Indian forces arrest more than 1,000 protesters in Kashmir

[Levina]

I am well aware of physical and human geography of Jammu and Kashmir state, and the history of the dispute

Do you really know the history of Kashmir? If so, when exactly does your version of Kashmir's history begin?

. Sooner or later, the one hundred thousand Kashmiri Pandits (too) had to leave the predominantly Muslim Kashmir valley

Correction:
Kashmiri Pandits were FORCED to leave.

Millions (Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs) were forced to migrate. So were the Kashmiri Pandits. What's the big deal ?

Do not compare killing,raping and exodus of Kashmiri Pandits with something that happened almost 65 years back. In the recent history, we (in India) have not seen anything like what happened in 1989.
The fact that it's not a "big deal" for you is a proof that you never cared for all the kashmiris. Infact, support for Kashmiri Muslims is also superficial.
Pakistan must accept that Kashmir happens to be the origin of all the rivers which flow into Pakistan and at the heart of Kashmir issue is a water-war.

Do you know that if Line of Control (LoC) between India and Pakistan in Kashmir, were to move from being a defacto to a recognised IB,then India would permanently become the upper riparian and Pakistan the lower riparian of the Indus River and all of its tributaries???
Interestingly, Indus is the only river system supporting Pakistan, unlike India which depends on 2 river systems.
Pakistan is in dire need of the water for 92 per cent of its land is either arid or semi-arid. With an increasing population and drying water resources, Pakistan understands that it needs to have a control over this water system.
In short,Kashmir dispute and disputes over the sharing of water resources are intertwined.
Since you claim your history is good enough, the sequence of events that I'm about to list should help you understand the correlation between the two.
1. Standstill Agreement between India and Pakistan expired on March 31, 1948. On the following day Indian Punjab cut off water flow to Pakistan.
2. April 21, 1948, a resolution calling for a ceasefire and withdrawal of all troops was passed.

It had dawned on Pak authorities that despite being a separate entity it was still dependent on India. When in the early days of independence, India had shut the Central Bari Doab Canals, it caused a significant damage to Pakistan's crops.

Pakistan realised too soon that its prosperity was dependent on the rivers and indirectly in the origin of the rivers.Also, the fact that India has the strategically advantageous position with regards to control and flow of water.
The Indus water treaty brought relief for few years but with increasing population on both sides, water resources came under increasing stress.
By the dawn of 1990s or say late 1980s, Pakistan realised how India's ambitious irrigation project plans had increased Kashmir's hydrological importance.
The exodus of KPs happened around this time. Coincidence!!!

Let show you more proof as to how organisations within Pakistan which have been linked with terrorist activities in India, such as JuD are also supporting the cause

JuD chief Hafiz Saeed warns of jihad to ‘free’ Pak rivers from India

So this is how terrorism, Kashmir and water are related.

Btw giving different definitions of terrorism isn't gonna help your cause, even ISIS believes that it's not a terrorist organisation.
India, as I said earlier, doesn't have the history of being associated with TERRORISM and while it gets appreciation from all quarters for its efforts to get a few nations listed as terrorist states. The day we are successful Kashmir will be a non-issue.

Kashmir is the unfinished agenda of Partition.

Merely for Pakistan.

 

[Deepika Maheshwari]

What Argument ? Do You even know the basics ?

Okay, Please tell us which UNSC Resolutions term SCS 'disputed' and give the right to self determination to the 'natives' (whatever you mean by that) of SCS ??







The UN Security Council discussions of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, clearly laid down that "the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite."

As clarified by the UN representatives on several occasions, these UNSC Resolutions are still valid.

If you have forgotten, China lost the case in Permanent Court of Arbitration and denied respecting the decision even though they signed the convention in 1907 to abide by its decision.

Secondly, China is signatory to UNCLOS and yet they are disrupting the safe passage of ships through international waters.

If Chinese can decide to overlook an international body to which they promised that they will abide by and to disregard UN conventions at will, because it suites their national interest, why do you expect India to respect any UN mandate? Who the hell is UNSC if PCA can be set aside at whim? We will do exactly what is in our strategic interest.

@Solomon2

Can you make Chinese respect the 'Justice' and 'self determination'? Last I remember Tibet is in Chinese rule even though Tibetians are not exactly very keen to be under Chinese. What did you do to make China respect all of this Justice in Tiemanan Square.

