The Kashmir Resolutions - Explanations

[asq]

Incorrect. Commission is supposed to notify the GoI, when:

• “the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals” have withdrawn (completely),
• resulting in “terminating the situation, which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council, as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces”, and
• “the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn” i.e. demilitarization on Pak’s side has begun.

a. was never given effect to, and hence b. never happened. Therefore no notification.

Incorrect. India was never “asked” to reduce its troops down to 18,000 vide res. 98. Actually, both the countries were “asked” to negotiate on the number of troops to remain at the end of demilitarization, within the maximum limit set by the UN. Res. 98 is concerned with the plan of demilitarization. It is not a direction/ order/ request to demilitarize, as you are trying to imply.

Discussion, negotiation and agreement on the demilitarization plan was not subject to the notification under B(I) of s/1100, only the act of demilitarization (on India’s part) was.

Incorrect. India did not disagree to demilitarize per se. She did not agree to the maximum number of 18,000 troops and wanted 3,000 more troops.

Only that no notification was ever issued to India. If it was, the notification number and date would be much appreciated.

India claims that “the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals” were never completely removed and hence “the situation, which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council, as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces” has not been terminated. In fact, she claims that, “the ensuing months, after the adoption of the resolution (s/1100), saw Pakistan brazenly advancing deep into Baltistan and Ladakh, hundreds of kilometres to the east while the so-called Azad Kashmir forces, which were to be disbanded, were expanded and consolidated and formed what the UNCIP Military Adviser described as a "formidable force".” (The official position of India can be had at, The United Nations: Jammu & Kashmir; Embassy of India - Washington, DC)

This meant, from India’s point of view, that step 2 was not fully honoured by Pakistan. Therefore, India was, and continues to be, not obligated to fulfill step 3 i.e plebiscite.

There seems to be an impression that since, negotiation on demilitarization had began, therefore Pak had fulfilled it’s part of the bargain. First, as I have already mentioned, negotiation on demilitarization was never subject to fulfillment of step 2. Second, the absence of any specific UN notification to India (at least I am not aware of any such notification and if anyone points me to such notification, I will be much obliged.) seems to justify India’s position on step 2.

PS. Sorry for waking up a sleeping thread.

So India's solution to the problem is?

CONTINUE OCCUPATION AND KILLING OF CIVILIANS".

What a shame. What a tongue and cheek story

 

[karnivore]

CONTINUE OCCUPATION...

Yes, until conflict is resolved.

...KILLING OF CIVILIANS".

No, and I strongly condemn any military excess.

What a tongue and cheek story

Which part ? Note carefully, that I was only providing counter argument to the belief that res. 98 is proof of fulfillment of Pakistan's end of bargain, as enshrined in doc. s/1100.

 

[asq]

hay Kar. tongue and cheek is the whole of your post, as u are making new excuses each time to keep the status quo and not making any helpful statement or suggestions to solve the problem. to save human sufferings. And that is called tongue and cheek.

If India is so Democratic, have human concerns and is multi cultural society, than why it is not going out of the way to solve this lingering inhuman act at the earliest. it shows that Indian has no concern when it come to Muslim lives, as in Gujarat and in many other places in India. those leaders of your the kind Modi and Bal Thackeray get away with murder and they are still leaders, every one knows that they caused riots and yet they are untouched.

To me Indian Democracy is a farce, i think Pakistan is much better, at least we realized and left Bangladesh, I think Pakistan has the heart and Indian has no heart and its Democracy is a show piece for the world, but we the Pakistanis and Indian Muslim know the reality of it.

U say that you strongly condemn the killing, but it has for 60 years and will continue, it looks that you are just saying this because you are on Pak Def forum, had you and other Indian said this truthfully killings would have Stoppard long time ago.

It looks Indian has no desire to be the partner for peace, instead it is making excuses, therefore;-

"if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem".

 

[karnivore]

hay Kar. tongue and cheek is the whole of your post, as u are making new excuses each time to keep the status quo and not making any helpful statement or suggestions to solve the problem. to save human sufferings. And that is called tongue and cheek.

If India is so Democratic, have human concerns and is multi cultural society, than why it is not going out of the way to solve this lingering inhuman act at the earliest. it shows that Indian has no concern when it come to Muslim lives, as in Gujarat and in many other places in India. those leaders of your the kind Modi and Bal Thackeray get away with murder and they are still leaders, every one knows that they caused riots and yet they are untouched.

