The Kashmir Resolutions - Explanations

[blackbriar]

So you would have no problem with the UN sending forces to the LOC and watching over a gradual withdrawl process of armed forces from both sides.....pakistan would support this proposal and maybe both ambassadors to the UN could put this propsal forward.



Pakistan is willing for the people of NA and AJK to to take part in a UN vote.....am sure we can get the chinese to let the people living on snow peaked mountain tops take part in the election also......are you willing to have election in your bit under the UN?




So seem to forget that theres are UN resolutions and the promises of nehru to the people of kashmir and there are no UN resolutions concerning balochistan.....if you want to go down that path then why cant the peoples of Punjab,Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Andhra Pradesh, Tripura ect also have the same non UN benfit that balochistan gets.
Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory and not recognised as an Indian integral part, according to the International community.....the same does not apply when it comes Balochistan,Punjab,Arunachal Pradesh, Assam.



We have been fighting you guys from day one and have heard the same lame prophecies for years that pakistan would be finished and india will be some graet power.....please give it a rest.

well the removal of the forces from both sides should have been done when the resolution was passed..the application of the resolution does not lie when the pakistanis mood changes.they dint agree to remove there forces in 1948...and chose a war of attrition.now when the war of attrition and all other methods employed have failed, they agree suddenly to agree to the resolution to the letter.it does not work with the mood swings of the pakistani leadership.
also as u say that NA, AJK and the part with china would be ready to vote(including aksai chin annexed in1962),but the whole point of the arguement rests on the fact that the demography,map of J&K should not have changed since 1948.well the answer is in the question.isnt it...and yeah we come back again to the first point.the first part of the resolution was not completed..cant proceed to the 2nd part.

the arguement again rests on the UN resolution which was never followed.and ur asking of a plebiscite in other indian states and pakistani states,well that is exactly what i say.self determination call from some ppl in a state cannot be acceded to by india or pakistan,to keep the integrity of our respective countries.and the same applies to balochistan and J&K.ppl may ask for self-determination,that does not mean we are going to give it to them.and as u say j&k is disputed,well its disputed cus pakistan keeps sending terrorists across the border.once pakistan stops the dispute is over.

and i never said pakistan would be over,its a self destructive strategy pakistan is following.as i said a bigger country with bigger financial,human,and material resources is going to outlast the other.we r ready to wait till eternity.the LOC area keeps burning while we continue building our economy in the hinterland.i agree there are terror attacks in the hinterland,but they are like pin pricks in such a huge country.and as the hinterland keeps devoloping at 9% growth,the amount of resources available to fight the war at the LOC also keeps increasing.so yeah pakistan can keep continuing the same predictable methods of proxy war.it works fine with us.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

well the removal of the forces from both sides should have been done when the resolution was passed..the application of the resolution does not lie when the pakistanis mood changes.they dint agree to remove there forces in 1948...and chose a war of attrition.now when the war of attrition and all other methods employed have failed, they agree suddenly to agree to the resolution to the letter.it does not work with the mood swings of the pakistani leadership.
also as u say that NA, AJK and the part with china would be ready to vote(including aksai chin annexed in1962),but the whole point of the arguement rests on the fact that the demography,map of J&K should not have changed since 1948.well the answer is in the question.isnt it...and yeah we come back again to the first point.the first part of the resolution was not completed..cant proceed to the 2nd part.

the arguement again rests on the UN resolution which was never followed.and ur asking of a plebiscite in other indian states and pakistani states,well that is exactly what i say.self determination call from some ppl in a state cannot be acceded to by india or pakistan,to keep the integrity of our respective countries.and the same applies to balochistan and J&K.ppl may ask for self-determination,that does not mean we are going to give it to them.and as u say j&k is disputed,well its disputed cus pakistan keeps sending terrorists across the border.once pakistan stops the dispute is over.

and i never said pakistan would be over,its a self destructive strategy pakistan is following.as i said a bigger country with bigger financial,human,and material resources is going to outlast the other.we r ready to wait till eternity.the LOC area keeps burning while we continue building our economy in the hinterland.i agree there are terror attacks in the hinterland,but they are like pin pricks in such a huge country.and as the hinterland keeps devoloping at 9% growth,the amount of resources available to fight the war at the LOC also keeps increasing.so yeah pakistan can keep continuing the same predictable methods of proxy war.it works fine with us.

Oh please - read through this thread http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/7904-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.html

The UNSC resolutions did not just demand Pakistan to withdraw from Kashmir - this important line preceded the withdrawal part:

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN ON 13 AUGUST 1948. (DOCUMENT NO. S/1100, PARA 75, DATED THE 9TH NOVEMBER, 1948)​

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.

