What's new

The Forgotten Chunk of Pakistan-Junagarh

This resolution is old and has been replaced by resolution 80 which states both India and Pakistan withdraw troops simultaneously.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_80



And most importantly, the UN resolution on Kashmir was passed by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the UN Charter which is non-binding and has no mandatory enforceability, as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII.

Further here are the facts and myths. These facts, needless to say, will be trashed here as nothing but myths. But these are verifiable and is the reality - take it or leave it. Burying one's head in the sand is not the way forward. Here are the facts written by a Pakistani journalist:

Too many people have told us so much. And so many people have promised us too much. Consequently, today we are no more capable of distinguishing between reality and illusion and this is our collective tragedy!

What follows may hurt the sentiments of many but then there comes a time when someone has to take the risk and put forth certain irrefutable facts even if they sound sacrilegious. After all, is it not better for the community to be confronted with the harsh reality and reconcile, rather than live out a life of delusion and thus suffer each passing day!

So, let us start with the myths and realities related to of the Kashmir problem.

* Myth- The Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir being a Hindu had decided to join the Dominion of India.

* Reality- Authoritative sources now confirm that the Ruler of Kashmir was inclined to opt for independence and was trying to build up internal consensus by getting the pro Pakistan Muslim Conference and Pro India National Conference onto a common platform. In a bid to gain time for the same, he on 12 August 1947 sent telegrams bearing identical dates, asking for ‘Standstill Agreement’ to both the Dominions India and Pakistan which under the Indian Independence Act 1947, would guarantee continuation of all existing agreements as well as administrative arrangements till new agreements were made. Had the Maharaja wanted accession to India, he could have easily done so even before 15 August 1947 rather than get involved with ‘Stand Still Agreements’ and remain undecided till October.

* Myth-India obtained the ‘instrument of accession’ in its favour by pressurizing the Maharaja.

* Reality- The Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir had not entered into any agreement with New Delhi till October 1947. However, it was the decision of the Pakistan army to invade Kashmir that virtually pushed the Maharaja into New Delhi’s lap and prompted him to seek Indian intervention. And so, New Delhi obliged, but not before obtaining the ‘instrument of accession’ in its favour!

* Myth- Pakistan has always stood up for the ‘right of self determination’ of the Kashmiris.

* Reality- By sponsoring the Tribal invasion, Pakistan changed the perception of the Kashmir problem from an ideological issue into a geographical dispute and never felt it necessary to approach the UN for its resolution. It is thanks to India, which took up this issue with the UN that the UN passed resolutions on Kashmir calling for Plebiscite.

* Myth- India is legally bound to implement the UN resolution for determining the ‘right to self determination’ through Plebiscite.

* Reality- The UN resolution on Kashmir was passed by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the UN Charter which is non-binding and has no mandatory enforceability, as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII.

*Myth- India is evading the implementation of the UN Security Council resolution on Plebiscite in Kashmir while Pakistan has done its best to ensure that the UN resolutions on Kashmir are implemented.

* Reality- UN resolution of 13 August 1948 decreed that a plebiscite would be held in Kashmir only after the Commission's resolutions were implemented. This envisaged withdrawal of all Pakistani forces from those areas of Kashmir which it had occupied in 1948. By refusing to do so till date, Pakistan has given India a legally tenable and diplomatically advantageous position by shifting the onus for non implementation of UN resolutions on Pakistan. In an illuminating article titled ‘Understanding UN Resolutions on Kashmir’ (Greater Kashmir, 20 July 2012) Hashim Qureshi has quoted former UN General Secretary Kofi Annan as ascribing this as the reason “that the General Assembly cannot implement the resolutions of the UNCIP (on Kashmir)”.

* Myth- The principles applied to secure the accession of the erstwhile kingdom of Junagadh to India on the basis of a Hindu majority were not followed in the case of Kashmir which has a Muslim majority.

