that after this Sir Owen Dixon on 15th September 1950 presented a report saying India violated. So, in essence Mr. Dixon used a time travel machine to go two years back.
It was Pakistan that did not follow 13 th August 1948 resolution and tried to negotiate to have some troops stay in the region and trying to prolong the process by 4 years not India.And can you please provide me the the link to his report to the UNSC where he accused India, instead of posting a statement which he made after he retired.

 

[roadrunner]

I dont need to argue with you further. Just see what you have posted. You have posted that both sides were to withdraw their troops to a certain number as stated in 23rd December 1952 resolution. Then you say that after this Sir Owen Dixon on 15th September 1950 presented a report saying India violated. So, in essence Mr. Dixon used a time travel machine to go two years back.
It was Pakistan that did not follow 13 th August 1948 resolution and tried to negotiate to have some troops stay in the region and trying to prolong the process by 4 years not India.And can you please provide me the the link to his report to the UNSC where he accused India, instead of posting a statement which he made after he retired.

i'm not 100% sure of the date because i've copied and pasted from another post.

the point is Sir Owen Dixon said the quote that blamed India, and a resolution was passed for India to withdraw its troop number to 18,000.

(I think Owen Dixon stepped down because India didn't cooperate). India then was asked to reduce troop numbers to 18,000 which it refused to do.

 

[Varad]

i'm not 100% sure of the date because i've copied and pasted from another post.

the point is Sir Owen Dixon said the quote that blamed India, and a resolution was passed for India to withdraw its troop number to 18,000.

(I think Owen Dixon stepped down because India didn't cooperate). India then was asked to reduce troop numbers to 18,000 which it refused to do.

See, now you have shifted to " I think so". I ask you please provide a source which says India refused to withdraw considering the fact that 1948 resolution was favoring India, so which country could it be which tried to negotiate and stretched this complicated issue by another 4 years.

 

[roadrunner]

See, now you have shifted to " I think so". I ask you please provide a source which says India refused to withdraw considering the fact that 1948 resolution was favoring India, so which country could it be which tried to negotiate and stretched this complicated issue by another 4 years.

It is ALL over the place. Check out the UN website.

I feel like I' spoonfeeding a baby.

India had to withdraw its troops down to 18000 as per resolution 80. It claimed it needed 21000 troops and refused at that point to demilitarize. Look up the Korbel reference if you need to.

Sir Owen Dixon may have mentioned it in 1950 that India refused to cooperate. It makes no difference. He knew at that point India did not want to demilitarize. The latter refusal to demilitarize to 18000 just proved Owen Dixon was right.

 

[Varad]

It is ALL over the place. Check out the UN website.

I feel like I' spoonfeeding a baby.

India had to withdraw its troops down to 18000 as per resolution 80. It claimed it needed 21000 troops and refused at that point to demilitarize. Look up the Korbel reference if you need to.

Sir Owen Dixon may have mentioned it in 1950 that India refused to cooperate. It makes no difference. He knew at that point India did not want to demilitarize. The latter refusal to demilitarize to 18000 just proved Owen Dixon was right.

No its not there. Stop lying. If it was over the UN site why would the UN try to remove it from the disputed territory list if the UN knows India is the guilty one.

 

[Varad]

Here is what your own renowned journalist says about the resolutions on Kashmir and who was at fault.One should see his own fault first.

Listen from 1:10

YouTube - ‪KashifHKhan's Channel‬‏