1. (l) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavor to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.

The thread I linked to details how India was he obstacle in the negotiations on the 'details' that would have led to the Pakistani withdrawal, and put in motion the series of steps that would have led to plebiscite.

 

[bandit]

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.


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.


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.

Of course clutching at straws now. The Indian stand started changing in 1954 onwards IIRC, when it contended that material situation had changed, Pakistan had had enough time to withdraw troops if it were committed to the resolution. But of course since actions seem to be the best judge for you, those carried out by Pakistan by sending in tribals mixed with army are a better indicator of what Pakistan and Jinnah had in mind...their staying put there after the agreement confirmed the suspicions.

 

[bandit]

The thread I linked to details how India was he obstacle in the negotiations on the 'details' that would have led to the Pakistani withdrawal, and put in motion the series of steps that would have led to plebiscite.

Come on now, what would the details about the withdrawal of irregular tribesmen be between nations, mode of transportation??
Pakistan had to withdraw its irregulars and troops but you seriously believe Indian would have not expedited it by holding negotiations.
Whatever failure to uphold the resolutions has been is from the Pakistani sides, please dont pick illogical nuances just to prove your point.

As for the technicalities the Appendix 6 has a clause stating that Plebiscite is binding only in case of Pakistan adopts Part I and II of the agreement. Nowhere does it state that Pakistan can renege on the agreement in any case, clearly the onus was on Pakistan to move ahead.

 

[blackbriar]

Oh please - read through this thread http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/7904-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.html

The UNSC resolutions did not just demand Pakistan to withdraw from Kashmir - this important line preceded the withdrawal part:



The thread I linked to details how India was he obstacle in the negotiations on the 'details' that would have led to the Pakistani withdrawal, and put in motion the series of steps that would have led to plebiscite.

but the UN resolution required the withdrawl before the plebiscite was carried out.read ur link properly.
***
The resolution clearly states:

1.The presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation and the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops fromthat State


2.The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals
***
now u may argue that pakistan tried withdrawing but India did not follow suit.similarly india argues pakistan did not withdraw and hence india did not follow suit.afterall pakistan was the aggressor.this as i already posted earlier is history lost in time.its indias word against pakistans word.
can we break this impasse..thats what we r discussing here.

 

[dabong1]

but the UN resolution required the withdrawl before the plebiscite was carried out.read ur link properly.
***
The resolution clearly states:

1.The presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation and the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops fromthat State


2.The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals
***
now u may argue that pakistan tried withdrawing but India did not follow suit.similarly india argues pakistan did not withdraw and hence india did not follow suit.afterall pakistan was the aggressor.this as i already posted earlier is history lost in time.its indias word against pakistans word.
can we break this impasse..thats what we r discussing here.

I have tried to give you an example of how to break the impass with both nation withdrawing under the supervison of the UN but you dismissed the idea........you dont want peace or a fair resolution just your own way.
Pakistan will never be dictated to by india or follow any one sided peace process and the fight will continue.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Of course clutching at straws now. The Indian stand started changing in 1954 onwards IIRC, when it contended that material situation had changed, Pakistan had had enough time to withdraw troops if it were committed to the resolution. But of course since actions seem to be the best judge for you, those carried out by Pakistan by sending in tribals mixed with army are a better indicator of what Pakistan and Jinnah had in mind...their staying put there after the agreement confirmed the suspicions.

The UNSC resolutions took into account events on the ground such as the invasion by the tribesmen, the war between the IA and the PA and issued resolutions recommending a means of resolution that was agreed to and endorsed by the international community, India and Pakistan - therefore the time to harp and whine about the Tribal invasion, as you did in your last sentence, was at that time, when the resolutions were being framed, or when time to adopt them and commit to them came - India instead accepted them wholeheartedly.

The Pakistani withdrawal was, as highlighted through text in the resolutions itself, contingent upon the UN commissions negotiations with India and Pakistan on the details of steps that had to be taken by both nations to facilitate the implementation of the UNSC resolutions. The UN rapporteur comments in this regard (see beginning of thread) blaming Indian obstinacy, are important in highlighting which nation was really the roadblock.

In support of the above contention:

On August 13, 1948, the Security Council Commission, now called the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, adopted a resolution mandating a cease-fire and withdrawal of troops. This was followed by another resolution which included principles regarding the plebiscite which was now to be under the authority of the Security Council itself. The Peace Plan proposed by the Commission for India and Pakistan and accepted by both parties had three stages: (1) a cease fire, (2) a truce involving an agreed plan for a balanced military withdrawal of both sides and (3) a plebiscite. The cease fire took effect on January 1, 1949.