* Reality- In the case of Junagadh a Plebiscite was conducted in February 1948, in which approximately 99% of the people chose accession with India. So, by conducting a plebiscite, even if farcical, India ‘technically’ fulfilled its international obligations thus avoiding any criticism of its earlier strong arm tactics and portrayed to the world that it was ready to hold a Plebiscite in Kashmir once the stipulated conditions set by the UN had been fulfilled.

* Myth- A Plebiscite as envisaged in the UN resolutions can still be held in Jammu and Kashmir.

* Reality- By granting non Kashmiris the right to acquire land and settle down in PaK as well as seceding portions of PaK to China, Pakistan has virtually foreclosed this option. New Delhi has cleverly adopted the technically sound stance that ‘since the geography and demographics of the region have been permanently altered,’ Resolution 47 (calling for Plebiscite) is now obsolete.

It is thus evident that under the prevailing conditions, the scope of implementing the ‘right to self determination’ through a Plebiscite in Kashmir is virtually nonexistent.

And it is here that our leaders have to take a call on re-thinking their strategy for resolution of the ‘K’ Issue. We must realise that the UN resolutions on Kashmir have yielded nothing for over six decades and so our insistence and any further clamouring for implementation of the same, does not make diplomatic sense.

The implicit faith which our leaders put on Pakistan for resolving Kashmir too needs to be re-examined. While it is not intended to belittle Islamabad’s contribution in keeping the ‘K’ issue alive, its decision to add the militancy angle to the peaceful movement has caused irreparable damage to the cause. America, which once empathised with the Kashmiris, today steers clear of touching Kashmir with a barge pole.


As I came to know there are alot of threads running about this issue So I dont want to divert this thread to that direction.

But as @AgNoStiC MuSliM Suggested U should take a look at all the discussions to get a proper idea.The Debate in some of the threads are good.


https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/kashmir-plebiscite-and-un-security-council-resolution.215581/page-5

You couldn't be more wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_47


Step 1. A Truce Agreement is concluded
Step 2. Pakistan begins withdrawing its troops
Step 3. India too begins withdrawing its troops (to a minimum level) while Pakistani troops are being withdrawn
Step 4. Plebiscite by UN

When Pakistan had withdrawn its tribesmen and forces from the area completely,Then 2nd condition was followed
That is Reduction of Indian Forces to a minimal level.
truce agreement You Are talking about is this only where a plebiscite would take place.

UN Resolution constituted of 3 parts

1st was CFO which means Ceasefire Order Which Was obtained on 31 Dec 1948,Loc Created,Where the both armies were at that time

2nd Was Truce agreement Which stated the points That I mentioned which is
the withdrawal of Pakistan troops and then
india will reduce its troops to the minimal level as prescribed by the UN

3rd Part Of the resolution was Both Parties Agree That The Fate of the Region Should BE decided By the People Of Jammu and Kashmir. ANd when These @ actions will be complete Plebscite will be down By local authorities In the Presense Of UN



Pakistan was never declared the Aggressor by the UN
India Approached UN First Regarding Kashmir,And Jinnah Admitted to Mountbatten That its forces are there along with tribesmen.India Took the case against pakistan to UN on the matter of Kashmir Not Pakistan.
 
.
. . .
Quote the exact/relevant part that you believe supports your POV
Posting random links won't prove you right

These Are not random links.
You Should Be the one Giving The source of your claims that someone blamed a specific party.
I post neutral Sources So u can't say to me that i am being biased.
U stated Incomplete facts by saying Dixon Blamed India .
You r the one who needs to Read First. All Links I Post Here ,I try to be as neutral As Anyone can become.

And what exactly do you want to prove by posting a wikipedia link to UN Resolution??

Show us exactly where does it declare Pakistan the Aggressor state in J&K ..

Indians in fact were unwilling to accept the UNCIP resolutions initially because the resolutions didn't declare Pakistan 'aggressor', but Nehru accepted them eventually .. You need to read a few things first


Pakistan Was A Aggressor Thatswhy it was pakistan Who had to vacate the area completely not India.India On the other hand had Instrument Of Accession,Which too was because pak army invaded kashmir which led the ruler to take the stance.

