Miliband’s Kashmir remarks upset India.

[simplyme]

@Lost_souls

Who likes nehru anywhere in the whole world except the chinese...he was not a leader ... Sleeping while your enemies crawled right under your nose is no sign of a leader... ironic that he said...AAram haram hai...

It is very easy to get carried away by rhetoric and be a party to vilify a great leader. It helps to pause and think on why the education system in the country is so good compared to some of our neighbours who got freedom during the same time.

[CM]

@aam_bandha

Well these supposed trancripts of Pakistani troop wirhdrawl must be on the net … so would you please enlighten the forum and maybe also the security council … as they were not informed of the withdrawl of troops.

Pakistan was never ready for full withdrawl … they tried … with their western allies first to get a UN force to replace them … that got vetoed by Soviets … then they tried to hold some troops back … India was ready for that also (even though Pakistan was to vacate COMPLETELY) however the could not settle on the exact number of troops …

UNMOGIP in Islamabad … what relevenace does it have … it is a cease fire monitoring group … which India does not recognise but it allows access to them …

Transcripts can be found at ods.un.org - feel free to search for them.

I have one very simple question regarding troop withdrawal. Which UNSC resolution states that Pakistan has to withdraw first?

Secondly regarding those two paragraphs in red and blue, want me to give away the big secret? They aren’t from the UN Security Council Resolutions.

Lastly UN Proposal on Kashmir, 22 December, 1949 - that was the plan which Pakistan agreed to. That is the “Naughton Kashmir Proposal” - as endorsed and agreed to by the UNSC. We have complied with that plan. India however refused to accept it. That is why UNMOGIP is in Pakistan.

[aam_bandha]

@CM

Transcripts can be found at ods.un.org - feel free to search for them.

I have one very simple question regarding troop withdrawal. Which UNSC resolution states that Pakistan has to withdraw first?

Secondly regarding those two paragraphs in red and blue, want me to give away the big secret? They aren’t from the UN Security Council Resolutions.

Lastly UN Proposal on Kashmir, 22 December, 1949 - that was the plan which Pakistan agreed to. That is the “Naughton Kashmir Proposal” - as endorsed and agreed to by the UNSC. We have complied with that plan. India however refused to accept it. That is why UNMOGIP is in Pakistan.

Well since you seem to have “knowledge” of such documents would appreciate a link …

UNSC called for a “complete” withdrawl of forces from Pakistan, which never happened … also the UNCIP resolution clearly state that the council has to inform India and then they have to demilitirise … as for UNCIP not being from UN resolutions … let me tell you ALL UN resolutions refer to the condition of UNCIP resolution … last time in 1957 , when perhaps the “Kashmir” issue was dealt with specifically also metions this resolution …

Observing further that the Governments of India and Pakistan recognize and accept the commitments undertaken by them in the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan dated 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, which envisage the determination of the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the will of the people through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, and that Mr. Jarring felt it appropriate to explore what was impeding their full implementation

Lastly … location of UNMOGIP in Islamabad … that is really a joke i guess … India’s stand is that after the Simla agrement UNMOGIP’s mandate (it is ONLY responsible for monitoring the cease fire line in Kashmir !!!) has lapsed so it has restricted its activities to LOC on Indian side only .Though they do provide them with necessary support (infact UNMOGIP has a laison office in Delhi) but it has not taken any complaints to them on ceasefire violation.

So remember UNMOGIP is not a UN agency to solve the Kashmir problem, but it is only an agency to monitor the “ceasefire” line in Kashmir.

[burqaposhx]

@Punjabee_in_USA

......

if India invited him, why did he visit Islamabad ??

...

Oh now now. We don't have to fuss down to the level of squeaky squabblers.

India is pleading with the West BEFORE and AFTER Mumbai carnage, to somehow pinch Pakistan in the ribs.

Poor Indian leadership has not realized that they are acting exactly like the good old Rajas who jumped up and down saying "me me me me", in front of every gora.

It is just pathetic how Raja Pakistan and Raja Hindustan have not learned anything from the history. They just continue weakening each other, until some other hoard, some other power will come and start pillaging our lands.

[Moonshiner]

@simplyme

It helps to pause and think on why the education system in the country is so good compared to some of our neighbours who got freedom during the same time.

Can you give some more information regarding this? I know a Pakistani family who sent their kids to an Indian school because they work for the Pakistani embassy in Delhi. They expressed similar sentiments as well.

[vineshvk]

Oh now now. We don't have to fuss down to the level of squeaky squabblers.

India is pleading with the West BEFORE and AFTER Mumbai carnage, to somehow pinch Pakistan in the ribs.

Poor Indian leadership has not realized that they are acting exactly like the good old Rajas who jumped up and down saying "me me me me", in front of every gora.

It is just pathetic how Raja Pakistan and Raja Hindustan have not learned anything from the history. They just continue weakening each other, until some other hoard, some other power will come and start pillaging our lands.

Thats very convenient Burqa. Why would the west even listen to India if India is just all gas and no fire. If confrontation can be avoided then why not?
Why would the west pinch Pakistan and not India.

[CM]

Well since you seem to have "knowledge" of such documents would appreciate a link ......

I gave you a link. Its a bloody simple search. If you can't do that, you are more incompetent than originally believed. Interesting when you are splicing different paragraphs together you give no such links.

[quote]
UNSC called for a "complete" withdrawl of forces from Pakistan, which never happened ...... also the UNCIP resolution clearly state that the council has to inform India and then they have to demilitirise ....... as for UNCIP not being from UN resolutions .... let me tell you ALL UN resolutions refer to the condition of UNCIP resolution ... last time in 1957 , when perhaps the "Kashmir" issue was dealt with specifically also metions this resolution .....
[/quote]

Where does it say in UNSC resolutions that Pakistan has to do so first? Secondly UNCIP resolutions are non-binding. Thirdly I suggest you read the Jan 5 1949 resolution which calls for the plebicite, meaning that the ceasefire was established and thet tribal elements had departed. Otherwise why establish a resolution to conduct the Plebicite?

[quote]
Observing further that the Governments of India and Pakistan recognize and accept the commitments undertaken by them in the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan dated 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, which envisage the determination of the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the will of the people through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, and that Mr. Jarring felt it appropriate to explore what was impeding their full implementation
[/quote]

Love the fact that you splice together different paragraphs to make your point. Dare I say different documents as well? And more importantly not from a UNSC resoluton.

[quote]
Lastly ... location of UNMOGIP in Islamabad ...... that is really a joke i guess .... India's stand is that after the Simla agrement UNMOGIP's mandate (it is ONLY responsible for monitoring the cease fire line in Kashmir !!!) has lapsed so it has restricted its activities to LOC on Indian side only .Though they do provide them with necessary support (infact UNMOGIP has a laison office in Delhi) but it has not taken any complaints to them on ceasefire violation.

So remember UNMOGIP is not a UN agency to solve the Kashmir problem, but it is only an agency to monitor the "ceasefire" line in Kashmir.
[/QUOTE]

Abay . UNMOGIP was established because India refused to accept the UNSC proposal.

[Asli_Rajput]

@Punjabee_in_USA

Wrong again ! No one begged him to come, he came of his own accord "to express solidarity".

And if India invited him, why did he visit Islamabad ?? Maybe Pakistan invited him to take some heat off them ??

yea take the heat off them and ask for more financial aid at the same time.

[aam_bandha]

@CM

I gave you a link. Its a bloody simple search. If you can’t do that, you are more incompetent than originally believed. Interesting when you are splicing different paragraphs together you give no such links.

Where does it say in UNSC resolutions that Pakistan has to do so first? Secondly UNCIP resolutions are non-binding. Thirdly I suggest you read the Jan 5 1949 resolution which calls for the plebicite, meaning that the ceasefire was established and thet tribal elements had departed. Otherwise why establish a resolution to conduct the Plebicite?

Love the fact that you splice together different paragraphs to make your point. Dare I say different documents as well? And more importantly not from a UNSC resoluton.

Abay . UNMOGIP was established because India refused to accept the UNSC proposal.

I guessed as much … since you don’t have anything to show so you are trying to go in circle … if i make a statement i back it up with relevant informaion …otherwise it is just your word against mine …

Coming to UNCIP resolution and “Proposal of 1949” … funny you say that UNCIP resolutions are non binding but the “proposal” you refer to is binding … just for your information … ALL resolutions by united nations security council on Kashmir (India Pakistan question) are NON BINDING …

Agian the paragraph i have put is from a UNSC resolution … and not spliced together … just because i have highlighted it in two colour does not mean it is spliced together … here is the statement again with the link

http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc2dec57.htm

Observing further that the Governments of India and Pakistan recognize and accept the commitments undertaken by them in the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan dated 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, which envisage the determination of the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the will of the people through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, and that Mr. Jarring felt it appropriate to explore what was impeding their full implementation

Regarding UNMOGIP … again your lack of information on this topic is showing … and again i will back it with “relevant facts” …

UNMOGIP: United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan - Background

On 30 March 1951, following the termination of UNCIP, the Security Council, by its resolution 91 (1951) decided that UNMOGIP should continue to supervise the ceasefire in Kashmir. UNMOGIP’s functions were to observe and report, investigate complaints of ceasefire violations and submit its finding to each party and to the Secretary-General.

Maybe UN forgot to mention that India did not agree to UN resolution OR mybe the source of your information is as fabricated as your arguments … next time you come up with an argument … please back them up with relevant facts.

[CM]

Re: Miliband’s Kashmir remarks upset India.

Point 1: Where does it say that Pakistan has to withdraw first.

Point 2: If all UN resolutions of Kashmir are non-binding as you state here:

[quote]
just for your information ... ALL resolutions by united nations security council on Kashmir (India Pakistan question) are NON BINDING .....
[/quote]

Then Pakistan does not need to withdraw at all.

Lastly why are you quoting the 1957 resolution? There are 5 before that one dealing with the issue, all in more detail and not regarding the visit of a lone swedish diplomat.

[aam_bandha]

@CM

Point 1: Where does it say that Pakistan has to withdraw first.

Point 2: If all UN resolutions of Kashmir are non-binding as you state here:

Then Pakistan does not need to withdraw at all.

Lastly why are you quoting the 1957 resolution? There are 5 before that one dealing with the issue, all in more detail and not regarding the visit of a lone swedish diplomat.

I knew you had nothing … you seem to have a problem with 1957 resolution … no problem (i picked this one up as this was the last time Kashmir question was discussed in srcurity council). But is you take any resolution from 1949 till 1957 they refer to UNCIP resolution … which you “claimed” were not “kosher” . But somehow you have more “faith” in the “proposal” … ok let us take this up also … what does it say …

kashmiri-cc.ca

1. The program of demilitarization should include the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of the regular forces of Pakistan; and the withdrawal of the regular forces of India not required for purposes of security or for the maintenance of local law and order on the Indian side of the Cease-Fire Line: also the reduction, by disbanding and disarming, of local forces, including on the one side the Armed Forces and Militia of the State of Kashmir and on the other, the Azad Forces.
2. The “Northern Area” should also be included in the above program of demilitarization, and its administration should, subject to United Nations supervision, be continued by the existing local authorities

Now do you see the difference … Pakistan forces were to vacate “completely” which as Indian forces were to “stay” in Kashmir to maintain law & order (there were further developmet in coming years and if we continue i will enlightent you more on this)

Refer to the second point … Pakistan had problems to this … i will discuss this later on …

Coming back to the “proposal” you had refered …

1. When the agreed program of demilitarization preparatory to the plebiscite has been accomplished to the satisfaction of the United Nations representative, the Plebiscite Administrator should proceed forthwith to exercise the functions assigned to him under the terms of UNCIP resolution of 5 January 1949, which, together with UNCIP resolution of 13 August 1948, was accepted by the Governments of India and Pakistan and which are now reaffirmed by these Governments except in so far as the provisions therein contained as modified by the relevant provisions of this document. The functions and powers of the Plebiscite Administrator remain as setforth in UNCIP resolution of 5 January, 1949

See again the emphasis on demilitarization before any action is taken on plebiscite … the reason for this is that there is a history to it … as to why Pakistani troops were asked to withdraw completely … but Indian forces were asked to stay back … can discuss that also …but i would suggest you check up on your informaion first before we embark on this !!!

Lastly … yes it is not binding on Pakistan too … but then it is Pakistan that was crying about the UN resolution … India has moved on and wants to settle in “bi-laterally”

[CM]

Re: Miliband’s Kashmir remarks upset India.

