Huge India Win, Its Judge Dalveer Bhandari Is Re-Elected At World Court (ICJ): 10 Points

[Joe Shearer]

Shouldn't credit also be given to the UK where it's due?

You're right. I'm delighted at the news, but the British, with very rare exceptions, have contributed good judges.

Main Points-
-It will be the first time since the ICJ was established in 1945 that there will be no British judge.
-Despite P5 in support of UK candidate, they failed to stall Indian judge election to ICJ.

Quite refreshing to see a challenge to P5 monopoly and a bigger hope for developing countries to assert themselves even more. The quest for a change in UN functionary is quite evident.

@Joe Shearer Great news to start the day !!

@El Sidd

I have every hope that he will, as judges do, be neutral and above nationalist politics.

 

[oOo]

Mission accomplished how exactly?

- If ICJ rules against India then u guys r back to square one

- If ICJ rules in favor of India...Pak will reject the decision. While that may negatively effect any of Pak's attempts to approach the ICJ in the future for any disputes...in my opinion it's a non issue. Ever since the Atlantique Aircraft incident, where the ICJ just cited jurisdiction crap, Pak doesn't exactly look towards the ICJ to settle any issues between India/Pak. So it doesn't matter at all if Pak rejects ICJ ruling(if it goes in favor of India) bcuz ICJ is irrelevant in solving any India/Pak disputes.

Just wanted to bring in your notice if I may - Contempt of ICJ indirectly mean contempt of UN and international forums. Just give it a thought, will that impact your raising of Kashmir in UN and seeking international deliberations?

 

[Dotachin]

Indians should understand that Britain did it for their own greater good. Overriding the decision of GA using SC power would have created an adverse image of present SC setup in the UN and would have probably hasten the reform process of SC in UN. SC can go but would not want to go against the majority(2/3rd) will of GA, else UN will loose whatever little credibility it has. With this decision UK prolonged the status quo in SC for 5-7 years more. Indians may have won the battle but war was won by Britain. So, they should not get over excited. British are cunning diplomats. No wonder Britain ruled the subcontinent for 200+ years.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Either you don't know or you are lying blatantly here my friend.

You are correct that during the Atlantique incident ICJ didn't had jurisdiction to pronounce a verdict. But now ICJ does have compulsory jurisdiction, mark my words, compulsory jurisdiction. Please check the facts from your own sources.

Pakistan had accepted compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ in the case of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 (VCCR) by acceding to the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes 1963.

Pakistan at the ICJ

Experts wonder why ICJ jurisdiction was recognised in March

If you don't know, I bet it will be a great a surprise for you.

You are correct. I must've missed the news. I wasn't aware that Pakistan had issued a declaration in March 2017 accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.

I take back what I said earlier. It's a stupid decision by the Pak government to have done that.

Just wanted to bring in your notice if I may - Contempt of ICJ indirectly mean contempt of UN and international forums. Just give it a thought, will that impact your raising of Kashmir in UN and seeking international deliberations?

What exactly has UN done for Kashmir? Nothing but lip service. UN is very much without balls...it can't force any country to do anything. It has more use as a counseling service...as in it has played a role in mediation quite a few times. But if any country decides to not listen to UN, UN can't do squat. UN has been structured in a way where it serves the major powers.

The kashmir issue as it stands today will forever remain so unless both India/Pak seriously try to solve it.

1) Either both give up their claim on the other's part of Kashmir and sign some sort of agreement not to wage war against each other
- This could normalize relations over time to the point where ppl of Kashmir on both sides can move about freely without worrying about borders(like ppl of France/Germany do now...who were once bitter enemies)

2) Or both India/Pak could put aside their egos and just have UN(a third party...since neither India nor Pak trust each other) hold a plebiscite in Kashmir. Then whatever the result(whether to join India, or Pak, or independence) must be accepted by both countries...along with an agreement not to wage war on each other(India, Pak, and Kashmir if independence is chosen).
- This too would normalize relations over time.

