International Law ke mutabiq to pura Kashmir (including Azad Kashmir aur Gilgit Baltistan) bhi Bharat kaa hissa hona chahiye , kiyunke Maharaja ne instrument of accession Bharat ke haq main kar dia tha

United Nations Security Council Resolution 39:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 39, adopted on January 20, 1948, offered to assist in the peaceful resolution of the Kashmir Conflict by setting up a committee of three members; one to be chosen by the India, one to be chosen by Pakistan and the third to be chosen by the other two members of the committee. The committee was to write a joint letter advising the Council on what course of action would be best to help further peace in the region.


United Nations Security Council Resolution 47:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 47, adopted on April 21, 1948, after hearing arguments from both India and Pakistan the Council increased the size of the Commission established by United Nations Security Council Resolution 39 to five members, instructed the Commission to go to the subcontinent and help the governments of India and Pakistan restore peace and order to the region and prepare for a plebiscite to decide the fate of Kashmir. The resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council under chapter VI of UN Charter. Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII.
The resolution recommended that in order to ensure the impartiality of the plebiscite Pakistan withdraw all tribesmen and nationals who entered the region for the purpose of fighting and that India leave only the minimum number of troops needed to keep civil order. The Commission was also to send as many observers into the region as it deemed necessary to ensure the provisions of the resolution were enacted. Pakistan ignored the UN mandate and continued fighting, holding on to the portion of Kashmir under its control. Subsequently India refused to implement the plebiscite claiming the withdrawal of Pakistan forces was a prerequisite as per this resolution. In 1990 after nearly four decades, the United States changed its position and is no longer urging a plebiscite in Kashmir, saying the dispute should be settled through direct negotiations between India and Pakistan.
The resolution was adopted paragraph by paragraph; no vote on the resolution as a whole was taken.


In the light of above UN resolutions and recommendations of the committee, Pakistan must have withdrawn all regular and irregular forces throughout Kashmir and India to have maintained only minimal amount of forces to maintain civil order. But Pakistan did not do so, and therefore India asserts that:


1. Instrument of Accession was signed in its favor and constituent assembly which was a representative body had ratified it, therefore it has legal right on Kashmir.
2. It does not accept Two Nation Theory that forms the basis of Pakistan and therefore it considers Kashmir as its integral part since Indian is a diverse society. Dissatisfaction and disaffection are common in a diverse society; therefore it does not regard Kashmiri disaffection as highly. Furthermore Indians assert that insurgency in Kashmir has been deliberately fueled by Pakistan to create instability in region

3. Pakistan must withdraw its forces from all of Kashmir in order for the plebiscite to be held.


Whereas Pakistan rejected instrument of accession by Maharaja by asserting that he was an unpopular leader. According to Two Nation Theory Kashmir should be part of Pakistan. Insurgency and dissatisfaction in Kashmir shows that Kashmiris are not satisfied with the Indians and either they want to join Pakistan or remain independent. Furthermore the events of 9/11 and consequent UNSC resolution 1373 makes political stance of Pakistan providing ethical and moral support to Kashmiri cause even weaker.



And one more Princely State that influenced Pakistan's strategy was Junagadh. Nawab of Junagarh signed the instrument of accession in favor of Pakistan in defiance of Viceroy's persuasion. Junagarh was also located within India and did not share land border with Pakistan, nevertheless the Nawab of Junagadh Nawab Muhabbat Khanji asserted that Junagadh could access Pakistan by sea and therefore he signed instrument of accession in favor of Pakistan. This prompted internal rebellion within Junagadh; the states of Mangarol and Babariwad that were subjected to suzerainty of Junagadh declared independence and chose to join India. Junagadh responded by militarily occupying the two states; prompting further rebellion and appeals to India to come for military support. Thereafter India militarily occupied Junagadh in defiance of the international law and Pakistan could not militarily defend its territory.