U can Argue as much As u can like, But None of this will change anything.
 
.
These Are not random links
I try to find neutral Sources So u can't say to me that i am being biased.
U stated Incomplete facts by saying Dixon Blamed India .
You r the one who needs to Read First. All Links I Post Here try to be as neutral As Anyone can become.


That's better ... You should bring forward arguments instead of posting random links

As for Dixon, no, I didn't state incomplete facts. Sir Owen Dixon submitted his official report to the UNSC, Document S/1791 of 15 Sept 1950, in which he blamed India for refusing to demiltarise

Now, please tell us that in which "official document" did he blame Pakistan? He didn't...

And the link you posted isn't neutral... It's only half quoting what Dixon said 'privately' .. that he believed that Pakistan sending troops to IOK was in violation of international law, but it had no bearing on the agreed upon plebiscite that was to be held under UN auspices ...

Pakistan Was A Aggressor Thatswhy it was pakistan Who had to vacate the area completely not India.India On the other hand had Instrument Of Accession,Which too was because pak army invaded kashmir which led the ruler to take the stance.

U can Argue as much As u can like, But None of this will change anything.

Do you deny that the UN did not declare Pakistan an aggressor state in J&K???
What the Indians say or believe in is irrelevant
We are talking about the UN here
 
.
Now, please tell us that in which "official document" did he blame Pakistan? He didn't...

You Tell Me when I said that He blamed Pakistan not India?IF U think The Source of the information Is Irrelevent ,
Why Not Share Your's To support the claim.
 
.
You Tell Me when I said that He blamed Pakistan not India?IF U think The Source of the information Is Irrelevent ,
Why Not Share Your's To support the claim.

Yes, he blamed India, not Pakistan

"In the end, I became convinced that India's agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the 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 abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Page 16, Para 52 of Document S/1791)

If you don't have access to UN official documents, then you can read it here (p. 172):
Danger in Kashmir
By Josef Korbel
 
.
I think he is talking about Jodhpur

Kolkata rightfully belonged to ours. Though it was Hindu Majority but it was surrounded by Muslim Majority areas hence should had been given to us

@FOOLS_NIGHTMARE @El Sidd I really want to see a Male Bengal Tiger confronting Asian Lions Pride
What, from where you have a notion that Kolkata was surrounded by Muslim majority areas in 1947?
Any link?
Bengal tiger can easily kill a lion, even an african one.
 
.
What, from where you have a notion that Kolkata was surrounded by Muslim majority areas in 1947?
Any link?
uc-58bd05c82d150.jpg
 
.
Nearest muslim majority area was near about 400KM to the East of Kolkata.
Congress won all these seats to prove that it was Hindu Major.
Yes Jinnah demanded Kolkata. He was interested in the economic power of Kolkata (she was perhaps the biggest economic center East of Aden), so was Nehru.
It is perceived by some that Lahore was exchanged in lieu of Kolkata. I don't have a proof about it.
 
.
If it was some 5 years back threads like these won't survive. Gets deleted or locked. Now it might get sticky or featured.
 
.
Yes, he blamed India, not Pakistan

"In the end, I became convinced that India's agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the 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 abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Page 16, Para 52 of Document S/1791)

If you don't have access to UN official documents, then you can read it here (p. 172):
Danger in Kashmir
By Josef Korbel

I Have read the Page 172 of this book.
Why would India Agree to a dimilitarization When It Had the instrument of accession.Pakistan was the aggressor,invader As u can see in your own source.
Pakistan Was Even In Favour of the Partition Of The Kashmir,Had Valley been given to them.
And I don't Know Why We Are Talking Of this.




Step 1. A Truce Agreement is concluded
Step 2. Pakistan begins withdrawing its troops
Step 3. India too begins withdrawing its troops (to a minimum level) while Pakistani troops are being withdrawn
Step 4. Plebiscite by UN

TO Correct You:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1766582.stm
I Suppose You Will Not Consider a Random Link.