The second solution is idealistic...the first one less so but still may never happen. In any case UN can't solve Kashmir only India/Pak can. Also just so u know it was India that first took the Kashmir issue to UN not Pak.

 

[oOo]

What exactly has UN done for Kashmir? Nothing but lip service. UN is very much without balls...it can't force any country to do anything. It has more use as a counseling service...as in it has played a role in mediation quite a few times. But if any country decides to not listen to UN, UN can't do squat. UN has been structured in a way where it serves the major powers.

The kashmir issue as it stands today will forever remain so unless both India/Pak seriously try to solve it.

1) Either both give up their claim on the other's part of Kashmir and sign some sort of agreement not to wage war against each other
- This could normalize relations over time to the point where ppl of Kashmir on both sides can move about freely without worrying about borders(like ppl of France/Germany do now...who were once bitter enemies)

2) Or both India/Pak could put aside their egos and just have UN(a third party...since neither India nor Pak trust each other) hold a plebiscite in Kashmir. Then whatever the result(whether to join India, or Pak, or independence) must be accepted by both countries...along with an agreement not to wage war on each other(India, Pak, and Kashmir if indepence is chosen).
- This too would normalize relations over time.

The second solution is idealistic...the first one less so but still may never happen. In any case UN can't solve Kashmir only India/Pak can. Also just so u know it was India that first took the Kashmir issue to UN not Pak.

Since you are no fan of UN and raising Kashmir in UN, I would club you with more informed and realistic ones.

Neither India nor Pakistan is willing to let go what they command and there is no option for a free Kashmir (recently acknowledged by your PM too). To be fair and honest, we all know that neither Indians are devil to oppress peaceful kashmiris, nor Pakistanis are satan to kill for fun. Had been no issues in the valley, there would be no Indian army to interrupt their lifestyle nor there be any harassment to people siding with secession.

I can live my life as a pakistani, just treat me well. Whats in the name of country and who cares who rule the state. If I am given due respect, I am done.

Let me give the best solution:
1- Make LoC an international border.
2- Sign peace treaty. No war anymore.
3- Drop the past baggage.
4- Ensure 5 year pf peace and harmony.
5- Slowly encourage tourism and people to people contact.
6- Allow kashmiris to cross IB with ease.
7- When there wont be hatred left, who cares who lives in what country.

 

[Ajaxpaul]

And guess what?
All four permanent members (US/France/Russia/China) rallied in favor of Britain and NOT India!

So much for Indo/Russian friendship?
Lol

Irrelevent , india got what it wanted. P5 has to swallow that.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Since you are no fan of UN and raising Kashmir in UN, I would club you with more informed and realistic ones.

Neither India nor Pakistan is willing to let go what they command and there is no option for a free Kashmir (recently acknowledged by your PM too). To be fair and honest, we all know that neither Indians are devil to oppress peaceful kashmiris, nor Pakistanis are satan to kill for fun. Had been no issues in the valley, there would be no Indian army to interrupt their lifestyle nor there be any harassment to people siding with secession.

I can live my life as a pakistani, just treat me well. Whats in the name of country and who cares who rule the state. If I am given due respect, I am done.

Let me give the best solution:
1- Make LoC an international border.
2- Sign peace treaty. No war anymore.
3- Drop the past baggage.
4- Ensure 5 year pf peace and harmony.
5- Slowly encourage tourism and people to people contact.
6- Allow kashmiris to cross IB with ease.
7- When there wont be hatred left, who cares who lives in what country.

I agree with u in that who cares about the nationality as long as u can live in peace and prosper. Everyone on earth is like that. The people of the subcontinent are no different. Hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis/Indians/Bangladeshis leave their home country to become Americans/Germans/French/British/etc...others who can't wish they could. All so that they can live a better life.