Now we have some background of the origins of Kashmir problem , we can safely assume dominance of right wing politics in both Pakistan and India during the early period of independence. India was successful in maintaining both political and military upper hand over Pakistan in all the issues. Thereafter Indian establishment embarked on a different political discourse; it framed its constitution, became neutral and did not tilt towards right wingers anymore. As a result India made significant progress in internal politics and today it has well entrenched left right and center politics even in a diverse society and it is making progress as a nation. Corruption is rife in India as well, but it is treated as a social issue instead of political issue; thence India is making progress in dealing with it as well. However Pakistani establishment kept the grudge and tilted towards right wingers and two nation theory proponents. As a result internal political situation of Pakistan has evolved into a mess which is before you today. Corruption is only highlighted when any political force that is in contradiction to right wingers is in power, however corruption remains in all the governments (foji hukumatun main bhi corruption hoti hai ). You have no law and order when the state is busy in its own political discourses and does not allow any political progress to be made by the nation.


PS: Sorry I was away for a while, I had read your post regarding two nation theory but it was deleted. Today I could explain it further . My first two posts were only to make you free of emotions, now you can rationally study the subject and secure good score in Pakistan Affairs . Your comments are required now for the discussion to progress .

Well its so unfortunate that the history we have been taught throughout these years is nothing but a bunch of lies. It doesnt matter who says it ( i mean true facts), whether its Najam Sethi or Altaf Hussain, facts are facts and you cant hide it by altering or distorting it. To call a fact, a fact doesnt mean that we do not love our country. Sure we do. But it would be better to accept the reality (though bitter) and move farward with a new spirit (free of hatred).

__________________
"Age wrinkles the body, but disobeying Allah wrinkles the soul."

I totally agree with u sir ,, I searched out another video exposing Reality of War between Pakistan and india, I would like to ask that Najam sethi may b a RAW or anti-pakistan forces agent but what about this video ,, the man in this video is Air Martial Ashar Khan -( former Chief, Pakistan Air Force ) more commonly known and referred as A.K ,, he is telling the same story ,, I think we must accept our failures and blunders in history and try to learn something from Past ,

Brother your post is just a collection of words which is not supported by facts and evidences.
I second your point that members of armed forces are not above law and they must be brought to justice if they commit something wrong but it does not mean to undermine their sacrifices for this Pak Sarzameen. I admire them and criticise them at the same time but it does not deteriorates my love for them.
As far as progress of Pakistan is concerned let me assure you that it will not come when we start denouncing our Army. It will only arrive when we will show the firm resolution towards implementing the writ of Allah in this Pak Sarzameen in order to fulfil the only purpose of creation of this country.

Establishing the writ of Allah (SWT) is the job of political forces, not Armed forces .

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

Well UN resolutions are not written by Allah and who has written and drafted it you know.....whose lobbies are more strong and who is influencing whom.....and also "BHARAT MAI BHI HATHO PER SARSON NAHI UGTI" as narrated by you

India is not a land of Angels.....

It seems strange that Junagarh is legal part of india as it was occupied by India militarily as you said but infiltration by Pakistan in Kashmir is not OK because the GODs of the WORLD (UN) & Anti-Muslim Lobbies cannot accept it.......what a justice is it.

" MILITARILY OCCUPYING JUNAGARH " VS "INFILTRATION IN KASHMIR"

Which is a bigger crime.

A crime does not become a law if wrapped in the UN resolutions. This means that Quaid should have not made Pakistan. Sorry to say i cannot understand these justification. Why even a weak single sentence in your kind analysis goes in favour of Pakistan. If the the two nation theory is so useless as depicted in one of your last post (that areas which made Pak were least concerned in something called two nation theory etc etc) and also India has been always an Angel in South Asia and towards Pakistan and muslims of the Sub-Continent, then Creation of Pakistan was a horrible mistake made by the then Muslims of the India. I cannot agree these versions.

If India is so peacfull, then why it made Atomic Bombs?
Does Pakistan has no threat from India?
& Has it been only Pakistan who committed errors and India was always an angel?
Who is bramdag?

Also you mentioned that Post 9/11 scene has also helped in slipping the issue of kashmir from us. If dummy UN has to do somthing it would have done in 65 years but the matter has been lingered over an outstanding period of 65 years during which many things have also happened. So should UN procrastinate a matter so long that after sometimes due to some incidences it may be able to weaken the plea which undertook after 54 years (2001) of the resolution???????????How childish is that?????

I did not mention it as the duty of armed forces. did i?
And it is not the duty of political forces alone it is the duty of each and every Muslim.