Also in January 1949, the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) was established with a mandate "to supervise, in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the cease-fire between Indian and Pakistan." It continues today, with 38 military observers.

India objected to the truce plan proposed by the Commission for India and Pakistan. The Commission proposed arbitration over the truce plan with Admiral Nimitz as arbitrator. Pakistan accepted this plan. However, even with strong appeals for this arbitration made by U.S. President Truman and United Kingdom Prime Minister Attlee, India refused to accept arbitration over the truce.
http://130.94.183.89/parker/kash.html

 

[bandit]

The UNSC resolutions took into account events on the ground such as the invasion by the tribesmen, the war between the IA and the PA and issued resolutions recommending a means of resolution that was agreed to and endorsed by the international community, India and Pakistan - therefore the time to harp and whine about the Tribal invasion, as you did in your last sentence, was at that time, when the resolutions were being framed, or when time to adopt them and commit to them came - India instead accepted them wholeheartedly.

The "harp and whine" is intended to highlight Pakistans intentions at the time when it attempted to grab the land...did Jinnah say anything about giving Kashmiris the freedom that Pakistanis now whine day in and day out. The mentioned acts show the intent with which Pakistan invaded Kashmir....plain old land grab.

or when time to adopt them and commit to them came - India instead accepted them wholeheartedly.

Of course whole heartedly as it addressed the concerns about Pakistani forces moving back...but that of course didnt happen...Pakistan just sat on the land that it had managed to grab.

The Pakistani withdrawal was, as highlighted through text in the resolutions itself, contingent upon the UN commissions negotiations with India and Pakistan on the details of steps that had to be taken by both nations to facilitate the implementation of the UNSC resolutions. The UN rapporteur comments in this regard (see beginning of thread) blaming Indian obstinacy, are important in highlighting which nation was really the roadblock.

Please try to look at the neutrality of the article before posting it as a source. The whole article is a harangue by the author with statements such as "India seized much of Kashmir" and other inflammatory statements, the organization that funded the paper is a well known Pakistani mouthpiece in NY.

In fact the proposals made by the UN mediators were rejected both by India and Pakistan at different points in time, more specifically the Dixon plan which envisaged the division of Kashmir into 3 separate parts. So please stop blaming India for what you never intended to do in the first place.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The "harp and whine" is intended to highlight Pakistans intentions at the time when it attempted to grab the land...did Jinnah say anything about giving Kashmiris the freedom that Pakistanis now whine day in and day out. The mentioned acts show the intent with which Pakistan invaded Kashmir....plain old land grab.

Please try and read somethign beyond the distorted and hateful history tough in India, that overlooks the excesses of the Maharajah and how they played a crucial role in the Tribal invasion.

There was an indigenous and unsupported (externally)rebellion against the dictator Maharajah by kashmiris, that resulted in a brutal crackdown by teh Maharajahs troops driving out thousands of Kashmiris into Pakistan - that was the initial catalyst for the Tribal invasion, and so yes, if Jinnah did know about it, the Tribal war against the Maharajah in support of rebelling Kashmiris was in fact about supporting the rights of Kashmiris and freeing them from the yoke of the dictator Maharajah.

Of course whole heartedly as it addressed the concerns about Pakistani forces moving back...but that of course didnt happen...Pakistan just sat on the land that it had managed to grab.

Please try to look at the neutrality of the article before posting it as a source. The whole article is a harangue by the author with statements such as "India seized much of Kashmir" and other inflammatory statements, the organization that funded the paper is a well known Pakistani mouthpiece in NY.

In fact the proposals made by the UN mediators were rejected both by India and Pakistan at different points in time, more specifically the Dixon plan which envisaged the division of Kashmir into 3 separate parts. So please stop blaming India for what you never intended to do in the first place.

Pleas stop regurgitating a point that has already been debunked, with quotes from the UNSC resolutions - the Pakistani withdrawal was contingent upon an agreement arrived at between India, Pakistan and the UN commission - that much is clear, and if you disagree then please show that by refuting my points regarding the UNSC resolutions indicating so.

As for the comments made by the source I posted and here is an India source pointing out much the same:

The UNCIP therefore began to veer round the idea of arbitration by a thirdAdmiral Chester W. Nimitz party regarding the disputed points about demilitarization which stood in the way of signing of the Truce Agreement and induction of a plebiscite Administration for which post the security council had nominated Admiral Chester Nimitz of the USA. Accordingly, it presented to the Governments of India and Pakistan on August 29, 1949 its proposal about submitting to arbitration their differences regarding the implementation of Part II of the resolution of August 13, 1948. As if by prior arrangement, President Truman of the USA and Premier Attlee of the U.K. wrote to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan about the same time to accept this suggestion about arbitration.

