The Real Truth about Kashmir

Ray · 08-27-2005, 15:21 PM

Quote:

A Comprehensive Note on Jammu & Kashmir

THE UNITED NATIONS

The United Nations Security Council first took cognisance of the Jammu and Kashmir issue in 1948 after the accession of the State to India, and at India’s behest. A distortion of the nature of the Security Council’s involvement has been fostered over the years by Pakistan to try and project that it was the status of Jammu and Kashmir that was the subject under discussion.

It was India that approached the Security Council on January 1, 1948 with the request that the Security Council intervene to vacate Pakistan’s aggression and illegal occupation of Indian territory of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

India approached the Security Council of January 1, 1948, and said: "Such a situation now exists between India and Pakistan owing to the aid which invaders, consisting of nationals of Pakistan and of tribesmen from the territory immediately adjoining Pakistan on the North West, are drawing from Pakistan for operations against Jammu and Kashmir, a State which has acceded to the Dominion of India and is part of India...The Government of India request the Security Council to call upon Pakistan to put an end immediately to the giving of such assistance which is an act of aggression against India." India was the complainant before the Security Council against aggression by Pakistan.

The United Nations Security Council appointed a United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP). Initially Pakistan continued to deny any role in the tribal raids maintaining that it was a natural response of the martial tribes to reports of killings of Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir. Later, however, in July 1948, Sir Zafarullah Khan admitted to the UNCIP that three regular Pakistani Brigades had been fighting in Kashmir territory since May 1948.

The UNCIP taking note of the developments adopted a resolution on August 13, 1948, divided into three parts. The first part called for a cease-fire. The second part called for Pakistan to withdraw its nationals and tribesmen and to vacate the territory occupied by it. Then after the above stipulation had been implemented India was to withdraw the bulk of its forces from the State leaving an adequate number behind to ensure that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir maintains law and order and peace, a clear indication that the UNCIP believed that Jammu and Kashmir was a part of India. Part (3) of the Resolution to be implemented after parts (1) and (2) stated that both India and Pakistan had reaffirmed their wish that the future status of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people.

Yet the ensuing months, after the adoption of the resolution, 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".

A subsequent resolution was adopted by the UNCIP on 5, January 1949 on the same issue. However, this resolution was to be binding only if the stipulations of the resolution of August 14, 1948 had first been met. India accepted this resolution also. It is noteworthy that while India accepted the two resolutions, Pakistan balked at implementing even the first one and has still , even after the passage of fifty years, not vacated the territories of Jammu and Kashmir seized by it. Indeed, the portion of the State now called the Northern Areas, has been declared a part of Pakistan, separate to the entity named "Azad Kashmir"

It is very significant that during the debates in the UN Security Council and in the wording of the two resolutions the sovereignty of India over Jammu and Kashmir was taken as accepted.

Speaking in the Council of February 4, 1948 the representative of the United States of America, Warren Austen said "..The external sovereignty of Kashmir is no longer under the control of the Maharaja.. with the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India, this foreign sovereignty went over to India and is exercised by India and that is why India happens to be here as a petitioner..".

The UNCIP Resolution of 5 January, 1949 stated that "..The Secretary General of the United Nations will .. nominate.. a Plebiscite Administrator.. He will be formally appointed to office by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.. The Plebiscite Administrator shall derive from the State of Jammu and Kashmir the powers he considers necessary.."

Subsequently, on 26 January 1957 at the 765th meeting of the Security Council the representative of the Soviet Union stated "The question of Kashmir has been settled by the people of Kashmir themselves. They decided that Kashmir is an integral part of the Republic of India".

The last time that the issue of Jammu and Kashmir came before the UN Security Council was in the aftermath of the 1965 India Pakistan war. The perfunctory passing reference to Jammu and Kashmir, with no reference to the resolutions of August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949 demonstrates that, for the world community, the Kashmir issue was no longer of any consequence and would have been forgotten if it was not for the war forced by Pakistan on India in 1965.

The irrelevance of the 1948 and 1949 resolutions to the contemporary situation was highlighted by the President of the Security Council, Gunnar Jarring in his report to the Council in 1957 when he said ".. The Council, will, furthermore, be aware of the fact that the implementation of international agreements of an ad hoc character, which has not been achieved fairly speedily, may become progressively more difficult because the situation with which they were to cope has tended to change.."

Dr. Frank Graham, the UNCIP’s representative stated in March 1958 ".. the execution of the provisions of the resolution of 1948 might create more serious difficulties than were foreseen at the time the parties agreed to that. Whether the UN representative would be able to reconstitute the status quo which it had obtained ten years ago would seem to be doubtful.....".