To me Indian Democracy is a farce, i think Pakistan is much better, at least we realized and left Bangladesh, I think Pakistan has the heart and Indian has no heart and its Democracy is a show piece for the world, but we the Pakistanis and Indian Muslim know the reality of it.

U say that you strongly condemn the killing, but it has for 60 years and will continue, it looks that you are just saying this because you are on Pak Def forum, had you and other Indian said this truthfully killings would have Stoppard long time ago.

It looks Indian has no desire to be the partner for peace, instead it is making excuses, therefore;-

"if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem".

Well, it appears as a "new excuse", because you have never been told about the true official position that India takes, and the basis, on which she does so. It appears "tongue in cheek" because, you probably realise, that legal case against India is just as strong (or weak) as against Pakistan, which in turn implies, that they both share the blame in equal proportion.

And, by the way, Pakistan did not leave Bangladesh because of any "realization". She was made to leave.

 

[asq]

Yes we did leave and had our soldiers pow, we could have decided to stand and fight and you should know after sixry years that we know how to fight as it has been proven in battle ground and air many a times, so don't tell me we were scared and we left, we decide to stop killing and even became pow.

You need to learn lot about Pakistan Army and it fighting skills, in every case they are better than Indian, it has been proven in the battle field. in saicha 7 soldiers fought and killed 50 Indians. In 70 war in sindh, this soldier guided missiles to kill 17 Indian tanks, In Kargil Col. Captain Sher gul killed 15 Indian officers while surrounded by Indian Army when asked refused to surrender and killed 24 Indians.

I can go on and on but do not ever think that we the Pakistanis don't know fighting, we only fight what is right and Bangladesh was not right.

So believe me we decide to stop so that we do not kill innocent, on the other hand India continue to kill innocents.

 

[Nihat]

Fanboys and Rhetoric Galore on both sides , very nice.

Keep going guys and thread goes to dogs very soon.

 

[Halaku Khan]

cross-post:

India had not committed to any specific troop levels in the agreement - however, Pakistan was committed to withdrawing ALL its troops.

As regards statements of the rapporteur, he was speculating on what India may or may not have done if Pakistan had in fact lived up to his commitments, which it did not. Such speculations have no legal weight whatsoever.

Nehru's alleged remarks also would not enter into the legal picture. What is important is what was written down and signed, and the actual actions taken.

The first breach of the agreement was Pakistan's failure to withdraw, and so the onus of trashing the agreement lies on Pakistan. The terrorism from 1965 onwards was a further violation, which has created a situation not envisaged in the agreement.

When one party breaks an agreement and creates a situation not envisaged in the agreement, the agreement no longer becomes binding on the other party. That is what has happened to the UN agreement.

The Simla agreement commits both parties to settle the issue bilaterally. That is well and good and does not contradict the UN charter. However this bilateral settlement cannot be on the basis of a defunct agreement.

 

[syeda rehman]

kashmir zindabad

 

[humblehobbes]

Ignoring the one line post above. and a question for all the Plebiscite seekers, Why does no one ever bring in the pre-condition, which has been not been taken by Pakistan! Any one care to explain? Just thinking like Hobbes as in the picture here

 

[humblehobbes]

**********Bing*********** a reminder for replies

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

cross-post:

India had not committed to any specific troop levels in the agreement - however, Pakistan was committed to withdrawing ALL its troops.

As regards statements of the rapporteur, he was speculating on what India may or may not have done if Pakistan had in fact lived up to his commitments, which it did not. Such speculations have no legal weight whatsoever.

Nehru's alleged remarks also would not enter into the legal picture. What is important is what was written down and signed, and the actual actions taken.

The first breach of the agreement was Pakistan's failure to withdraw, and so the onus of trashing the agreement lies on Pakistan. The terrorism from 1965 onwards was a further violation, which has created a situation not envisaged in the agreement.

Please read the resolutions carefully - Sir Owen Dixon's comments carry great weight given the Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948 , which is referred to in many subsequent resolutions:
---------------------
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.
----------------------
India never agreed to the 'details', which is what Dixon's mission was about, and what he criticized India over, so the part about 'notifying India' never had a chance to be implemented.