The Government of Pakistan accepted the suggestion but the Government of India rejected it on the plea that the outstanding issue of disbanding and disarming of "Azad" Kashmir forces was a matter not for arbitration but "for affirmative and immediate decision".

Though the arbitration proposals thus fell through, it hardened the attitude of the USA and the UK against India.
Kashmir: The Storm Center of the World by Bal Raj Madhok

Furthermore, after these events, Sir Owen Dixon was appointed as a single UN rapporteur, and his comments related to the Indian obstinacy and roadblocks are also documented at the beginning of this thread. Combine that with the comments of Nehru documented in this thread by me, and it is clear that Nehru was the true poison in the way of the settlement of the dispute between India and Pakistan.

 

[bandit]

Please try and read somethign beyond the distorted and hateful history tough in India, that overlooks the excesses of the Maharajah and how they played a crucial role in the Tribal invasion.

Nowhere in Indian history books is the history of Kashmir taught so please stop assuming that I only know the Indian side of the story.



.

There was an indigenous and unsupported (externally)rebellion against the dictator Maharajah by kashmiris, that resulted in a brutal crackdown by teh Maharajahs troops driving out thousands of Kashmiris into Pakistan - that was the initial catalyst for the Tribal invasion, and so yes, if Jinnah did know about it, the Tribal war against the Maharajah in support of rebelling Kashmiris was in fact about supporting the rights of Kashmiris and freeing them from the yoke of the dictator Maharajah.
.

Looking at the bold statement above, now you are the one who seems to have fallen for your governments propaganda. You seriously believe you were the angel liberators of Kashmir....Haha.

Support or no support, the initial invasion and then that of the Pakistani troops violated the international law as they had no business of being in another country except for grabbing land.

Your Source-

.

He (Dixon) was the first U.N. representative to state in unequivocal terms that the crossing of the frontier of Jammu & Kashmir State by Pakistani invaders on October 22, 1947, and the entry of regular Pakistan Army into Kashmir in May, 1948 were contrary to international law.

.

Pleas stop regurgitating a point that has already been debunked, with quotes from the UNSC resolutions - the Pakistani withdrawal was contingent upon an agreement arrived at between India, Pakistan and the UN commission - that much is clear, and if you disagree then please show that by refuting my points regarding the UNSC resolutions indicating so.

Please go through the previous posts...the only thing on which the execution of the agreement was contingent upon was the removal of Pakistans forces from Kashmir that was clause I and it clearly states that clause II and III including plebiscite depends on I.
Nowhere is the withdawal of troops contingent upon any Indian action, and obviously Pakistan did not need any Indian action for recall of troops; as boasted by Jinnah while assuring a UN official about his control over the Tribals and his ability to withdraw them


.

Furthermore, after these events, Sir Owen Dixon was appointed as a single UN rapporteur, and his comments related to the Indian obstinacy and roadblocks are also documented at the beginning of this thread. Combine that with the comments of Nehru documented in this thread by me, and it is clear that Nehru was the true poison in the way of the settlement of the dispute between India and Pakistan.

Pakistans reaction to the Dixon proposal-

.

The Pakistan Government rejected the Dixon proposals on the plea that they "meant a breach on India's part of the agreement that the destinies of Jammu & Kashmir State as a whole should be decided by a plebiscite taken over the entire state". But this rejection was more tactical than genuine because there could not have been a better proposal from the Pakistan point of view..

Stop piling the blame on India on every point and do realize that Pakistan had invaded Kashmir for the sole purpose of snatching it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Nowhere in Indian history books is the history of Kashmir taught so please stop assuming that I only know the Indian side of the story.

Unfortunately most Indians regurgitate this one sided history, so I can only assume that you all learn this from a single source.

Looking at the bold statement above, now you are the one who seems to have fallen for your governments propaganda. You seriously believe you were the angel liberators of Kashmir....Haha.

The indigenous rebellion in Kashmir is fact as is the brutal crackdown of the Mahrajah in an attempt to quell the rebellion that caused thousands of refugees to flood into Pakistan along with the train loads of massacred Muslims arriving from India - all of this preceded the Tribal invasion. These are the facts, quoted in books by Pakistani and Western authors.

Support or no support, the initial invasion and then that of the Pakistani troops violated the international law as they had no business of being in another country except for grabbing land.