If, in 1957 and 1958, Mr. Jarring and Mr. Graham felt that the resolutions of 1948 and 1949 could not be implemented because of the changed situation, the sheer implausibility of these resolutions having any meaning today is self-evident. The State of Jammu and Kashmir to which these resolutions applied does not exist any longer with a part of the territory having been handed over to China by Pakistan and demographic changes having been effected in Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas.

The changed situation in terms of peoples’ representation in Government is nowhere more evident than in the part of Jammu and Kashmir with India. India became a Republic in 1950, with the will of the people. Pursuant to the Accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India the Constitution of India made provision to accord to State of Jammu and Kashmir a special and protected place in the Indian polity, under Article of 370 of the Constitution. In 1951, the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly was elected by secret ballot, for which all J&K State subjects were eligible. It adopted, in 1956, the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir which declared that the State of Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of India, and that Accession to India was final and irrevocable.

The Accession of the State to India had never been an issue for the Kashmiris. In the 1947, 1965 an 1971 wars, even according to disinterested international commentators, the people of Jammu and Kashmir actively blunted Pakistan’s attempts to incite insurgency and participated vigorously cooperation with the Army to ensure victory. In 1975, Sheikh Abdullah, the undisputed leader of the Kashmiris, and the Indian Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi concluded the Kashmir Accord with both sides accepting the validity of the Constitution of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, reiterating the status of Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of the Indian Union. A little over a year later, in 1977, elections were held. These elections are internationally endorsed as free and fair including by the International Commission of Jurists. In these elections, the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India was not questioned. It was a non-issue. Sheikh Abdullah who in 1947 had supported the accession and then endorsed it again in 1975, won the elections handsomely, even though arrayed against him was India’s then ruling party, the Janata, supported by a range of local parties including Mirwaiz Farooq’s Awami Action Committee and the Jama’at Islami. The Congress was not a serious contender. If any signal was needed, there could be no clearer indication that Abdullah’s policies, including his belief in the legitimacy of the Accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India, had the support of the people of the State.

The people of Jammu and Kashmir have participated in elections to Parliament and the State Assembly many times. It is an expression of their will, expressed through the ballot box, that the National Conference, a supporter of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India, remains the dominant political party in the State, first under Sheikh Abdullah’s leadereship and, following the latest Assembly and Parliamentary elections in 1996, and 1998 under his son Dr Farooq Abdullah.

It is ironical that after itself being responsible for non-implementation of the Resolutions at the time when they were adopted, Pakistan today seeks to capitalise on the situation of violence created by it in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is incongruous that Pakistan seeks the implementation of out of date resolutions in some parts of the State, when even the state of Jammu and Kashmir does not exist as it did in 1947, thanks to Pakistan’s ‘generosity’ in unilaterally ceding to China part of the territory of the State, and occupying another part.

Pakistan’s bid today to revert to the Resolutions of 1948 and 1949 is merely a ploy to camouflage its continuing activity to destabilise Jammu and Kashmir and to capitalise on the situation that it has created through the use of terrorists and mercenaries.
http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/...ir_MEA/UN.html

One must know the facts.

Asim Aquil · 08-27-2005, 15:25 PM

Quote:

The second part called for Pakistan to withdraw its nationals and tribesmen and to vacate the territory occupied by it.

Here's the lie from your Indian emabassy link! When you say vacate you must add that it also mentioned that Pakistan can have its presence in Kashmir but just withdraw most of its armed forces. Bring it down to a 3000 to 6000 minimum. And the same thing was required of India to bring it down to 12,000 to 18,000. This ensures no one has invading capability.

Its not like we had to give up Kashmir to India and then India would hand it over to UN. I thought I was the journalist who could play with words :D

Ray · 08-27-2005, 15:29 PM

Really?

And on what do you base that?

In so far a journalists are concerned, I would not like to state what I have already stated. It is your profession and you are learn the ropes rather well.

Asim Aquil · 08-27-2005, 15:36 PM

UN Resolution 98, of 1952.

Quote:

4. 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 demilitarisation, 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-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

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kashun98.htm

The real truth you claim is all but one big fat lie

Ray · 08-27-2005, 15:48 PM

1. Endorses the general principles on which the United Nations Representative has sought to bring about agreement between the Governments of India and Pakistan;

2. Notes with gratification that the United Nations Representative has reported that the Governments of India and Pakistan have accepted all but two of the paragraphs of his twelve-point proposals;

3. Notes that agreement on a plan of demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not been reached because the Governments of India and Pakistan have not agreed on the whole of paragraph 7 of the twelve- point proposals;

That's from the resolution.