I also agree that neither Indians nor Pakistanis are inherently evil. In fact most ppl on earth aren't like that. Most ppl are just trying to live their daily day to day life...same old same old...get up go to work to provide for the family, etc. It's the same story everywhere.

Though I do disagree with this below...
"Had been no issues in the valley, there would be no Indian army to interrupt their lifestyle nor there be any harassment to people siding with secession."

The issues that u r talking about date back to pre partition. There was an active movement against the Dogra rule in Kashmir. Then when Pakistan was formed religious tensions were at the highest between Hindus/Muslims. This made kashmiris even more pro Pak(early on). That's why India had to keep a huge military presence to maintain peace. This exacerbated the problem...bcuz Kashmiris saw them as oppressors. The curfews, disappearances, arrests, rape, mass graves didn't help their image. So even if the early leanings towards Pak are gone, the Indian Kashmiris are still going to find it difficult to be pro India when they feel like they are treated unjustly and by force.

It's a negative feedback loop...the presence of the army hindering day to day lives(plus the bad apples doing their shenanigans every now and then) lead to more angered Kashmiris throwing stones or picking up weapons...which leads to keeping that large military presence in the region again leading to hatred in the hearts of Indian Kashmiris.

In my opinion keeping the military to force "peace" in Kashmir where it's free of protestors and freedom fighters isn't a solution. It only makes it a never ending problem.

As for the solution that u proposed...
"1- Make LoC an international border.
2- Sign peace treaty. No war anymore.
3- Drop the past baggage.
4- Ensure 5 year pf peace and harmony.
5- Slowly encourage tourism and people to people contact.
6- Allow kashmiris to cross IB with ease.
7- When there wont be hatred left, who cares who lives in what country."

Point 1 - I agree
Point 2 - I agree
Point 3 - Unrealistic...it's very hard to do...too much has happened. Hard for ppl to just forget. It would take a long time of peace and interaction between the ppl who are now enemies. Only time heals all.
Point 4 - same as 2
Point 5, 6, 7 - I agree

I wouldn't say it's the best solution...best maybe from the perspective of Pak and India...but not from the point of view of Kashmiris. I still think that Kashmiris on both sides should decide their future, whatever it maybe(including independence). If they are not allowed to choose for themselves then it again leaves room for dissatisfaction bringing the issue back to square one. The only hurdle here making this impossible is that neither India nor Pak would agree to this. Ur solution is somewhat more realistic but in my opinion not the best.

 

[Tom M]

You are correct. I must've missed the news. I wasn't aware that Pakistan had issued a declaration in March 2017 accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.

I take back what I said earlier. It's a stupid decision by the Pak government to have done that.

NP. Rather than blindly arguing, you've at-least accepted the facts on ground. Now whether the verdict is in favor or not, it is upto Pakistan to accept it or reject the ruling outright, nobody can force Pakistan to accept it. But remember there will be some implications.

What exactly has UN done for Kashmir? Nothing but lip service. UN is very much without balls...it can't force any country to do anything. It has more use as a counseling service...as in it has played a role in mediation quite a few times. But if any country decides to not listen to UN, UN can't do squat. UN has been structured in a way where it serves the major powers.

The kashmir issue as it stands today will forever remain so unless both India/Pak seriously try to solve it.

1) Either both give up their claim on the other's part of Kashmir and sign some sort of agreement not to wage war against each other
- This could normalize relations over time to the point where ppl of Kashmir on both sides can move about freely without worrying about borders(like ppl of France/Germany do now...who were once bitter enemies)

2) Or both India/Pak could put aside their egos and just have UN(a third party...since neither India nor Pak trust each other) hold a plebiscite in Kashmir. Then whatever the result(whether to join India, or Pak, or independence) must be accepted by both countries...along with an agreement not to wage war on each other(India, Pak, and Kashmir if independence is chosen).
- This too would normalize relations over time.

