Who says we don't like the West? I am confused. We love the west. They consider us more important than India :D
this is the best statement i have ever read....to compete with them will be a degradation....
Re: Taqseem-e-Hind and Taqseem-e-Kashmir
Again incorrect. Nehru stated it. Promised it. Want the proof? 
Nehru stated it … after all he was the one who took it to UN … or do you think UN dreamed of Kashmir and landed there. He took it to UN as he and India wanted the issue to be settled through a plebiscite. It was UN that failed to get Pakistan to vacate the occupied territories in Kashmir … shades of Gaza and Israel … and guess who was supporting Pakistan … Sammy uncle 
Since we are talking about Kashmir, when did the Pakistani troops enter Kashmir … was it before the resolution 47 of 1948 or after the resolution was passed …
Who says we don't like the West? I am confused. We love the west. They consider us more important than India :D
I am glad you're finally admitting it that Pakistan's idea of success is being considered 'important' by the west. Next time an Armitage like visit occurs just remember this and remind you friends before they start howling about what the heck west is doing in Pakistan. Also pls inform Zaid Hamid and company that Pakistan actually loves the west so that he can pitch his tent elsewhere
I am glad you're finally admitting it that Pakistan's idea of success is being considered 'important' by the west. Next time an Armitage like visit occurs just remember this and remind you friends before they start howling about what the heck west is doing in Pakistan. Also pls inform Zaid Hamid and company that Pakistan actually loves the west so that he can pitch his tent elsewhere
Oh they are important ... they get a special Af-Pak envoy .. who comes and visits them every few months .... while as India has to do with ONE state dinner in the white hosue :D
Oh they are important ... they get a special Af-Pak envoy .. who comes and visits them every few months .... while as India has to do with ONE state dinner in the white hosue :D
Dont' forget the drones that Un"kill" Sam drops down in their backyard every couple of weeks :D
Re: Taqseem-e-Hind and Taqseem-e-Kashmir
actually I agree with CM that Pakistan is more important for the west than India - I wouldn't have it any other way.
I just hope they (Paks) realize that when west says things like "front line state in WOT", "very important" etc they mean something which is not as positive as the Pakistanis would like to and do interpret as.
Pakistanis have been fighting a non-existent war with India. This tilting at windmill syndrome is IMO one of the 3 basic reasons for the current state of affairs there (the other two being religious extremism and provincial imbalance)
So for that to happen Pakistan has to vacate Kashmir completely before a plebisicte takes place. That is what are the facts on the ground ..... now you wanna run ;)
Not true. Contrary to what you Indians seem to think, repeating a lie ad nauseam a billion times over doesn't make it the truth. The UN quickly realized the impracticality of forcing Pakistan to demilitarize first, which is why every resolution after 1949 refers to the McNaughton plan for simultaneous withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani soldiers from both sides of the LoC.
Not that it matters. I'm sure you and your ilk will continue to prattle on endlessly regurgitating the same lies, regardless of how many times the matter is explained to you.
Re: Taqseem-e-Hind and Taqseem-e-Kashmir
Show me where it states Pakistan has to do first? Come snookums. You already learned that UNCIP is non-binding. I am now moving towards furthering your edumication.
Also Nehru stated it independent of the UN resolutions. By all means look it up.
Not true. Contrary to what you Indians seem to think, repeating a lie ad nauseam a billion times over doesn't make it the truth. The UN quickly realized the impracticality of forcing Pakistan to demilitarize first, which is why every resolution after 1949 refers to the McNaughton plan for simultaneous withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani soldiers from both sides of the LoC. .
Perhaps you did not read the UNCIP resolutions or you did not read what i wrote but let me wite it again. Pakistan has to vacate Kashmir COMPLETELY .... neither i nor the UNCIP resolution say that Pakistan has to vacate first. While as Indian forces are to stay, albeit in smaller numbers, to provide security for the plebiscite.
Not that it matters. I'm sure you and your ilk will continue to prattle on endlessly regurgitating the same lies, regardless of how many times the matter is explained to you.
As far as i am concerned UN resolution are long dead and buried, i was just responding to our friend who said seems to think that Pakistan is interested in resolving the Kashmir issue through UNCIP resolution. Infact the realization that UN resolutions are irrelevant on Kashmir dawned on Pakistan sometime back and some progress was made on that front. But with new kids on the block in Pakistan, they have just washed their hands of whatever was talked with Pakistan. And this is precisely the problem on Kashmir. India has talks with Pakistan and then there are new rulers and it is back to square one. Look at this too, the foreign minister of Pakistan says there are no papers of Kashmir talks with foreign office !!!!!
Again i repeat … Pakistani forces have to vacate completely before plebiscite takes place, simple. So in plain english … no withdrawl no plebiscite !!!
Coming to UNCIP resolution, as i said earler the Kashmiris want them too … Here is the what it says in the AJK constitution
http://www.ajkassembly.gok.pk/AJK_Interim_Constitution_Act_1974.pdf
**WHEREAS **the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is yet to be determined in accordance with the freely expressed will of the people of the State through the democratic method of free and fair plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations as envisaged in the UNCIP Resolutions adopted from time to time;
Now you can claim UNCIP resolutions are not binding … but what will you tell the Kashmiris who themselves are asking for the dispute to be settled through UNCIP resolutions. It is a shame that on one hand you are talking about helping the Kashmiris and then you dont want to do what they are asking you to do.
Nehru said …
“We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge
we have given, and the Maharaja has supported it not only to the people of Kashmir but the world.