UN Resolution constituted of 3 parts

1st was CFO which means Ceasefire Order Which Was obtained on 31 Dec 1948,Loc Created,Where the both armies were at that time

2nd Was Truce agreement Which stated the points That I mentioned which is
the withdrawal of Pakistan troops and then
india will reduce its troops to the minimal level as prescribed by the UN

3rd Part Of the resolution was Both Parties Agree That The Fate of the Region Should BE decided By the People Of Jammu and Kashmir. ANd when These @ actions will be complete Plebscite will be down By local authorities In the Presense Of UN
This Is The fact Not That Moulded One.
 
.
I Have read the Page 172 of this book.
Why would India Agree to a dimilitarization When It Had the instrument of accession.Pakistan was the aggressor,invader As u can see in your own source.
Pakistan Was Even In Favour of the Partition Of The Kashmir,Had Valley been given to them.
And I don't Know Why We Are Talking Of this.

Yes, that's the point .. Why would India agree to demilitarise and hold a plebiscite in IOK when it knows that the people of IOK prefer Pakistan over India.. ?

Now, look at your earlier posts on this thread. You were claiming that Pakistan halted the process of demilitarisation/plebiscite in J&K. You were told that it was a lie propagated by Indian state .. UN has never held Pakistan responsible

And no, Pakistan was never declared the aggressor by the UN .. You don't know anything, not even the basics .. Do your homework first

TO Correct You:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1766582.stm
I Suppose You Will Not Consider a Random Link.

Sorry to burst your bubble, mate .. but you will need a lot more than a random BBC news article link to correct us, rather the UN (and no where does the article you posted has held Pakistan responsible for halting the process, or asserted that Pakistan was obligated to withdraw its troops unilaterally and unconditionally) .. Here is what (or who) halted the process, from the horse's mouth:

Regarding phasing of withdrawals, the Commission denied Pakistan's demand for disclosure and held that there would be no prior disclosure to Pakistan of the Indian program of withdrawals, and that, in accordance with the 13 August 1948 resolution, the related withdrawals of the bulk of the Indian forces would be in stages to be agreed upon by India and the U.N. Commission. The U.N. Commission and their successor mediators were unable to reach such an agreement with India on the bulk and the stages of the withdrawal of the bulk of Indian forces as related to the withdrawal of all the Pakistan forces...... This persisting failure of the UN Commission and the subsequent UN Mediators to reach such an agreement with India, as provided in B 1 of part II, became one of the reasons for the deadlock
(Graham Report - 25 October 1967 - Kashmir Dispute (Dr. Frank P. Graham, UN Representative) - summary review of the Mediatory Reports of the United Nations in the Kashmir Situation, p.13)


 
Last edited:
.
Junagarh was the first state to send a request to accede to Pakistan on August 15. Pakistan did not accept it till Sep 13th. Because Pakistan was giving time to Kashmir to accede. It was india's constant interference in Kashmir. RSS and Sikh gangs were there to crush the poonch rebellion (which had nothing to do with Pakistan) and massacred muslims.

In mid sept, Pakistan assessed that Hindu hari singh will accede to india no matter what as he dismissed his PM and replaced him with a pro congress PM, and also replaced Head of his state forces with a hindu. Disarmed all former muslim soldiers and gave the weapons to hindu and sikhs. He did this while he had signed a standstill agreement with Pakistan.
'
Some say Pakistan should not have accepted junagarh and should have maintained the principle of religious majority and contiguity. But Pakistan had little choice but to accept Junagarh's accession as a bargaining chip. India not only rejected this accession to Pakistan but also blockaded Junagarh and deployed troops on border with junagarh and set up a provisional govt violating all laws.
S Raghavan in his book " War and Peace in Modern india" explains this.

Never ever accept what india says or does. No matter who comes or goes there, the fact is india is a hindutva fascist country since its inception.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom