Re:Most ot the post on Kashmir is wrong. (Score 1)

Firstly, too many people opposed to India on the matter of Kashmir utter the words "UN resolution" as a sort of magic chant that automatically validates all that they say - they should first comprehend what the resolutions actually states.

Secondly, 'post-colonial' motives may or may not have been at play in the UN in 1948 (personally I think it's possible, but unlikely... reasons below: _

By end 1948, India had a legal basis to annex Jummu and Kashmir (the treaty of accession signed by it's Maharaja), however thin this may sound. Pakistan did not. The Indian Prime Minister at the time was a from a Hindu family from the Kashmir valley. He had participated in the movement that won freedom for both India and Pakistan, and he and his family had considerable respect in the valley. Virtually no support for joining Pakistan existed in J& K itself -- J&K had more in common in terms of culture and tradition with India than the newly formed Pakistan. J&K political leaders like Sheikh Abdullah (the father of the current J&K chief minister) were also partial to India. Many observers state that a fair plebescite at the time would have been in India's favor (of course it's hard to imagine this now).

All this would have weighed in the minds of the UN delegates when they came up with the resolution they did.

Look at the top of the webpage below for a Paksitani military perspective on their 1948 Kashmir infiltration. It's pretty clear that Pakistan had little to no sympathy in the valley itself -- they wouldn't have had to inject foreign tribals and their own troops surreptitiously -- they could simply incite and arm a local rebellion as they are doing now.

http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/august/anatomy. htm