The invasion and the presence of Pakistani troops in Kashmir was dealt with through the UNSC resolutions, which called for negotiations on a ceasefire and conditions (including a Pakistani and other outsiders withdrawal) that would be conducive to a Plebiscite in Kashmir.

What is beyond doubt is that the UNSC, after being approached by India over Pakistan's military presence in J&K, reaffirmed the point that the territory of J&K was disputed and that the people of Kashmir should decide between India and Pakistan in a plebiscite

Your Source-

Yes - and the UNSC rsolutions deal with that as explained above, but Owen Dixon also said this, as pointed out in the first few posts of the thread:
"
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.""

Notice that Dixon is not blaming both India and Pakistan, but India for its obstinacy. Even the Indian author points out that Pakistan did not have any real objection to Dixon's proposals and the official objection was more 'tactical'.

Please go through the previous posts...the only thing on which the execution of the agreement was contingent upon was the removal of Pakistans forces from Kashmir that was clause I and it clearly states that clause II and III including plebiscite depends on I.
Nowhere is the withdawal of troops contingent upon any Indian action, and obviously Pakistan did not need any Indian action for recall of troops; as boasted by Jinnah while assuring a UN official about his control over the Tribals and his ability to withdraw them

I clearly pointed out to you and highlighted where the UNSC resolutions indicate negotiations before a Pakistani withdrawal, and here it is again:

"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.

And Dixon's comments I posted above indicate that the demilitarization of the valley was to be be done bilaterally and with the agreement of both sides.

The UNSC resolutions on Kashmir in 1952 illustrate this as well:

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

The above clearly shows that the demilitarization of the valley was to be a bilateral and negotiated issue, and not some sort of unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan while India maintained all her forces in place.

Stop piling the blame on India on every point and do realize that Pakistan had invaded Kashmir for the sole purpose of snatching it.

As I pointed out, even the Indian author calls Pakistan's objections 'tactical', and Dixon blames India, not Pakistan, and not both Pakistan and India, for the failure in obtaining an agreement, and today it is India that continues to be in blatant violation of the UNSC resolutions by refusing to implement them.

 

[bandit]

Unfortunately most Indians regurgitate this one sided history, so I can only assume that you all learn this from a single source.
.

The Fallacy of assumption.

.

The indigenous rebellion in Kashmir is fact as is the brutal crackdown of the Mahrajah in an attempt to quell the rebellion that caused thousands of refugees to flood into Pakistan along with the train loads of massacred Muslims arriving from India - all of this preceded the Tribal invasion. These are the facts, quoted in books by Pakistani and Western authors.
.

These facts do not cover up the bigger fact that Pakistan broke international law when it invaded Kashmir. If it now asks India to act in accordance with law and treaties, it should step back first, sitting on one half of Kashmir and shouting for the other half to follow treaties really does not hold water.

.

The invasion and the presence of Pakistani troops in Kashmir was dealt with through the UNSC resolutions, which called for negotiations on a ceasefire and conditions (including a Pakistani and other outsiders withdrawal) that would be conducive to a Plebiscite in Kashmir.

What is beyond doubt is that the UNSC, after being approached by India over Pakistan's military presence in J&K, reaffirmed the point that the territory of J&K was disputed and that the people of Kashmir should decide between India and Pakistan in a plebiscite.

What is beyond doubt is also the fact that the only contingency mentioned in the whole UN document is that of Pakistan withdrawing its forces for the execution of the next part that includes plebiscite.


.

Yes - and the UNSC rsolutions deal with that as explained above, but Owen Dixon also said this, as pointed out in the first few posts of the thread:
"
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.""

Notice that Dixon is not blaming both India and Pakistan, but India for its obstinacy.
.

Dixons proposal was rejected as it put India and Pakistan both on the same footing contrary to the spirit of the original UN resolution that recognized Pakistan as the aggressor and thus mandated its removal of forces as a precondition.

.

Even the Indian author points out that Pakistan did not have any real objection to Dixon's proposals and the official objection was more 'tactical'.

.

Which means that Pakistan was eyeing the whole of Kashmir rather than divided Plebiscite as Dixon proposed.

.

And Dixon's comments I posted above indicate that the demilitarization of the valley was to be be done bilaterally and with the agreement of both sides.

The UNSC resolutions on Kashmir in 1952 illustrate this as well:



The above clearly shows that the demilitarization of the valley was to be a bilateral and negotiated issue, and not some sort of unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan while India maintained all her forces in place.
.

