BREAKING NEWS: Erdogan raises Kashmir issue at UNGA; calls for resolution as per UN resolutions

[Feroze]

Believe what you want. We will keep pushing for plebiscite since India agreed to it and UNSC resolution push for plebiscite.

Same goes for Indian military until it withdraws from Kashmir region, we will not withdraw either.

We must withdraw equally.

UNSC Resolution 80 (1950) subsequently called on both India and Pakistan to prepare and execute a program of demilitarization, based on General McNaughton’s principles or mutually agreed modifications. Its objective remained eventual determination of Kashmir’s future through a free and impartial plebiscite.


This could be convincingly demonstrated as well.

So the fault is with India.

Resolution 47 explicitly contemplated a “free and impartial plebiscite” to determine whether Jammu and Kashmir would accede to India or Pakistan.

It is more complicated than “Pakistan refused to withdraw” nonsense which Indians keep harping about when "India needs to withdraw its forces from Kashmir" according to the UNSC 80 resolution.




Pakistan and India did both accept the principle of a UN-supervised plebiscite. The disagreement became how to accomplish the prerequisite demilitarization.

Pakistan argued for a military balance between forces remaining on the two sides. The UN's own documentation records these conflicting interpretations.

The plebiscite ultimately failed because India and Pakistan never reached and implemented the required demilitarization arrangements.

India and Pakistan accepted the UNCIP framework, although disagreements subsequently arose over its implementation.

5 January 1949 — UNCIP plebiscite resolution. India and Pakistan accept principles for a free and impartial plebiscite under a UN-appointed Plebiscite Administrator, conditional upon implementation of the preceding ceasefire/truce arrangements.

1 January 1949 — Ceasefire takes effect.

24 January 1949 — UN military observers arrive. This develops into UNMOGIP, which still exists.

July 1949 — Karachi Agreement. India and Pakistan formally establish the Ceasefire Line under UN supervision.

1950–53: Why the Plebiscite does not work​

14 March 1950 — UNSC Resolution 80. The UN moves toward a new demilitarization approach involving the forces of both India and Pakistan. India abstains on the resolution.

1950 — Sir Owen Dixon mediation. UN Representative Owen Dixon tries unsuccessfully to obtain agreement on demilitarization and explores alternative arrangements.

1951–52 — Frank Graham negotiations. Another UN representative, Frank Graham, conducts extensive negotiations. India and Pakistan agree on much of his framework but continue disagreeing about how many forces could remain and what kinds of forces they could be.

23 December 1952 — UNSC Resolution 98. The Security Council proposes negotiations around approximately 3,000–6,000 forces on the Pakistan side and 12,000–18,000 on the Indian side after demilitarization.

So Pakistan does not need to completely remove all their military forces from Kashmir territory as the Indians keep barking about.

 

[Feroze]

Bottom line here is Pakistanis are the invaders in Kashmir and the occupation force, where as India entered Kashmir legally.

It was infact Pakistanis invasion force that raped in pillage in Kashmir instead securing Srinagar.

Once Pakistan removes its occupation forces from Kashmir we can talk further, till then you can keep harping about it..but nothing will happen.

If you want to resume fighting, we are ready for that too.

Ummm...No... Why was the Kashmir King being dishonest? Why did he not accede to Pakistan and take the will of the Kashmiri people.

Kashmir King was also committing genocide against the Kashmiri people.

Regardless of the technical details, India agreed to plebiscite. You can never deny that.

There was also already an armed rebellion in Poonch against the Maharaja's government. Pakistan subsequently argued before the UN that this “Azad” movement was indigenous and that the tribal intervention was prompted by reports of repression of Muslims in Kashmir and the communal massacres occurring during Partition. The UNCIP recorded Pakistan's explanation that the tribal movement had been motivated by communal violence in East Punjab and alleged oppression of Muslims under Dogra rule.


Pakistan therefore presented several reasons for its involvement: sympathy with Kashmiri Muslims and the Poonch rebellion; the belief that a Muslim-majority Kashmir should not be absorbed by India; concern that India would establish control over the state; and later, Pakistan's claim that its regular troops were necessary for its own security and to prevent India from creating a fait accompli. These were Pakistan's stated justifications, rather than findings by the UN that those justifications were legally valid.