And Nehru's remarks and his governments policies, in trying to unilaterally integrate J&K into India and equating rigged elections to a plebiscite and calling the status quo a 'resolution of the dispute', are important, given that India rebuffed attempts by the UN commission and world community to agree to those 'details'.

When one party breaks an agreement and creates a situation not envisaged in the agreement, the agreement no longer becomes binding on the other party. That is what has happened to the UN agreement.

Please point out to me in the UN charter where the justification provided by you calls for the UNSC resolutions to become irrelevant.

The Simla agreement commits both parties to settle the issue bilaterally. That is well and good and does not contradict the UN charter. However this bilateral settlement cannot be on the basis of a defunct agreement.

Neither does the reference to 'bilateral engagement' annul the multiple UNSC resolutions to which both nations had committed repeatedly, given that just recently the Indus Water Treaty related issues have gone in front of the World Bank for arbitration.

 

[arihant]

Now back to topic. Issue is of whole Jammu and Kashmir state.

But if we whole state is divided into three parts now. ***, IOK and COK. Now it's not issue of just two parties but also include China.

Now, tell me what is your stand on whole J&K. Do you feel whole J&K be united or we should leave the 20% of COK.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Now back to topic. Issue is of whole Jammu and Kashmir state.

But if we whole state is divided into three parts now. ***, IOK and COK. Now it's not issue of just two parties but also include China.

Now, tell me what is your stand on whole J&K. Do you feel whole J&K be united or we should leave the 20% of COK.

That's not the topic - the UN resolutions are.

But to answer your question, Pakistan's agreement with China on Aksai Chen indicates that in the event of a plebsicite resulting in India obtaining J&K, China would have to engage in negotiations with India over final status of the territory - so the status of Aksai Chen is still 'disputed'.

 

[Halaku Khan]

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.
----------------------
India never agreed to the 'details', which is what Dixon's mission was about, and what he criticized India over, so the part about 'notifying India' never had a chance to be implemented.

In the agreement, some things are clear cut - there is no controversy about Pakistan's commitment to withdraw 100% of its troops. Other things are left undefined, to be settled by further discussions. I would suggest that it was the unreasonable obtuseness of Dixon, under pressure from the Pakistani side, that was responsible for any lack of agreement.

There is nothing in the agreement that says that Dixon must reach agreement with India before Pakistan carries out it's commitments. So there is nothing that excuses Pakistan's failure to live up to its well-defined commitments.

And Nehru's remarks and his governments policies, in trying to unilaterally integrate J&K into India and equating rigged elections to a plebiscite and calling the status quo a 'resolution of the dispute', are important, given that India rebuffed attempts by the UN commission and world community to agree to those 'details'.

Let us stick to the legalities.

Please point out to me in the UN charter where the justification provided by you calls for the UNSC resolutions to become irrelevant.

It's a universal principle of agreements - you can't have one side violating it's commitments, and then expecting the other side to do its part.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In the agreement, some things are clear cut - there is no controversy about Pakistan's commitment to withdraw 100% of its troops. Other things are left undefined, to be settled by further discussions. I would suggest that it was the unreasonable obtuseness of Dixon, under pressure from the Pakistani side, that was responsible for any lack of agreement.

There is nothing in the agreement that says that Dixon must reach agreement with India before Pakistan carries out it's commitments. So there is nothing that excuses Pakistan's failure to live up to its well-defined commitments.

Once again, you need to read the resolutions properly. The part about Pakistani troops withdrawing from J&L comes immediately after the line I quoted in my earlier post: "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."
You cannot therefore claim that somehow the call for withdrawal was clear cut (because it fits your narrative) and not subject to the line above.

Let us stick to the legalities.

As done above, but the 'legalities' are affected by actions and statements taken by the Indian leadership - If the Indian leadership states that there shall be no plebiscite, and holds elections and includes J&K in the Indian constitution, those are tangible changes violating the commitment in the UN that the dispute shall be resolved via plebiscite.

It's a universal principle of agreements - you can't have one side violating it's commitments, and then expecting the other side to do its part.

The commitment was already violated by Indian actions as mentioned above - you basically had the Indian government saying (and doing via constitutional amendments) that the status quo would remain - a clear violation of the commitment to the UNSC resolutions.