 

[Vapnope]

What kashmiris want matters a rat's arse. India wants Kashmir with or without kashmiris - preferably without.

Something which your country statesmen do not want to accept on international forums. We all know you give rat *** to kashmiris and their plight. Kudos to you for being truthful about it.

 

[Deepika Maheshwari]

Something which your country statesmen do not want to accept on international forums. We all know you give rat *** to kashmiris and their plight. Kudos to you for being truthful about it.

Well, I have no shame in accepting being naked underneath my clothes. We, like any other nation, are very much self serving. If our national interests are compromised, then hell with the world.

 

[M. Sarmad]

If you have forgotten, China lost the case in Permanent Court of Arbitration and denied respecting the decision even though they signed the convention in 1907 to abide by its decision.

Secondly, China is signatory to UNCLOS and yet they are disrupting the safe passage of ships through international waters.

If Chinese can decide to overlook an international body to which they promised that they will abide by and to disregard UN conventions at will, because it suites their national interest, why do you expect India to respect any UN mandate? Who the hell is UNSC if PCA can be set aside at whim? We will do exactly what is in our strategic interest.

@Solomon2

Can you make Chinese respect the 'Justice' and 'self determination'? Last I remember Tibet is in Chinese rule even though Tibetians are not exactly very keen to be under Chinese. What did you do to make China respect all of this Justice in Tiemanan Square.

Firstly, China refused to participate in the 'arbitration' . Why ?? ... Because this case was in essence related to territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. Territorial issues are not subject to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). So, the arbitral tribunal formed for the case had no jurisdiction over the issue. China’s foreign ministry had said the entire case was “an abuse of international law and the international arbitration mechanism.” and that China would not accept the verdict.



Secondly, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is NOT a UN agency. The UN has already clarified that it has no position regarding the legal or procedural merits of the SCS case. And the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said that "the Award in the South China Sea Arbitration was issued by an Arbitral Tribunal acting with the secretarial assistance of the PCA. ICJ, a totally distinct institution, has had no involvement in the case."




As for Kashmir Dispute, India itself took the Kashmir dispute to the UN Security Council in 1948, where it is still registered as such and thus remains a pending agenda till it is resolved. The Indian Representative, in his letter to the President of the Security Council, regarding the status of the State clarified that finally "its people would be free to decide their future by the recognised democratic method of a plebiscite or referendum which, in order to ensure complete impartiality, might be held under international auspices". The UN Security Council discussions led to the resolutions of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, which clearly laid down that "the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite." These UN resolutions are still valid . They can become invalid only when the UN Security Council declares them null and void.




You are trying to compare apples and oranges.


Next time, before posting something here, make sure that you have your facts straight so that you don't end up making an even bigger idiot out of yourself than you already are.

Thank You.

Do you really know the history of Kashmir? If so, when exactly does your version of Kashmir's history begin?



Correction:
Kashmiri Pandits were FORCED to leave.



Do not compare killing,raping and exodus of Kashmiri Pandits with something that happened almost 65 years back. In the recent history, we (in India) have not seen anything like what happened in 1989.
The fact that it's not a "big deal" for you is a proof that you never cared for all the kashmiris. Infact, support for Kashmiri Muslims is also superficial.
Pakistan must accept that Kashmir happens to be the origin of all the rivers which flow into Pakistan and at the heart of Kashmir issue is a water-war.

Do you know that if Line of Control (LoC) between India and Pakistan in Kashmir, were to move from being a defacto to a recognised IB,then India would permanently become the upper riparian and Pakistan the lower riparian of the Indus River and all of its tributaries???
Interestingly, Indus is the only river system supporting Pakistan, unlike India which depends on 2 river systems.
Pakistan is in dire need of the water for 92 per cent of its land is either arid or semi-arid. With an increasing population and drying water resources, Pakistan understands that it needs to have a control over this water system.
In short,Kashmir dispute and disputes over the sharing of water resources are intertwined.
Since you claim your history is good enough, the sequence of events that I'm about to list should help you understand the correlation between the two.
1. Standstill Agreement between India and Pakistan expired on March 31, 1948. On the following day Indian Punjab cut off water flow to Pakistan.
2. April 21, 1948, a resolution calling for a ceasefire and withdrawal of all troops was passed.