Asim Aquil · 08-27-2005, 16:10 PM

Yes but they did agree on 1,2,3,4,5,6

#4 stating what I quoted.

And the resolution was passed

Quote:

The Security Council voted on this Resolution on 23-12-52 with the following result:
In favour: Brazil, China, France, Greece, Netherlands, Turkey, U.K. and U.S.A.
Against: None
Abstaining: U.S.S.R.
One Member (Pakistan) did not participate in the voting

Ray · 08-27-2005, 16:13 PM

You can agree with anything but even a small disagreement ruins the show.

The resolution contained this statement. And so it was passed with this issue as cognitive also!

Both India and Pakistan did not agree.

The same is the interpretation of the UN resolution on Iraq. The wording is such that the US thinks it is right, whgile some others think another resolution was needed and yet the resolution had been passed!

Asim Aquil · 08-27-2005, 16:37 PM

Yes but your REAL Truth is proven to be false.

Basically we agree on these 6 points. So go ahead, lets hold a plebiscite with this in mind.

3000 vs 12000 Indian soldiers. I doubt any one would make the mistake of launching an invasion with just that many troops. HKF stated somewhere that it was India which had a disagreement in this issue, not Pakistan. So the original document did not get passed, but this got passed as the new resolution.

Now where's your demilitarization!?

Ray · 08-27-2005, 16:43 PM

The real truth is what the Embassy has written.

The finer print is what we are discussing.

If you don't demilitarise, then why should we.

Must India always have to be the first for everything. And anyway in the confidence building measure we have demilitarised to a great extent.

Asim Aquil · 08-27-2005, 16:46 PM

How about MUTUAL!?

Pak has asked to demilitarize Kashmir even in this peace process. Don't for a second assume we refused from any demilitarization since thats been our #1 Goal from day 1. To get that plebiscite.

konkerer · 08-27-2005, 18:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

How about MUTUAL!?

Pak has asked to demilitarize Kashmir even in this peace process. Don't for a second assume we refused from any demilitarization since thats been our #1 Goal from day 1. To get that plebiscite.

Arre Nahi baba, Kyo pareshan karto, Let it go yaar !

konkerer · 08-27-2005, 18:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

UN Resolution 98, of 1952.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kashun98.htm

4. 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 demilitarisation, 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-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 real truth you claim is all but one big fat lie

Notice that while it says that 3,000 to 6,000 troops in POK but it does not say that they would be Pakistani troops.

They were supposed to be Indian troops, meaning Pakistan had to vacate first so India could post 3,000 - 6,000 troops in POK.

But of course Pakistan did not agree to it.

Rest as they say is history.

Hongkongfuey · 08-27-2005, 19:12 PM

In fact, you're all wrong on this subject of tribesmen. UNCIP resolution of 1948 states that :-

Quote:

UNCIP resolution of 13TH August, 1948
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

BUT it also states this :-

Quote:

UNCIP resolution of 13TH August, 1948
When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 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

Pakistani troops did not have to vacate the land completely but just to start withdrawing from the land. Now look at resolution 80 of the 14TH March, 1950. It states that :-

Quote:

Resolution 80 of the 14TH March, 1950
Governments of India and Pakistan for their statesman like action in reaching the agreements embodied in the United Nations Commission's resolutions of August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949 for a cease-fire, for the demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and for the determination of its final disposition in accordance with the will of the people through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite

So Pakistan had agreed to this withdrawal, but it did not have to vacate Kashmir completely of its troops before the Indians began their discussions of withdrawal (see UNCIP resolution of 13TH August, 1948). Now the important part. The details of this withdrawal are designated in Resolution 98 which states that as Aquim Aquil pointed out :-

Quote:

UN Resolution 98
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".

This is a simultaneous withdrawal that the Indians did not agree to. There never was a binding resolution calling for Pakistani troops to completely vacate Kashmir before Indian troops did (the binding UNCIP resolution of 13TH August, 1948 called for Pakistani troops to begin vacating and then the details of the withdrawal would be finalized). So, initially, Pakistani troops had to BEGIN vacating and then India would have to start talks on reducing its troop numbers. The problem came when India did not agree to the withdrawal plan in Resolution 98 over a mere 3000 extra troops. But this was India who called it off, but they did agree to the principle of plebiscite through a binding international agreement that is mandatory under international law. India did not renege on any binding agreement over troop withdrawal and neither did Pakistan. India did renege on its binding agreement with Pakistan and the UN to hold a plebiscite for the Kashmiri people. That is the true story of Kashmir in summary.