The second solution is idealistic...the first one less so but still may never happen. In any case UN can't solve Kashmir only India/Pak can. Also just so u know it was India that first took the Kashmir issue to UN not Pak.

Simla Agreement has already superseded UNSC resolution in reality. The issue has become bilateral in nature with that and everyone including the P5 had acknowledged it time and again.

Again I'm sorry to say you've greatly mistaken Kashmir issue and the associated resolutions. Let me correct you first. it's not UN resolution. It is UN security council resolution. UNSC resolution is just a resolution regarding Kashmir, more like some guidelines. It is non implementable as it was passed under Charter VI.

It is non binding in nature and hence, no obligations. Every resolution under Charter VI has nothing more than the value of tissue paper. :-(

Simla agreement on the other hand is an agreement and the signatories are obliged to follow it.

There is a lot of difference between a "resolution" and an "agreement" friend.

I agree with u in that who cares about the nationality as long as u can live in peace and prosper. Everyone on earth is like that. The people of the subcontinent are no different. Hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis/Indians/Bangladeshis leave their home country to become Americans/Germans/French/British/etc...others who can't wish they could. All so that they can live a better life.

I also agree that neither Indians nor Pakistanis are inherently evil. In fact most ppl on earth aren't like that. Most ppl are just trying to live their daily day to day life...same old same old...get up go to work to provide for the family, etc. It's the same story everywhere.

Though I do disagree with this below...
"Had been no issues in the valley, there would be no Indian army to interrupt their lifestyle nor there be any harassment to people siding with secession."

The issues that u r talking about date back to pre partition. There was an active movement against the Dogra rule in Kashmir. Then when Pakistan was formed religious tensions were at the highest between Hindus/Muslims. This made kashmiris even more pro Pak(early on). That's why India had to keep a huge military presence to maintain peace. This exacerbated the problem...bcuz Kashmiris saw them as oppressors. The curfews, disappearances, arrests, rape, mass graves didn't help their image. So even if the early leanings towards Pak are gone, the Indian Kashmiris are still going to find it difficult to be pro India when they feel like they are treated unjustly and by force.

It's a negative feedback loop...the presence of the army hindering day to day lives(plus the bad apples doing their shenanigans every now and then) lead to more angered Kashmiris throwing stones or picking up weapons...which leads to keeping that large military presence in the region again leading to hatred in the hearts of Indian Kashmiris.

In my opinion keeping the military to force "peace" in Kashmir where it's free of protestors and freedom fighters isn't a solution. It only makes it a never ending problem.

As for the solution that u proposed...
"1- Make LoC an international border.
2- Sign peace treaty. No war anymore.
3- Drop the past baggage.
4- Ensure 5 year pf peace and harmony.
5- Slowly encourage tourism and people to people contact.
6- Allow kashmiris to cross IB with ease.
7- When there wont be hatred left, who cares who lives in what country."

Point 1 - I agree
Point 2 - I agree
Point 3 - Unrealistic...it's very hard to do...too much has happened. Hard for ppl to just forget. It would take a long time of peace and interaction between the ppl who are now enemies. Only time heals all.
Point 4 - same as 2
Point 5, 6, 7 - I agree

I wouldn't say it's the best solution...best maybe from the perspective of Pak and India...but not from the point of view of Kashmiris. I still think that Kashmiris on both sides should decide their future, whatever it maybe(including independence). If they are not allowed to choose for themselves then it again leaves room for dissatisfaction bringing the issue back to square one. The only hurdle here making this impossible is that neither India nor Pak would agree to this. Ur solution is somewhat more realistic but in my opinion not the best.

With all due respect, neither India nor Pakistan would allow Kashmiri's to choose their destiny on their on. Even if a plebiscite is to be done (highly unlikely) it would have only one question. Which country does Kashmir's want to be part off ???? And your incumbent P.M had already reiterated the same few months back I guess.