Back to emotion

You missed all the points and again started pressing on emotional sentiment. That is the root cause why we are always crying but not reaching any solution.

You missed the point that Indians had political and military upper hand over Pakistan in all the issues at the time of independence, this grudged Pakistani establishment and it carried that grudge and imposed it on Pakistani national interest, while Indians changed their political direction. Thereafter they only responded to severe provocations, but us Pakistanis have always remained emotional and sentimental, and we have lost dearly both internally and externally because of this approach....

You missed the point that Society in Pakistan was not literally as Two Nations Theory suggested; it was diverse and heterogeneous, therefore variety of political views existed in it. The establishment made a tremendous mistake by siding itself with the right wingers; state never formulates national interest rather always works in the national interest as determined by the nation through political process. Indian establishment followed the natural course while Pakistani establishment started influencing national politics only to keep it on right wing anti-India track. This strategy has messed up the internal politics to the point of today where right wingers are militarized and people's problems are not being solved and political resentment is growing.

Issue of Kashmir is not as simple as you have been assuming dear. China is also a party to Kashmir. Are you aware of the 2800 mile unadministered territory in Karakoram Tract whose fate is kept adjourned between China and Pakistan under a treaty signed in 1963 till the final resolve of Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan???? UN Resolution on plebiscite was non-binding, hope you know what non-binding means. The point is for how long national interest is going to be how establishment wants it to be, let the nation decide its interest collectively and you do your legal duties.. If the nation decisively puts right wingers in power through political process, you shall have all arms in your hands to invade India; but if not then let the nation progress...... Because of your messing up in politics and not doing you legal duties, the whole society has plunged into division, corruption and crime.

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

Whose lobbies???? aap ke khayal main us time British India kee buhut mazboot lobby thi, yaa Israel jo ke khud bhi unhi dino main bana tha, yaa shikast zada Britain kee yaa kis kee.......

Aur UN main lobbying waise nahin chalti jaise American politics main chalti hai .


Infiltration koi aim haasil kare tab to theek hai, itna time infiltrators paal paal ke aur qom se jhoot bol bol ke aakhir baat apne hee gale main pari hai, Kashmiri khud kiyun nahin revolt karte India ke khilaf, yaa phir aik decisive war kiyun nahin kar deta Pakistan, muamla aik taraf to ho jaaye, yaa to Kashmir mil jaaye yaa khud hee jaayen kaam se . No nation-state of the world resolves its political dispute with other nation-state through militant infiltration for such a prolong period as Pakistan has done. Absolutely futile military strategy taking up major share of national resources which could have been better used on the people. Infiltration should either be backed by a proper military plan to achieve the political target or a different political approach should be adopted or if it seems impossible to get the goal, make it a low profile issue unless it becomes possible, par yahan pe to Kashmir aur India se qatai focus nahin hatna chahiye bhali mulk ke andar kitne bhi masail paida ho jaayen. Ab to puri dunya main Pakistan ke is India phobia kaa mazaq banna shru ho gaya hai.

Can't say, but the ground reality indicate Pakistan's strategy is getting it more natural punishment than India at every spectrum so..... however you judge it