It had dawned on Pak authorities that despite being a separate entity it was still dependent on India. When in the early days of independence, India had shut the Central Bari Doab Canals, it caused a significant damage to Pakistan's crops.

Pakistan realised too soon that its prosperity was dependent on the rivers and indirectly in the origin of the rivers.Also, the fact that India has the strategically advantageous position with regards to control and flow of water.
The Indus water treaty brought relief for few years but with increasing population on both sides, water resources came under increasing stress.
By the dawn of 1990s or say late 1980s, Pakistan realised how India's ambitious irrigation project plans had increased Kashmir's hydrological importance.
The exodus of KPs happened around this time. Coincidence!!!

Let show you more proof as to how organisations within Pakistan which have been linked with terrorist activities in India, such as JuD are also supporting the cause

JuD chief Hafiz Saeed warns of jihad to ‘free’ Pak rivers from India

So this is how terrorism, Kashmir and water are related.

Btw giving different definitions of terrorism isn't gonna help your cause, even ISIS believes that it's not a terrorist organisation.
India, as I said earlier, doesn't have the history of being associated with TERRORISM and while it gets appreciation from all quarters for its efforts to get a few nations listed as terrorist states. The day we are successful Kashmir will be a non-issue.


Merely for Pakistan.

1) I hope You realize that there is a difference between history and mythology

2) I was not giving "my" definitions of terrorism. I was talking about the UN and other international bodies. Read my post once again


Rest of your comment does not deserve a (serious) reply.

 

[Deepika Maheshwari]

Firstly, China refused to participate in the 'arbitration' . Why ?? ... Because this case was in essence related to territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. Territorial issues are not subject to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). So, the arbitral tribunal formed for the case had no jurisdiction over the issue. China’s foreign ministry had said the entire case was “an abuse of international law and the international arbitration mechanism.” and that China would not accept the verdict.

What you forgot conveniently was the fact that China is a signatory to PCA convention which it signed in 1907. If they don't participate in the 'arbitration' then they are subjected to ex-parte decision. Lastly, their act of non-participation shows that they have a no claim to SCS.

Secondly, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is NOT a UN agency. The UN has already clarified that it has no position regarding the legal or procedural merits of the SCS case. And the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said that "the Award in the South China Sea Arbitration was issued by an Arbitral Tribunal acting with the secretarial assistance of the PCA. ICJ, a totally distinct institution, has had no involvement in the case."

PCA is not a UN agency; however China is a signatory to PCA convention. Treaty (I) of this convention is called "Pacific Settlement of International Disputes". Among the various articles to this convention here are few (Kindly refer to Part IV, Chapter I) :-

"
International arbitration has for its object the settlement of disputes between States by Judges of their own choice and on the basis of respect for law.

Recourse to arbitration implies an engagement to submit in good faith to the Award.

In questions of a legal nature, and especially in the interpretation or application of International Conventions, arbitration is recognized by the Contracting Powers as the most effective, and, at the same time, the most equitable means of settling disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle.

Consequently, it would be desirable that, in disputes about the above-mentioned questions, the Contracting Powers should, if the case arose, have recourse to arbitration, in so far as circumstances permit."

China ratified this in 1910. They are supposed to follow it. I doubt that they are doing it.

As far as UNCLOS goes, it may be surprising to you, but territorial disputes, especially regarding right to safe passage comes under this convention. Infact, Philipines approached PCA citing UNCLOS.

As for Kashmir Dispute, India itself took the Kashmir dispute to the UN Security Council in 1948, where it is still registered as such and thus remains a pending agenda till it is resolved. The Indian Representative, in his letter to the President of the Security Council, regarding the status of the State clarified that finally "its people would be free to decide their future by the recognised democratic method of a plebiscite or referendum which, in order to ensure complete impartiality, might be held under international auspices". The UN Security Council discussions led to the resolutions of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, which clearly laid down that "the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite." These UN resolutions are still valid . They can become invalid only when the UN Security Council declares them null and void.

These resolutions are advisory recommendations and not under Chapter VII. Meaning, they are not exactly enforcable by UNSC. Further, UNSC has quite a few times 'forgotten' to mention J&K in the list of disputed territories. Latest being November 2010.