Please do not try modify facts. These bilateral reductions proposal was proposed by Dixon in December 1952- after four years during which Pakistan had failed to carry out its commitment on the agreement. It was a proposal which was rejected by India since it equated it with Pakistan which had no legal right to be in Kashmir.
Plus the cold war politics had come into play with Pakistan joining Cento and Seato and secured the support of west for its case and equating Pakistan with India on the Kashmir cause was one of the prizes Pakistan got for allying with the west.


.

As I pointed out, even the Indian author calls Pakistan's objections 'tactical', and Dixon blames India, not Pakistan, and not both Pakistan and India, for the failure in obtaining an agreement, and today it is India that continues to be in blatant violation of the UNSC resolutions by refusing to implement them.

For the nth time, the blatant violation is from the Pakistani side for not keeping its end of the bargain and holding on to territory it has no legal right over.
The issue of plebiscite by India only arises when Pakistanis quit Kashmir, until then all blames on India for not holding plebiscite are hogwash.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The Fallacy of assumption.

You lot obviously get that identical biased history from somewhere.

These facts do not cover up the bigger fact that Pakistan broke international law when it invaded Kashmir. If it now asks India to act in accordance with law and treaties, it should step back first, sitting on one half of Kashmir and shouting for the other half to follow treaties really does not hold water.

Whatever Pakistan did, the fact remains that the platform India took the dispute to for arbitration ruled that the territory was disputed and that India and Pakistan had to enter into negotiations to demilitarize the region and make the situation conducive for a plebiscite that would allow the Kashmiris to choose the nation they wished to accede to.

The conclusions of the UNSC were agreed to by the Indian government, so essentially that remains, for now, the final neutral decision on the dispute relating to the events that occurred in 1947.

What is beyond doubt is also the fact that the only contingency mentioned in the whole UN document is that of Pakistan withdrawing its forces for the execution of the next part that includes plebiscite.

Quite clearly not the only contingency - there is no mention of a mandatory unilateral withdrawal, and I have highlighted that point for you in both the text of the UNSC resolutions as well as by pointing out the mandate of the UN commissions and rapporteurs. That was precisely what the commissions and rapporteurs engaged in with India and Pakistan, precisely what Dixon's comments related to in which he criticized India, and precisely why the UNSC eventually passed a resolution that I quoted above:

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

If you have refutation to that point, please do so instead of continuously beating around the bush and regurgitating the same thing - you have offered nothing so far to counter my argument that the UNSC resolutions did not call for a unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan, they the resolutions in fact called for negotiations between India and Pakistan to achieve demilitarization and conditions conducive to a plebiscite, and that the UN commission and rapporteurs functioned as arbiters in those negotiations to achieve the goal of conducting a free and fair plebiscite.

Dixons proposal was rejected as it put India and Pakistan both on the same footing contrary to the spirit of the original UN resolution that recognized Pakistan as the aggressor and thus mandated its removal of forces as a precondition.

The removal of forces was in any case subject to negotiations between India and Pakistan, as pointed out, and in those negotiations the UN appointed arbiters came up with a solution that would satisfy the legitimate tangible concerns related to one side occupying territory vacated by the other - the suggestions were therefore not contrary to the original UN resolutions at all.

Which means that Pakistan was eyeing the whole of Kashmir rather than divided Plebiscite as Dixon proposed.

Even the Indian author admits that Pakistan's objection was tactical and not serious, and Dixon blames India, not Pakistan - so how can you conclude that Pakistan was eying all of Kashmir, any more than India?

Please do not try modify facts. These bilateral reductions proposal was proposed by Dixon in December 1952- after four years during which Pakistan had failed to carry out its commitment on the agreement. It was a proposal which was rejected by India since it equated it with Pakistan which had no legal right to be in Kashmir.
Plus the cold war politics had come into play with Pakistan joining Cento and Seato and secured the support of west for its case and equating Pakistan with India on the Kashmir cause was one of the prizes Pakistan got for allying with the west.

Where did I modify facts? Please don't throw around absurd accusations because you do not like the facts. The previous UNSC resolutions clearly spelled out the need to negotiate to achieve demilitarization, and the UNSC resolutions in 1952, which override the previous ones, were essentially the result of the negotiations and arbitration that had occurred in the mean time, more specific, and clearly showed that the UNSC understood the legitimate concerns of Pakistan that a unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan would merely allow the opposing party in the dispute to occupy the vacated territory.

For the nth time, the blatant violation is from the Pakistani side for not keeping its end of the bargain and holding on to territory it has no legal right over.
The issue of plebiscite by India only arises when Pakistanis quit Kashmir, until then all blames on India for not holding plebiscite are hogwash.