**Julie** · 08-27-2005, 22:16 PM

Stupid question. What is the research history of the land acquisition of Jammu and Kashmir? I mean, what state acquired original ownership?

konkerer · 08-27-2005, 22:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

This is a simultaneous withdrawal that the Indians did not agree to. There never was a binding resolution calling for Pakistani troops to completely vacate Kashmir before Indian troops did (the binding UNCIP resolution of 13TH August, 1948 called for Pakistani troops to begin vacating and then the details of the withdrawal would be finalized). So, initially, Pakistani troops had to BEGIN vacating and then India would have to start talks on reducing its troop numbers. The problem came when India did not agree to the withdrawal plan in Resolution 98 over a mere 3000 extra troops. But this was India who called it off, but they did agree to the principle of plebiscite through a binding international agreement that is mandatory under international law. India did not renege on any binding agreement over troop withdrawal and neither did Pakistan. India did renege on its binding agreement with Pakistan and the UN to hold a plebiscite for the Kashmiri people. That is the true story of Kashmir in summary.

Yes the resolution were not binding because they were under charter 6. That is why when Pakistan refused to vacate POK, it could not be forced to do so.
Similarly, India could also refuse to execute the step two i.e. reduction of troops, since Pakistan had not vacated.

08-27-2005, 15:29 PM	#3 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 27,292 Country:	Really? And on what do you base that? In so far a journalists are concerned, I would not like to state what I have already stated. It is your profession and you are learn the ropes rather well. Last edited by Ray : 08-27-2005 at 15:31 PM.

08-27-2005, 16:13 PM	#7 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 27,292 Country:	You can agree with anything but even a small disagreement ruins the show. The resolution contained this statement. And so it was passed with this issue as cognitive also! Both India and Pakistan did not agree. The same is the interpretation of the UN resolution on Iraq. The wording is such that the US thinks it is right, whgile some others think another resolution was needed and yet the resolution had been passed! Last edited by Ray : 08-27-2005 at 16:17 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Kashmir is not Palestine, India is not Israel	Ray	South Asian Defense Topics	9	12-29-2005 03:04 AM
Pakistani Held Kasmir & its realities.	indianguy4u	Political Discussions	5	12-27-2005 10:19 AM
An honest Indian's opinion on Kashmir floating in a sea of lies	Hongkongfuey	Political Discussions	225	09-16-2005 12:41 PM
India's broken promises on Kashmir - a "self-legacy"	Hongkongfuey	Political Discussions	185	09-07-2005 10:22 AM

08-27-2005, 15:48 PM	#5 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 27,292 Country:	1. Endorses the general principles on which the United Nations Representative has sought to bring about agreement between the Governments of India and Pakistan; 2. Notes with gratification that the United Nations Representative has reported that the Governments of India and Pakistan have accepted all but two of the paragraphs of his twelve-point proposals; 3. Notes that agreement on a plan of demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not been reached because the Governments of India and Pakistan have not agreed on the whole of paragraph 7 of the twelve- point proposals; That's from the resolution.

08-27-2005, 16:37 PM	#8 (permalink)
Asim Aquil Banished *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 06-11-04 Location: Dubai Posts: 8,135 Country:	Yes but your REAL Truth is proven to be false. Basically we agree on these 6 points. So go ahead, lets hold a plebiscite with this in mind. 3000 vs 12000 Indian soldiers. I doubt any one would make the mistake of launching an invasion with just that many troops. HKF stated somewhere that it was India which had a disagreement in this issue, not Pakistan. So the original document did not get passed, but this got passed as the new resolution. Now where's your demilitarization!?

08-27-2005, 16:43 PM	#9 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 27,292 Country:	The real truth is what the Embassy has written. The finer print is what we are discussing. If you don't demilitarise, then why should we. Must India always have to be the first for everything. And anyway in the confidence building measure we have demilitarised to a great extent.

08-27-2005, 16:46 PM	#10 (permalink)
Asim Aquil Banished *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 06-11-04 Location: Dubai Posts: 8,135 Country:	How about MUTUAL!? Pak has asked to demilitarize Kashmir even in this peace process. Don't for a second assume we refused from any demilitarization since thats been our #1 Goal from day 1. To get that plebiscite.

08-27-2005, 22:16 PM	#14 (permalink)
Julie Moderator Join Date: 08-04-03 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 6,654 Country:	Stupid question. What is the research history of the land acquisition of Jammu and Kashmir? I mean, what state acquired original ownership?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)