You haven't given any valid reasons for calling it dumb. If not accepting indian claim on Kashmir is the reason then, I can claim the same for indian policy and for your expectations.
Either you accept UN resolutions or make peace under Shimla agreement. You can't just rubbish both. india always maintained this issue to be bilateral due to shimla agreement to avoid UN or any third party mediation. So just rubbishing it means another broken promise which would prove that india is not trust worthy which it has never been. If Shimla agreement is outdated then what's stopping india to initiate a new agreement. Musharraf did that, so india should have taken it forward. There was no reason for india taking unilateral actions.
Yes I have read the UN resolutions & I suggest you to do the same. Mr. Jinnah opposed the idea of plebescite at the time with Moutbettan for two reasons.
1. It was against the basis of partitian i.e Muslim majority areas go to Pakistan. So why just one area go to vote while rest of British india is divided by a Radcliffe commission? A plebescite in Hyderabad or other princely states would be next who have muslim ruler?
2. It was viewed as a delay tactic to consolidate indian army position. Neither nehru nor sardar patel turned up for Lahore talks. Jinnah never trusted mounbatten & never considered him impartial.
Therefore Jinnah was proved right again when nehru backtracked from his promise.
The UN resolutions refers to withdrawal of milita or tribesmen not regular forces. Don't you think it would be unfair to ask one party to vacate while other holds on. The mitual wothdrawal plan could have been agreed but it was never initiated.
You are negating yourself. Read the statement "When people of J&K decide to accede to Pakistan" so whose decision it is?? Does it say that they will be forced if they don't, like what india did with IOK
I had the prevelige to interact with people from both sides. The IoK folks support Pakistan largely to piss india off. If given a choice they might go for full independence 50/50. Azad Kashmir & GB are very pro Pakistan. Both sides have one thing in common which is hate for india.
Go to Srinagar & tell a youth that you came from delhi. The answer will be "oh you came from hindustan.
I Know what you are doing here but let's be honest. How many times Kashmiri students have found themselves in trouble just for celeberating Pakistani Cricket team victory over india. How many times in last 75 years have india been able to raise it's flag in Srinagar on it's national day without a curfew?
Appretiate if you could answer that?
1.
The effectiveness of a policy is judged by its results. Militarily it failed in 1948 , 1965 and 1999 in kashmir
Diplomatically it's so failed that after Aug 2019 UNSC even declined to even hold a formal meeting to address pakistan's complaints. The cheaper insurgency game (game of 1000 cuts) has also failed badly. even pakistan's intelligence brain child Hurriyat is also gone
well in reality pakistan has lost its plot in kashmir for a very long time now.
Every one who matters in pakistan's establishment like intelligencia, diplomats, securocrats and bureaucrats knows it pretty well . Many have spoken on it and many have written about it and many admit it in private as well.
Nobody can tell it to a common man in pakistan because nobody wants to admit it for one ,
secondly kashmir and kashmiris can be sold in pakistan's politics very well
It is one way to keep people in line with a cause to get the kashmiris their freedom.
the cause helps the establishment to divert people's attentions very well from their own problems.
2.
Well from what I know
an agreement is already drafted between Indian and pakistani negotiators based on musharraf's 4 point formulae.
Before takhta
Imran khan was supposed to come to India. Indian PM was supposed to go to pakistan , and then this agreement was supposed to be signed. But there is never political stability in pakistan . That's why military dictators in paksitan have always been more suited for Indians to deal with
3. You are mistaken
On November 1, in Government House, Lahore, Mountbatten put forward India’s proposal: a plebiscite to decide the fate of Junagadh, Hyderabad – and Kashmir. This was the exact wording of India’s proposal:
The Governments of India and Pakistan agree that, where the ruler of a State does not belong to the community to which the majority of his subjects belong, and where the State has not acceded to that Dominion whose majority community is the same as the State’s, the question of whether the State should finally accede to one or the other of the Dominions should in all cases be decided by an impartial reference to the will of the people
To sweeten the deal, Mountbatten even assured Jinnah that the United Nations would be allowed to supervise the process.
But Jinnah saab rejected because he knew Hyderabad would go to India if plebiscite happened and he was not willing to loose Hyderabad - the richest state of India
FYI
A plebiscite was held on 20 February 1948 in Junagarh, in which all but
91 out of 190,870 who voted (from an electorate of 201,457) voted to join India, i.e. 99.95% of the total population.
4. You are mistaken
In 1948-1949, the United Nations passed several resolutions on Kashmir that required Pakistan to withdraw its troops from the area as a precondition for a plebiscite followed by a reduction of Indian troops to a level necessary for keeping order in Kashmir.
However, Pakistan obstructed the process and violated the resolutions themselves by refusing to meet its obligation to demilitarize the area unless India simultaneously withdrew its troops.
It was given as an official response by pakistan side .
You can read it in listed reasons for why UNSC resolution was never implemented
there is only one official response in it and it is from paksitan
" on YouTube