LMAO! I like reading your posts. Its entertainment at the end of the day. Now according to the link you used:

kashmiri-cc.ca

Explain where it says Pakistan has to do so first? Also read the paragraphs before that which states:

There should be an agreed program of progressive demilitarization, the basic principle of which should be the reduction of armed forces on either side of the Cease-Fire Line by withdrawal, disbandment and disarmament in such stages as not to cause fear at any point of time to the people on either side of the Cease-Fire Line. The aim should be to reduce the armed personnel in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on each side of the Cease-Fire Line to the minimum compatible with the maintenance of security and of local law and order, and to a level sufficiently low and with the forces so disposed that they will not constitute a restriction on the free expression of opinion for the purposes of the plebiscite.

[aam_bandha]

@CM

LMAO! I like reading your posts. Its entertainment at the end of the day. Now according to the link you used:
http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc22dec49.htm

Explain where it says Pakistan has to do so first? Also read the paragraphs before that which states:

Pakistan never agreed to demilitirization … period … that is the topic of discussion … even after India agreed (in principle) to allow “some” pakistani troops to be in Pakistani side of Kashmir, even though UNCIP resolutions had called for “complete” withdrawl of Pakistani troops … so you see Pakistan never demilitiraized Kashmir even though you think they did …

CM the point here is not to point fingers at each other … it is to move on and it is time to do so …

[CM]

Re: Miliband’s Kashmir remarks upset India.

LMAO! Aww come one I quote one paragraph from your link, questioning your paragraph and its time to move on?

United Nations Security Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read up on why UNSC resolutions are binding. And why UNCIP resolutions are not. I can’t wait for you to mention the Chapters.

[aam_bandha]

@CM

LMAO! Aww come one I quote one paragraph from your link, questioning your paragraph and its time to move on?

United Nations Security Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read up on why UNSC resolutions are binding. And why UNCIP resolutions are not. I can’t wait for you to mention the Chapters.

This is what happens when your source of information is “Wikipedia” … anyway … to quote your “source” …

Under Chapter Six of the Charter, “Pacific Settlement of Disputes”, the Security Council “may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute”. The Council may “recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment” if it determines that the situation might endanger international peace and security. These recommendations are not binding on UN members

Come back with something credible … :biggthumb

[CM]

Re: Miliband’s Kashmir remarks upset India.

LMAO! Yes. That is why Kashmir is Chapter 7.

sigh All to predictable.

[aam_bandha]

LMAO! Yes. That is why Kashmir is Chapter 7.

sigh All to predictable.

Chapter 7 !!!!!! Ah .... don't klnow what to call it ignorance or incompetance..... you think you can back this up with some link .... i know i can :)

[CM]

Re: Miliband’s Kashmir remarks upset India.

So where did the discuss last leave off? UNCIP resolutions? Or UNSC resolutions?

[aam_bandha]

So where did the discuss last leave off? UNCIP resolutions? Or UNSC resolutions?

Looking in the wrong area .... here it is

We will get to that in due time. Now on to the paragraph you picked.

1. Requests the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan to make any recommendations to the parties for further appropriate action with a view to making progress towards the implementation of the resolutions of the U.N.C.I.P of 13 August 1948 and 5 January and towards a peaceful settlement ;

Point 1 What: Request - the UNSC is requesting Point 2 Who: The United nations Representatives for India and Pakistan - Basically the governments Point3 To do what: to make recommendations

So the UNSC wants India and Pakistan to make recommendations. Simple enough. But recommendations regarding what? Lets continue.

Point 4: To the parties - in this case the parties to the confict and the UNCIP Point 5 Recommendations regarding what: With further appropriate action with a view to making progress

So lets recap.

So the UNSC wants India and Pakistan to make recommendations on appropriate actions to make progress.

But progress on what exactly? Lets see what it says again

Point 6 towards the implementation of UNCIP resolution

So to recap once again and place it all in a sentence the paragraph states:

The UNSC wants India and Pakistan to make recommendations on appropriate actions to make progress towards the implementation of UNCIP resolutions.

So what they want? They want recommendations.

Aam banda where are these recommendations? Got a link so we can further this discussion in an open and transparent manner?

Still dont want to say ..... implementaion of UNCIP resolution .... that is the aim :D

[aam_bandha]

LMAO! Yes. That is why Kashmir is Chapter 7.

sigh All to predictable.

Sorry i did miss this gem and you used to work for Pakistan in UN :D

Let me milk this for some time ......