Pakistan challenged the accession's validity and argued that the Maharaja had lost legitimate authority and that Kashmir's population should determine its future.


Conclusion: The Maharaja was being dishonest by acceding to India.

Why did he not take the will of the Kashmiri people into consideration before acceding to either Pakistan or India.


The UN's own historical account says Kashmir was free to accede to India or Pakistan and that its accession to India became a dispute between the two countries.

 

[Feroze]

I will tell you why the Kashmiri king was doing what he was doing after you tell us why was Pakistan committing a genocide against Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan, at the very same time you claim Kashmiri king was committing a genocide against Muslims.

Your justification does not matter, you have no legal right to be in Kashmir, since you are an occupying invasion force.

That is an utterly stupid argument. Hindus and Sikhs atrocities in Pakistan has nothing to do with the Kashmir dispute.

The stupid Maharaja should have taken the will of the people of Kashmir and gone according to the demographics, instead of what he wanted to do.

Hence the Maharaja was being dishonest by not taking demographics into consideration before acceding to either Pakistan or India.

 

[Feroze]

I will tell you why the Kashmiri king was doing what he was doing after you tell us why was Pakistan committing a genocide against Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan, at the very same time you claim Kashmiri king was committing a genocide against Muslims.

Your justification does not matter, you have no legal right to be in Kashmir, since you are an occupying invasion force.

India brought the matter before the Security Council in January 1948. The Council established the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate and mediate.

The pivotal UNSC Resolution 47 of 21 April 1948 proposed restoration of peace followed by a free and impartial plebiscite concerning Jammu and Kashmir.
The Security Council consequently continued addressing the dispute through Resolutions 80 (1950), 91 and 96 (1951), and 98 (1952).


Conclusion:
Successive UN mediation efforts encountered disagreements between the parties about withdrawals, forces remaining after demilitarization, and related security arrangements.

 

[Feroze]

Pakistan genocide of Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistan has everything to do with killing of Muslims in Kashmir or rest of India.

You are invaders of Kashmir and an occupation force, you are the ones who raped and pillaged in Kashmir. You need to leave Kashmir.

What about Hindus murdering Muslims all over British Raj at that time?

Stop being a joker here. Pakistan was not part of the Kashmir kingdom at that time.

The Kashmir King was being dishonest by not taking demographics into consideration.

Anyways it was your dear Nehru who took the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations in the first place.

 

[Feroze]

Pakistan genocide of Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistan has everything to do with killing of Muslims in Kashmir or rest of India.

You are invaders of Kashmir and an occupation force, you are the ones who raped and pillaged in Kashmir. You need to leave Kashmir.

Sorry buddy, not until your forces leave Kashmir equally for a fair and free plebiscite under the United Nations overview. You too are invaders as the Kashmiris do not want India to be in their land.

Who gives a damn what that dishonest Maharaja was doing? He was being dishonest by not taking demographics into consideration.

There is supposed to be a plebiscite, stop wasting my time here.

Even your beloved Nehru agreed to a plebiscite in Kashmir region. Stop beating around the bush here.

I request the admins and mods to make this thread sticky @Oscar , @Waz @Musings as we are talking about the technical details of the Kashmir dispute, and why India is at fault for not implementing the plebiscite in Kashmir region.

Both India and Pakistan need to withdraw military forces for a fair and free plebiscite to happen in Kashmir.

It is not so simple that oh Pakistan needs to withdraw first and completely and all that nonsense. India needs to withdraw all of its military forces as well for a fair and free plebiscite to occur.

 

[Feroze]

What about it ? Communal killing were happening all over united India brought up on by Jinnah desicion to break India. Those were times that kind of times.

But where is your justification for invasion of another independent state just 1.5 months after you came into existence.

What is your justification of raping and pillaging of Kashmiri population.

And what is your justification of still occupying Kashmiri lands, 80 years later.

Are you a pea-sized brain here?

Before the invasion, Maharaja Hari Singh had not yet acceded to either India or Pakistan.

Also that idiot Maharaja was murdering Muslims in Jammu and there was the Poonch rebellion against the Maharaja in Azad Kashmir.

You forgot that key detail. Hence we are not invaders.