 

[Cookie Monster]

NP. Rather than blindly arguing, you've at-least accepted the facts on ground. Now whether the verdict is in favor or not, it is upto Pakistan to accept it or reject the ruling outright, nobody can force Pakistan to accept it. But remember there will be some implications.




Simla Agreement has already superseded UNSC resolution in reality. The issue has become bilateral in nature with that and everyone including the P5 had acknowledged it time and again.

Again I'm sorry to say you've greatly mistaken Kashmir issue and the associated resolutions. Let me correct you first. it's not UN resolution. It is UN security council resolution. UNSC resolution is just a resolution regarding Kashmir, more like some guidelines. It is non implementable as it was passed under Charter VI.

It is non binding in nature and hence, no obligations. Every resolution under Charter VI has nothing more than the value of tissue paper. :-(

Simla agreement on the other hand is an agreement and the signatories are obliged to follow it.

There is a lot of difference between a "resolution" and an "agreement" friend.

This I'm aware of...and again I would say that UN can't enforce it. Like I said UN has no power of its own...it's power/authority is derived from countries agreeing to go along with whatever it is UN has decided. If they simply decide not to follow UN's decision, UN can't do anything.

The only time u will see UN actually enforcing something is when the big powers throw their weight behind it. Which really makes it the big powers getting something done and not UN itself(UN merely being a puppet/tool).

So Simla agreement or not...realistically speaking UN is powerless to do anything when it comes to Kashmir since it can neither force India nor Pak. Doesn't matter if India raises the issue at UN or Pak does...no solution has come out of it nor will it ever.

Anyways I don't know what exactly it is u r "teaching" me here. I never denied Simla agreement. In fact I wasn't even talking about it. My discussion was about the actual "authority" of UN.

With all due respect, neither India nor Pakistan would allow Kashmiri's to choose their destiny on their on. Even if a plebiscite is to be done (highly unlikely) it would have only one question. Which country does Kashmir's want to be part off ???? And your incumbent P.M had already reiterated the same few months back I guess.

I don't know what u r trying to argue here. Read what I wrote again. I said that myself that neither India nor Pak would ever agree to it but in my opinion it's better to let Kashmiris decide rather than India/Pak forcing their will upon them and ruling out independence.

 

[Tom M]

This I'm aware of...and again I would say that UN can't enforce it. Like I said UN has no power of its own...it's power/authority is derived from countries agreeing to go along with whatever it is UN has decided. If they simply decide not to follow UN's decision, UN can't do anything.

The only time u will see UN actually enforcing something is when the big powers throw their weight behind it. Which really makes it the big powers getting something done and not UN itself(UN merely being a puppet/tool).

So Simla agreement or not...realistically speaking UN is powerless to do anything when it comes to Kashmir since it can neither force India nor Pak. Doesn't matter if India raises the issue at UN or Pak does...no solution has come out of it nor will it ever.

While I completely agree with what you just said.

There is a legal angle of the same which says anything passed under charter-VI is non Implementable. Even the P-5 can't change that (at present). Please find the articles under it provided below. The maximum that UN and UNSC can do is under Article 38 of Chapter VI and I've highlighted the same there.

Chapter VI - Pacific Settlement of Disputes
Article 33

1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 34
The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 35

1. Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.
2. A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.
3. The proceedings of the General Assembly in respect of matters brought to its attention under this Article will be subject to the provisions of Articles 11 and 12.

Article 36

1. The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.
2. The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.
3. In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.

Article 37

1. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.

1. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate

Article 38
Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 33 to 37, the Security Council may, if all the parties to any dispute so request, make recommendations to the parties with a view to a pacific settlement of the dispute.

This I'm aware of...and again I would say that UN can't enforce it. Like I said UN has no power of its own...it's power/authority is derived from countries agreeing to go along with whatever it is UN has decided. If they simply decide not to follow UN's decision, UN can't do anything.