What crime became law??? And who said Quaid should have not made Pakistan??? And you are taking Two Nations Theory too generally dear. Two Nations Theory formed the basis for Pakistan, but it was never a well scripted holy political theory under which all Muslims of India unified as one nation against Hindus. Communal differences between Muslims and Hindus persisted in India; therefore faith had major influence on Indian nationalism. Indian nationalism had its origins in Indian Nationalist thought that mainly arose after 1857 war. The British spoke of Indians as a conglomerate of different races and religions not a nation; thus justified that Indians were not capable of national self government. This triggered diverse thoughts of Indian nationalism and identity amongst Indian intelligentsia. Some argued in a historic and geographic context that Indians were a nation and others argued Indians were not yet a nation but could be forged into one. Similar thoughts of national identity initiated at various ethnic, linguistic and religious levels among Indians, including among Muslims and Hindus. The British blamed Muslims to be responsible for 1857 war, the persecution caused resentment against both the British and Hindus among Muslims, but still they had not taken unified political ground and had diverse political thoughts. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was the first to advocate Muslim self awakening and identity. Liaquat Ali Khan, the first Prime Minister of Pakistan and a prominent Muslim League leader, argued in his book 'Pakistan-The Heart of Asia' that Indian Muslims were not a nation but could be forged into one. None of the Muslim religious leadership and prominent Islamic institutions supported Muslim nationalism in India (they thought nationalism was 'kufr' and 'idolatry' ). Nevertheless, the point is political thought was highly diverse and it was not as literal as you assume Two Nations Theory (muslims one nation and hindus other ), many Muslims actively favored Indian Nationalism as well; do some study of the matter and come up with rational emotion free arguments so that I could learn as well . Even Muslim League that originally voiced separate electorate caught Muslim Nationalist thought very late after communal-ism grew following Khilafat movement during World War I. Afterwards, Iqbal gave the philosophical explanation and goals of Muslim nationalism in his famous 1930 speech and it eventually became benchmark of Muslim League's political struggle 10 years later. Jinnah himself did not advocate Muslim nationalism and favored Indian Nationalism till then. Somehow political struggle of Muslim League gained momentum and Pakistan emerged on world map, this exhibits popularity of the notion among general Muslim population and provides justification for creation of Pakistan, but all Muslims of British India were never unified under this single political ideology of Muslim nationalism. Many prominent Muslim political leaders, like Molana Azad and Molana Modudi of Jamaat-e-Islami, did not avow to it, neither did Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Frontier Gandhi). Quaid himself bade farewell to faith based nationalism and spoke of composite Pakistani nationalism in his speech on 11 August 1947 ("You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state.").

One more thing, don't confuse Indian Nationalism with Hindu Nationalism . Congress was not a Hindu Nationalist Party, but an Indian Nationalist Party; hope you are able to differentiate between the two things . Indian nationalism is a much wider political philosophy than faith based Hindu nationalism. Many prominent Muslim leaders supported Indian Nationalism, however many Indian Muslims felt that in a democratic setup they will be marginalized by Hindus who formed the majority of population, therefore they should separate from Indian nationalist cause. This stance was later misconstrued as Hindus wanted to be a nation of their own. So please don't generalize Altaf Hussain's speech with everything .

Every nation of the world wants Atomic bombs, and no nation of the world is ideally peaceful; so should we start assuming everyone is our enemy . Creation of Pakistan was not an error, but meddling with newly formed nation's political discourse was a blunder that overshadows every perceivable wrong

A disenchanted Pakistani who has lost faith in Muslim Pakistani nation.

UN resolution 47 was non-bindinng means it was not necessary to be implemented,,, no further comments on this part because UN yaa imperial world powers kaa filhal ham kuch nahin kar sakte, pehle apne aap ko to mazboot karo

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

'A Collection of Words' followed by Countless Facts and Evidences provided by Mhmmdkashif and Ts Awan.
Give them a thorough read I am sure you will Catch on.

Who is undermining their sacrifices ?
They sacrificed for this country, they served us, they'v guarded this country for More than a half Century Now. But just because they have guarded this country doesnt mean they OWN this country.

A person is respected until he confines to himself. The day he steps out of his own premises , he will find fingers pointing at him. Same is The Case with Our Army.
Had they not indulged themselves in Politics , they would have had the same Favour of Nation as they once had.
Remember , Nobody is Undermining their Sacrifices. We all have Great Respect for them. We all love them. But Our Love for them shouldnt be so blind that we cant even face the reality. And the reality is that they aswell made Blunders and they should be condemned the same way politicians are condemned.
Their Past sacrifices shouldnt be sheathing their Present mistakes.

And the Progress wont even Come Until each and every Organisation realises the responsibility they are entrusted with, Including Army.
Army shouldnt be acting like they are Independent and Unaccountables.
They should be doing their own assigned task while we should be following our own.
They shouldnt be Taking big decisions on their own putting at stake the Soveregnity of Country.

Remember Unless you criticise someone , he never Knows If he has done something Wrong.
The criticism that they are receiving isnt to degrade or Insult them but to retract them.

Finally , I have no Concerns for What Indian Army is doing and Neither I am concerned about Jewish Army. My worries are for My Own Army , for our dignity lies in their existence and that is why they should be performing their duty with More
comittment.
May Allah Show us all The true Path.