And for the n'th time, Pakistan broke no 'bargain' (if you are referring to the UNSC resolutions) - I have clearly pointed out how the UNSC resolutions did not call for any sort of unilateral withdrawal (without conditions) and called for negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN appointed commissions and rapporteurs to achieve conditions conducive to plebiscite, including demilitarization.

Pakistan played the game by the book - we negotiated, expressed our concerns, and the UNSC resolutions in 1952 clearly were the result of Pakistan playing by the book, while India's violation of her commitment to the resolutions and refusal to understand the real concerns of any one side in the dispute enjoying military superiority in J&K in complete absence of the other was the real cause for the breakdown.

In fact, I suspect that India intended all along to occupy any territory vacated by Pakistan and renege on its pledge to hold a plebiscite - why on earth would it refuse sensible solutions that would have still left her with a larger military force in J&K (18000 to Pakistan's 6000), and allowed the UN to step in and hold a plebiscite. The plebiscite was after all the final goal per the resolutions, agreed to by India, that would decide which nation obtained J&K.

 

[bandit]

You lot obviously get that identical biased history from somewhere.

And you lot are welcome to carry on with assumptions.

Whatever Pakistan did, the fact remains that the platform India took the dispute to for arbitration ruled that the territory was disputed and that India and Pakistan had to enter into negotiations to demilitarize the region and make the situation conducive for a plebiscite that would allow the Kashmiris to choose the nation they wished to accede to.

The conclusions of the UNSC were agreed to by the Indian government, so essentially that remains, for now, the final neutral decision on the dispute relating to the events that occurred in 1947.

Quite certainly. But the point you keep ignoring is that Pakistan had to fulfil some preconditions which it did not and it is obvious why.

Quite clearly not the only contingency - there is no mention of a mandatory unilateral withdrawal, and I have highlighted that point for you in both the text of the UNSC resolutions as well as by pointing out the mandate of the UN commissions and rapporteurs. That was precisely what the commissions and rapporteurs engaged in with India and Pakistan, precisely what Dixon's comments related to in which he criticized India, and precisely why the UNSC eventually passed a resolution that I quoted above:


If you have refutation to that point, please do so instead of continuously beating around the bush and regurgitating the same thing - you have offered nothing so far to counter my argument that the UNSC resolutions did not call for a unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan, they the resolutions in fact called for negotiations between India and Pakistan to achieve demilitarization and conditions conducive to a plebiscite, and that the UN commission and rapporteurs functioned as arbiters in those negotiations to achieve the goal of conducting a free and fair plebiscite.

Are you genuinely mistaken or just acting to be;

What India agreed to was the 1948 resolution which clearly stated that Pakistan HAD to withdraw before plebiscite came into play and yes, the withdrawal had to be Pakstani first:-

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.

1. (l) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

Dixon proposed and India rejected because Dixon's proposals violated original spirit of the agreement that India had agreed to.

The removal of forces was in any case subject to negotiations between India and Pakistan, as pointed out, and in those negotiations the UN appointed arbiters came up with a solution that would satisfy the legitimate tangible concerns related to one side occupying territory vacated by the other - the suggestions were therefore not contrary to the original UN resolutions at all.

The solution Dixon et al came up wth put Pakistan at par with India whereas the original resolution that India did agree to clearly recognized Pakistan as the aggressor, how could you expect India agree to a twisted version of the actual events.


.

Even the Indian author admits that Pakistan's objection was tactical and not serious, and Dixon blames India, not Pakistan - so how can you conclude that Pakistan was eying all of Kashmir, any more than India?
.

Pakistani intentions were clear by its four years of inaction on troops removal.

Where did I modify facts?
.

Right here-

.

The previous UNSC resolutions clearly spelled out the need to negotiate to achieve demilitarization, and the UNSC resolutions in 1952,
.

How can yu balme India for reneging on a resolution it never agreed to....Huh.

.

Pakistan played the game by the book - we negotiated, expressed our concerns, and the UNSC resolutions in 1952 clearly were the result of Pakistan playing by the book, while India's violation of her commitment to the resolutions and refusal to understand the real concerns of any one side in the dispute enjoying military superiority in J&K in complete absence of the other was the real cause for the breakdown.
.

The fact is that Pakistan allied itself with the west and in return got a favorable outcome from th UN. You can claim all the morality and fair game, but Pakistan lost its credibility when it invaded Kashmir and that became the benchmark to judge its future actions.

.

