Search results

That is a specious argument. Implementation of those UN resolutions would require fresh agreement, post Simla Agreement.

Deciding to appoint 3rd party would require mutual agreement. Selecting a 3rd party would require mutual agreement. Appointing the 3rd party would require mutual agreement. Implementing 3rd party's proposal would require mutual agreement. Seems to me even this 3rd party affair is essentially a...

Simla Agreement doesn't preclude involvement of 3rd Party, but for all intents and purpose it is a non starter. Involvement of 3rd to 'n'th party would require acquiescence of _both_ the parties and even the proposals made by such 3rd party can be implemented if and only if _both_ the parties...

How is it even news, let alone a 'breaking' one. After Shimla Agreement, no mother's apple can intervene unless approved by both India and Pakistan. Only dimwits and Pakistanis believe otherwise. Ho-hum.

It is good that you have realised that it is better to weasel out than to make further @ss of yourself. Better late than never. My holidays are over anyway Regards.

Nonsense. If a party doesn't accept a resolution under Chapter VI, then it is not binding on her. And UN can never reject 'objections & concerns' of the parties. Thats basic law 101. The 3 June 1948 communique is about UNCIP, which both India and Pakistan had agreed to. Anyway, whatever the...

Don't you know: Now bang your head against something really really hard.

Are you this daft? Pakistan categorically rejected the resolution of 21st April, 1948. All your own presentations reveal that. I even posted the letter of rejection. The resolution is therefore irrelevant, forget about Pakistan obeying it. The relevant resolutions are the one passed at Security...

Not sure what earth shattering proof to the contrary does this provide. My point stands though. That India considered, in the words of UN, 'giving of this assistance by Pakistan to be an act of aggression against India'. How asinine. You don't understand the expression P0K and yet you can quote...

This bull$hit needs to be addressed. Yesterday I took mental note of this but couldn't get around to respond for a variety of reasons. I also needed to check with my notes to be absolutely sure. So here's the deal. Contrary to what has been claimed here, Pakistan had actually declined to carry...

Why? Is it because your severe lack of understanding of the issues are getting exposed? Among other things, to differentiate between the ones where UN will act as 'mediator' and the ones where UN will act as 'enforcer'. If a party requires UN's recommendation then complaints are filed under...

All wars were started by Pakistan with the objective of wrest Kashmir from India. And still, you would need Indian visa to get there. That is the defeat.

Resort to 'technicality' when it is convenient and dismiss it when inconvenient. Noted. 'Acts of aggression' are not 'disputes'. 'Dispute' is what Pakistan would call 'dispute'. Noted. For those who are interested: The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might...

Filing the complaint under Chap 6 and not under Chap 7 was mere technicality. Chap 6 resolutions are meant to be recommendatory while Chap 7 resolutions are obligatory. India didn't want anything that would bind her for life. India's complaint against Pakistan was, is and will always be that...

So? You have a serious comprehension problem. Read the minutes of UN meetings. Its freely available. As I said, you have serious comprehension issue. The very basis of proceedings at UN was India's complaint against Pakistan. What do you thing we were doing there? Playing kabadi? The...

Clause 1(i) refers to Chapert 1 of UN Charter. There is nothing more than that. Clause 1(ii) takes the wind out of Pak's sail and makes it a bilateral issue. And no, UN resolutions do not mean 'Kashmir is a dispute of International gravity'. The resolutions are essentially bilateral agreement...

Agreed. But it appears that the Pak generals think that 'cold hell' is worth more than several Pak lives. Why else would they try again and again to recapture that 'cold hell'?

I highly doubt that you do that. Actually, them Indians have a slightly better case than Pakistanis, legally speaking. Do not, I repeat, do not hold your breath.

I doff my hat to your indomitable spirit. But like I said earlier, the 'claim' is nonsense. Oh grapes, why must you always be so tart?

The documents are with UN and the respective Govt. I don't. United Nations Treaty Series is a public document available at UN site. Now how about you reveal your sources.