We will not, and cannot back out of it. We are prepared when peace and law and order have been
established to have a referendum held under international auspices like the United Nations. We want it to be a fair and just reference to the people, and we shall accept their verdict. I can imagine no fairer and juster offer.”
Extracts from Nehru’s Broadcast on 2 November, 1947.
Clear simple precise english … and said it before the issue was taken to UN by him !!!
Perhaps you did not read the UNCIP resolutions or you did not read what i wrote but let me wite it again. Pakistan has to vacate Kashmir COMPLETELY .... neither i nor the UNCIP resolution say that Pakistan has to vacate first. While as Indian forces are to stay, albeit in smaller numbers, to provide security for the plebiscite.
It sounds like you're the one who hasn't read the UN proposals. UNSC Resolution 47 (1948) was the first to talk of demilitarization followed by plebicite. It clearly states that Pakistan must withdraw first and completely, and then India would withdraw partially. This was unreasonable, and obviously was rejected by Pakistan.
All UN resolutions after 1949 refer to the McNaughton Proposals, which state:
[quote]
"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."
[/quote]
It goes on to discuss the concept of simultaneous withdrawal of armed forces on both sides of the LoC. Pakistan accepted these terms; India did not. The UN put forward 11 plans on how to carry out the UNSC resolution in accordance with the McNaughton proposals - Pakistan accepted all of them, India rejected them all.
[/QUOTE]
India has talks with Pakistan and then there are new rulers and it is back to square one. Look at this too, the foreign minister of Pakistan says there are no papers of Kashmir talks with foreign office !!!!!
[/QUOTE]
India and Pakistan can negotiate out whatever they want...the matter won't be resolved until the wishes of the Kashmiri people are taken into account. Time and time again, Kashmiris have demonstrated that they want nothing to do with Indian occupation.
It sounds like you're the one who hasn't read the UN proposals. UNSC Resolution 47 (1948) was the first to talk of demilitarization followed by plebicite. It clearly states that Pakistan must withdraw first and completely, and then India would withdraw partially. This was unreasonable, and obviously was rejected by Pakistan.
UNSC resolution 47 does not talk about troop withdrawl... at that time UN was not aware of Pakisatni troops in Kashmir. It was only in May 1948 Pakistan foreign minister informed UN about its troops presence in Kashmir and that i why in UNCIP resolution Pakistani troops are specifically mentioned.
UNSC resolution 47
*The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavors: *
- To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State;
UNCIP resolution
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.
All UN resolutions after 1949 refer to the McNaughton Proposals, which state:
It goes on to discuss the concept of simultaneous withdrawal of armed forces on both sides of the LoC. Pakistan accepted these terms; India did not. The UN put forward 11 plans on how to carry out the UNSC resolution in accordance with the McNaughton proposals - Pakistan accepted all of them, India rejected them all.
.
Starge you are saying that Pakistan agreed but India did not agree. I mean i have read all the UN SC resolutions and i haven't found a single sentence that says India did not agree to demilitirization while as Pakistan did. Contrary to what you say only one resolution refers to Mc Naughton propsal ... but all UNSC resolutions mention UNCIP resolution as the basis for soving the Kashmir problem. The last time this question was discussed and a resolution passed, the basis was UNCIP resolutions which call for compelte withdrawl of Pakistani troops. I must add at one stage India has even agreed to a small Pakisatni troop presence in Kashmir .... but that was not enough for Pakistan. They wanted more ......
My point is when Pakistan raises the question of Kashmir and swears by UN resoutions, it should see where it stands and what it has done to actually implement them on ground. The facts are there to see .... if Pakistan had vacated Kashmir, there might have been a plebiscite then .... don't think that is going to be workable now and even UN understand and agrees on that position
Who says we don't like the West? I am confused. We love the west. They consider us more important than India :D
Spoken like a whore. Dont' want to offend you but that's how it sounds.
Re: Taqseem-e-Hind and Taqseem-e-Kashmir
aha! "UN quickly realized the impracticality of making Pakistan vacate...."...
interesting. So Pakistan can simply say NO to a UN resolution and that is enough to make that no longer valid.
So why is it so difficult for you people to understand that India can also say No and that is that.
Re: Taqseem-e-Hind and Taqseem-e-Kashmir
I don't care to get into any more long winded arguments over UNSC resolutions from 60 years ago. I repeat:
India and Pakistan can negotiate out whatever they want...the matter won't be resolved until the wishes of the Kashmiri people are taken into account. Time and time again, Kashmiris have demonstrated that they don't want to be ruled by New Delhi (or Islamabad for that matter), and until that fact is acknowledged and addressed, there isn't going to be any lasting peace or stability in the region.
Re: Taqseem-e-Hind and Taqseem-e-Kashmir
I have yet to see UN text say we should vacate first. Show me the text?
infiniti you are some random dumbass over the internet. Like i gave a damn what you think of me?
I have yet to see UN text say we should vacate first. Show me the text?
infiniti you are some random dumbass over the internet. Like i gave a damn what you think of me?
All texts talk about plebiscite being held AFTER Pakistan vacates and India reduces its troops. The issue was not of timing, Pakistan did not want to vacate as you can see from subsequent resolutions and infact at one stage India even agreed for s small Pakistani troop presence in Kashmir, but that was not enough. So it lingered on. The bottom line is for a plebiscite to happen , Pakistan has to vacate all occupied areas in Jammu & kashmir state. Till they don't, there is no plebiscite.
Get new glasses - I am sure that will help 