You joker, India agreed to the plebiscite according to the United Nations Resolutions.

You can never deny this. Even Nehru promised the Kashmiri people and the world a plebiscite would happen.

Good Night!

 

[Feroze]

What about it ? Communal killings were happening all over united India brought up on by Jinnah's desicion to break India.
Those were that kind of times.

But where is your justification for invasion of another independent state just 1 month after you came into existence and state with which you had a stand still agreement with.

What is your justification of raping and pillaging of Kashmiri population.

And what is your justification of still occupying Kashmiri lands, 80 years later.

Why would Pakistani Muslims rape and pillage Muslim Kashmiris? Are you even talking sense here? Or are you talking nonsense.

Even Sir Owen Dixon blamed India for NOT holding the plebiscite in Kashmir.

 

[Feroze]

Yes Hari Singh had not acceded to India or Pakistan yet, when Pakistanis invaded..hence you invaded a fellow independent state.

That makes your crimes even more henious.

What's more you even had a stand still agreement signed with Kashmiri state to do nothing and you broke it and occupied Kashmiri lands and raped and pillaged there.

1)Because the KASHMIRIS HAD ALREADY REVOLTED AGAINST THE KASHMIRI MAHARAJA, 2)Hence Pakistan invaded to help the Kashmiris uproot a tyrant.

3)The dishonest Maharaja then went to India for help. Sneaky dishonest animal he was.

 

[Feroze]

Partition 70 years on: When tribal warriors invaded Kashmir

Witnesses tell the BBC how men with sticks and axes started one of the world's longest conflicts.

www.bbc.com

You tell us why..


"Flushed with victory, the tribesmen got down to wanton looting and arson.

"They plundered the state armoury, set entire markets on fire and looted their goods," Mr Rahman says.

"They shot everyone who couldn't recite the kalima - the Arabic-language Muslim declaration of faith. Many non-Muslim women were enslaved, while many others jumped in the river to escape capture."

The streets were littered with signs of mayhem - broken buildings, broken shop furniture, the ashes of burnt goods and dead bodies, including those of tribal fighters, state soldiers and local men and women. There were also bodies floating in the river.

The raiders spent about three days in Muzaffarabad before sense prevailed and the leaders urged them to move on towards Srinagar, the state capital some 170km to the east.

From here, one column drove in trucks down the Jhelum river, breezing past Uri and reaching Baramulla where another round of looting and arson ensued.

..."They had returned with war booty," he says.

"Some had brought cattle, some horses. Most of them had brought arms, and many brought women. One Afridi tribesman walked back with two women in tow. They wept incessantly and just wouldn't stop."

I assuming this is against the Hindu minority in Kashmir. Yes maybe and totally unacceptable and needs to be condemned.

But thats not the point.

Firstly Kashmiris rebelled against the Maharaja and then Pakistan invaded to help the Kashmiri majority who are Muslims.

 

[Feroze]

This rape and pillage was not just Hindu minority but also against Muslims.

For yours was an occupation force and that is what an occupation force does.

No, The Pakistani Muslims would not rape or pillage Kashmiri Muslims. Nice try though.

 

[MNZGamerX]

 

[Feroze]

When an invader burns down and loots entire cities..do you know what belongs to a Muslim and what belongs to minorities.

This has nothing to do with the plebiscite, or the political events.

1) Kashmiri Muslims revolt against Maharaja

2) Maharaja then commits genocide against Muslims in Jammu

3) Pakistani forces come in

4) Kashmiri maharaja ruler accedes to India hence being dishonest.

 

[Feroze]

It has every thing to with it, you are occupyinKashmir.

You have no right to be in Kashmir.

We will only talk further once you have vacated kashmir.

No!

Pakistan invaded Kashmir before the Maharaja acceded to India. You are wrong. We are not invaders.

And the Kashmiri people see Indian military as an occupying military on their land.

Why don't you take the will of the people and demographics into consideration?

 

[Feroze]

It has every thing to with it, you are occupying Kashmir.

You have no right to be in Kashmir.

We will only talk further once you have vacated kashmir.

Sorry buddy what you are talking is nonsense.

UNSC says plebiscite must happen when India also withdraws its military forces as well from Kashmir, its not just Pakistan.