In fact, I suspect that India intended all along to occupy any territory vacated by Pakistan and renege on its pledge to hold a plebiscite - why on earth would it refuse sensible solutions that would have still left her with a larger military force in J&K (18000 to Pakistan's 6000), and allowed the UN to step in and hold a plebiscite. The plebiscite was after all the final goal per the resolutions, agreed to by India, that would decide which nation obtained J&K.

Yeah you can suspect and have all your assumptions, obviously you can understand this much part in the resolution that Pakisan was recognized as the aggressor by the UN and had to vacate Kashmir first for India to make any move on the Plebiscite.

I tried to explain everything to you in the context of the resolution itself, if you are not ready to face facts straight as they are, you can continue to accuse me of beating around wherever, doesnt change facts.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And you lot are welcome to carry on with assumptions.

So why do most Indians regurgitate the same biased history?

Quite certainly. But the point you keep ignoring is that Pakistan had to fulfil some preconditions which it did not and it is obvious why.

What preconditions? I pointed out to you that the resolutions in fact called for 'negotiations' on the issue of withdrawal, and that subsequent resolutions overrode previous ones and removed the point about a unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan.

At the very least you have to refute my point about the condition of 'withdrawal of Pakistani forces' being subject to negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN appointed commission and rapporteurs. The latter point of whether India 'cherry picked' only one very early resolution out of the many that were passed (becoming more detailed as time progressed) I'll attempt to address next.

Are you genuinely mistaken or just acting to be;

What India agreed to was the 1948 resolution which clearly stated that Pakistan HAD to withdraw before plebiscite came into play and yes, the withdrawal had to be Pakstani first:-

Dixon proposed and India rejected because Dixon's proposals violated original spirit of the agreement that India had agreed to.

The solution Dixon et al came up wth put Pakistan at par with India whereas the original resolution that India did agree to clearly recognized Pakistan as the aggressor, how could you expect India agree to a twisted version of the actual events.

I am not mistaken sir, you have no clue about the commitment made by your nation's leadership to the UNSC resolutions, or refuse to see it to push a flawed and distorted narrative.

See Nehru's quotes below and note the dates:

“We had given our pledge to the people of Kashmir, and subsequently to the United Nations; we stood by it and we stand by it today. Let the people of Kashmir decide.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Statement in the Indian Parliament, 12 February 1951).

“We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, 2 January 1952).

“But so far as the Government of India are concerned, every assurance and international commitment in regard to Kashmir stands.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (Statement in the Indian Council of States; 18 May 1954).

All statements reiterating India's commitment to the UN, and all in the fifties and one in 1954, when the resolution delineating the UN preferred troop levels for both India and Pakistan had been passed in 1952.

You cannot cherry pick one resolution, that you think supports your POV, out of the many that were passed, since subsequent resolutions override the past ones. The desire to reject the other resolutions is like a thief rejecting a higher courts decision against him.

Pakistani intentions were clear by its four years of inaction on troops removal.

Please see above and my point about you needing to refute my argument on troop withdrawal.

Right here-

.

How can yu balme India for reneging on a resolution it never agreed to....Huh.

I fail to see what your point was there, or how I was distorting facts. Please elaborate.

The fact is that Pakistan allied itself with the west and in return got a favorable outcome from th UN. You can claim all the morality and fair game, but Pakistan lost its credibility when it invaded Kashmir and that became the benchmark to judge its future actions.

There was no alliance with the West at that time, nor can you conclusively argue that all UNSC members were in cahoots to 'rig' the UNSC resolutions - that's an absurd conspiracy theory.

The Pakistani Army's entrance into Kashmir occured after the IA's entrance. The Tribal invasion occurred after the Mharajah's atocities against his own people when they rose up in rebellion against him - in that sense the Tribal invasion in support of the people of Kashmir against a brutal dictator was the right thing to do.

After all, how do Indians classify their nation's own intervention in East Pakistan by supporting and arming violent rebels?

Yeah you can suspect and have all your assumptions, obviously you can understand this much part in the resolution that Pakisan was recognized as the aggressor by the UN and had to vacate Kashmir first for India to make any move on the Plebiscite.

I tried to explain everything to you in the context of the resolution itself, if you are not ready to face facts straight as they are, you can continue to accuse me of beating around wherever, doesnt change facts.

I have already pointed out to you that the entity that India approached for arbitration ruled that the territory was disputed, the means of resolution was plebiscite, and that withdrawal was to be done through negotiations and subsequently ruled that withdrawal would not be bilateral. India's personal opinion does not matter -the neutral entity and arbiter ruled that a unilateral withdrawal was not feasible - India's position was wrong, and she failed to convince the UNSC of it.