Answer the question. If you can give them the right to vote in an election. Why don't you wish to give them the right to vote on their own freedom and right of self-determination. After all the Great Nehru agreed to it and kept reiterating that he will implement it.
Mr.Nehru was wrong and he was weak also to make decisions.One example was that Indian troops did not capture POK in 48 itself.One of the Himalayan blunders in Indian history.
It's pathetic loss to China,that was just a crap force then in 1962.
So basically if a person is disliked, their government has no right to implement what it legally agreed to? Remember the Indian government agreed to implement the UNSC resolution and give the people of Kashmir the right to self determination.
That is the crux of the matter. Your government made a legal commitment and went back on it. Legally India has no right to lands it currently holds under occupation.
Praising what is lost, Makes the remembrance dear - William Shakespeare
Mr.Nehru and his ministry right after independence was weak,barring Mr.Patel.I still do not understand how such a mistake,agreeing for a plebiscite in one's own land,could have been even thought for.I think later he would have acknowledged his mistake.
Typical. Your government made an international commitment for a plebicite. Yet you say no. Some democracy, when you can't even give people a right to vote on their own right to freedom.
No government will yield to a plebiscite.Why do we need to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir?It is as good as letting some Tom and dick to question the ownership of your own house.
According to the UN resolutions the ones Nehru agreed to, and the ones Nehru quoted state that India needs to vacate its areas first. Once that is done, the land will be handed over to an international force to conduct a plebicite.
.
Now you are talking .... UN resolutions are an open book ... i can provide you the link & you show me which resolution states that India has to vacate first
The resolution to check is the UNCIP of january 5, 1949 ... what does it say
After implementation of Parts I and II of the Commission's resolution of 13 August 1948, and when the Commission is satisfied that peaceful conditions have been restored in the State, the Commission and the Plebiscite Administrator will determine, in consultation with the Government of India, the final disposal of Indian and State armed forces, such disposal to be with due regard to the security of the State and the freedom of the plebiscite
Now what is Part 1 & 2 of the commission resolution
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.
(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
As you can see this is a UN resolution & what does it say ........
British have created the Kashmir problem for two mad dogs India and Pakistan to fight over a piece of bone. The world is enjoying this especially China. Look at the progress China has made. Looking at Beijing Olympics, you dont feel that China became independent after India and Pakistan. China is glad that it's two neighbors are busy fighting.
Azzad,in your Pak version.The real version is only with India.
Kashmir is taken as disputed between India and Pakistan through out the World . Pakistani side is Azad, while Indian side is occupied and annexed by India as a state.
Kashmir is taken as disputed between India and Pakistan through out the World . Pakistani side is Azad, while Indian side is occupied and annexed by India as a state.
Your calling it Azad does not make it so ..... all of it is disputed .... anyway as for azadi it did not take UN to get it for Bangladesh
First thing. Under paragraph B 1 of Part 2 the tribesmen and other nations are to be vacated from Kashmir. This was done. It was upon this conditionality that India would remove its troops. It did not do so.
Secondly Paragraph B 1 of Part 2 requires Pakistan to begin the remove of its troops from Kashmir. Again we did so. We pulled out a portion of our troops as so required. India refused to do so.
In both cases the Pakistan government did what was required. It removed all the new elements. That is proven history. Then it started the removal of its troops. This can be seen again in any book on the Kashmir dispute. It is further strenghtened by the fact that the LOC was not established until 1956 I believe.
First thing. Under paragraph B 1 of Part 2 the tribesmen and other nations are to be vacated from Kashmir. This was done. It was upon this conditionality that India would remove its troops. It did not do so.
Secondly Paragraph B 1 of Part 2 requires Pakistan to begin the remove of its troops from Kashmir. Again we did so. We pulled out a portion of our troops as so required. India refused to do so.
.
These are cock & bull stories ...... tribesmen were to move out as per the resolution of 1948 .... at that time Paksitan's stand was that they did not have troops in Kashmir ... hence no mention of Pakistani troops in the earlier resolution. But then when UNCIP went on ground to see the situation ..... Pakistan could no longer "hide"the fact that there troops were in J & K . Hence the UNCIP resolution for Pakistani troops to move out of J & K . Mind you the resolution calls for removal of Pakistani troops from Kashmir ...... not partial withdrawl. The language is clear.
. We pulled out a portion of our troops as so required. India refused to do so.
.
See what the resolution has to say
(1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and
Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the
situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having
occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that
the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the
Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in
stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.
Did the commision notifiy the government of India on Part 2?
The language is very clear ... AFTER the Pakistani troops and nationals have withdrawn from J&K will India have to pull back its troops.
Let us not go by just the semantics over who is occupying what. If Azad Kashmir is so Azad, why dont you guys withdraw from Azad Kashmir and have a fair referrendum. This will force India to do the same.
We don't trust India to. India has repeatedly claimed that all Kashmir is part of India, so if Pakistan withdraws then India will invade and take over.
Putting the British into British North America since January 3rd 2005
We don't trust India to. India has repeatedly claimed that all Kashmir is part of India, so if Pakistan withdraws then India will invade and take over.
There as per UN there can be no plebiscite. The rule for plebicite was both Pakistan and India withdraw from Kashmir and then the referendum would take place.
There as per UN there can be no plebiscite. The rule for plebicite was both Pakistan and India withdraw from Kashmir and then the referendum would take place.
No ...... India has to reduce its troop strength as per UN resolution after Pakistan has vacated completely from J&K.
No ...... India has to reduce its troop strength as per UN resolution after Pakistan has vacated completely from J&K.
This what the UN resolutions say
Show me where the language and resolution from the UNSC which says complete withdrawal or any mention of the fact that all Pakistani forces have to be removed?
Secondly I would suggest you read books by Alistair Lamb on the matter. All the militias were removed. Historical documented fact.
Show me where the language and resolution from the UNSC which says complete withdrawal or any mention of the fact that all Pakistani forces have to be removed?
Secondly I would suggest you read books by Alistair Lamb on the matter. All the militias were removed. Historical documented fact.
(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.
When government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops for J&K what does that mean ? Read the full sentence ... the presence of Pakistani troops is a "material "change in situation ...... very diplomatic way of saying you dont belong here !!!!!!
The day Alistar Lamb's book becomes a historical document i will personally hand over Kashmir to you.
Just to add one more thing .... UNCIP was to inform India about meeting the conditions of truce .... it was not India's responsibilty to verify "historical "documents and withdraw troops
Last edited by aam bandha; Aug 20th, 2008 at 09:23 AM.
We don't trust India to. India has repeatedly claimed that all Kashmir is part of India, so if Pakistan withdraws then India will invade and take over.
Using the same logic,how can India withdraw forces from Kahsmir?Pak will invade and take over .
Moreover Pakistan has to withdraw it's troops from Kashmir first and not India according the links supplemented by one of of the members.
the 12,000 square miles of northern areas ceded by Pakistan to China in 1965.
--------------------------------
After that there is no point in going back to the UN resolutions. No wonder Musharaf agreed not to insist on the UN resolutions. This is viewed as a concession by Pak but actually it is not.
(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, [/b]the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.[/b]
The Government of Pakistan agreed to do so and started to do so. End of discussion on that point. Now point out where the conditionality sits that India has to wait for a complete withdrawal. Please do so.
chintu_bhopali the day the UN passes 3 UNSC resolution, constitutes a committee on the matter and provides Pakistan with legal obligations we will happily do so. Till then you guys plan on doing your part? Or is genocide still part of the definition of the Great Democracy India is?