The only time u will see UN actually enforcing something is when the big powers throw their weight behind it. Which really makes it the big powers getting something done and not UN itself(UN merely being a puppet/tool).

So Simla agreement or not...realistically speaking UN is powerless to do anything when it comes to Kashmir since it can neither force India nor Pak. Doesn't matter if India raises the issue at UN or Pak does...no solution has come out of it nor will it ever.

Anyways I don't know what exactly it is u r "teaching" me here. I never denied Simla agreement. In fact I wasn't even talking about it. My discussion was about the actual "authority" of UN.


I don't know what u r trying to argue here. Read what I wrote again. I said that myself that neither India nor Pak would ever agree to it but in my opinion it's better to let Kashmiris decide rather than India/Pak forcing their will upon them and ruling out independence.

Sorry, I'm not trying to argue. I've read completely what you have written above, and I respect your personal opinion which is more or less same to most of us here I guess. But I was just saying the practical issues. neither of our countries will ever allow Kashmir to even think about independence, let alone vote for it.

 

[Cookie Monster]

While I completely agree with what you just said.

There is a legal angle of the same which says anything passed under charter-VI is non Implementable. Even the P-5 can't change that (at present). Please find the articles under it provided below. The maximum that UN and UNSC can do is under Article 38 of Chapter VI and I've highlighted the same there.

Chapter VI - Pacific Settlement of Disputes
Article 33

1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 34
The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 35

1. Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.
2. A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.
3. The proceedings of the General Assembly in respect of matters brought to its attention under this Article will be subject to the provisions of Articles 11 and 12.

Article 36

1. The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.
2. The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.
3. In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.

Article 37

1. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.

1. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate

Article 38
Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 33 to 37, the Security Council may, if all the parties to any dispute so request, make recommendations to the parties with a view to a pacific settlement of the dispute.

Wait so if u r in agreement with me...what exactly are u debating here then?

Sorry, I'm not trying to argue. I've read completely what you have written above, and I respect your personal opinion which is more or less same to most of us here I guess. But I was just saying the practical issues. neither of our countries will ever allow Kashmir to even think about independence, let alone vote for it.

I also said that in that same post that the solution which I think is the best is "idealistic" and not realistic. Neither country would allow it.

 

[Tom M]

Wait so if u r in agreement with me...what exactly are u debating here then?


I also said that in that same post that the solution which I think is the best is also "ideal" and not realistic. Neither country would allow it.

I don't think any ideal solution really exist. I'm just a bit more realistic, nothing else.

 

[Cookie Monster]

I don't think any ideal solution really exist. I'm just a bit more realistic, nothing else.

Ideal solutions can exist as a thought. A thought which seeks the betterment of ppl as a whole(regardless of race, gender, nationality, religion)...and when enough ppl have such thoughts, these thoughts can become a reality.

@El Sidd @Joe Shearer
Mmm look at those words up there...this is what PDF is doing to me...it's like I'm turning into some complex and deep philosophical poet of some kind

 

[Tom M]

Ideal solutions can exist as a thought. A thought which seeks the betterment of ppl as a whole(regardless of race, gender, nationality, religion)...and when enough ppl have such thoughts, these thoughts can become a reality.

I won't discourage you. And hope for the same. But don't see a ray of hope anytime soon. But let it happen.

 

[PRAM007]

Indians should understand that Britain did it for their own greater good. Overriding the decision of GA using SC power would have created an adverse image of present SC setup in the UN and would have probably hasten the reform process of SC in UN. SC can go but would not want to go against the majority(2/3rd) will of GA, else UN will loose whatever little credibility it has. With this decision UK prolonged the status quo in SC for 5-7 years more. Indians may have won the battle but war was won by Britain. So, they should not get over excited. British are cunning diplomats. No wonder Britain ruled the subcontinent for 200+ years.

this clearly show the strength india possesses in GA that would act as catalyst of its induction in to sc .. this would make it way in SC fast