You are trying to compare apples and oranges.


Next time, before posting something here, make sure that you have your facts straight so that you don't end up making an even bigger idiot out of yourself than you already are.

Thank You.

Well, next time refrain from passing stupid judgement like you are doing.

 

[I S I]

Where does your loyalty certificate come from brother? Saudi Arabia or Iran?

Why not both?

 

[adil_minhas]

Why not both?

Even better brother.

You should be the safest man in Pakistan now. Khush reh bhai.

 

[M. Sarmad]

What you forgot conveniently was the fact that China is a signatory to PCA convention which it signed in 1907. If they don't participate in the 'arbitration' then they are subjected to ex-parte decision. Lastly, their act of non-participation shows that they have a no claim to SCS.



PCA is not a UN agency; however China is a signatory to PCA convention. Treaty (I) of this convention is called "Pacific Settlement of International Disputes". Among the various articles to this convention here are few (Kindly refer to Part IV, Chapter I) :-

"
International arbitration has for its object the settlement of disputes between States by Judges of their own choice and on the basis of respect for law.

Recourse to arbitration implies an engagement to submit in good faith to the Award.

In questions of a legal nature, and especially in the interpretation or application of International Conventions, arbitration is recognized by the Contracting Powers as the most effective, and, at the same time, the most equitable means of settling disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle.

Consequently, it would be desirable that, in disputes about the above-mentioned questions, the Contracting Powers should, if the case arose, have recourse to arbitration, in so far as circumstances permit."

China ratified this in 1910. They are supposed to follow it. I doubt that they are doing it.

As far as UNCLOS goes, it may be surprising to you, but territorial disputes, especially regarding right to safe passage comes under this convention. Infact, Philipines approached PCA citing UNCLOS.

A lot has been said/discussed (here on PDF, and elsewhere) about China's position regarding SCS issue (and China's justified rejection of PCA tribunal established at the unilateral request of the Philippines). But that's not what this discussion was about.

You were trying to compare it with the Kashmir Dispute, and as already explained, it was an illogical and uninformed comparison.

These resolutions are advisory recommendations and not under Chapter VII. Meaning, they are not exactly enforcable by UNSC. Further, UNSC has quite a few times 'forgotten' to mention J&K in the list of disputed territories. Latest being November 2010

Care to explain What you mean by not exactly enforceable ?

And In Nov 2010, it was an inadvertent omission (of Jammu and Kashmir dispute) in a statement by the President of Security Council, while it was duly mentioned in the Annual Report of the Security Council and was also present on its agenda. The Indian Media claimed that "Jammu and Kashmir out of U.N. list of disputes", and described it as "a huge set back for Pakistan" .. The UN had set the record straight the very next day, on November 16, 2010, when it clarified that Jammu and Kashmir dispute remained on its agenda and rejected such media reports as "inaccurate". But the Indian Media obviously didn't make it clear to the gullible Indians that it was a 'mistake' (Maybe it was an intentional deception?) and as a result a lot of Indians still believe that Kashmir Dispute has been removed from the UN list of unresolved disputes since 2010 !

Well, next time refrain from passing stupid judgement like you are doing.

Or alternatively, you may refrain from posting stupid comments and comparisons like you are doing ... No ?

 

[I S I]

Even better brother.

You should be the safest man in Pakistan now. Khush reh bhai.

Shukria bhai. Allah tumhain bhi hifazat se rakhe India main. Hope they don't beat you up this coming Bakra Eid.

 

[guyhandz]

Lashkar-e-Taiba fuelling large scale protests in Kashmir: India

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...sts-in-Kashmir-India/articleshow/53633232.cms

 

[Kao Boy]

Good finally they have started arresting them

Throw them in jails and beat the S**T out of them

We can put them in jail without trial for TWO years under Public safety act

I think that should be a standard reply to such posts.

Mr Burhan Wani (The Departed) and many like him : If you live by sword then you will die by sword!

 

[Deepika Maheshwari]

Care to explain What you mean by not exactly enforceable ?

Resolutions of 1948 and 1949 are under Chapter VI of UNSC charter. These resolutions are generally understood to be non binding and advisory in nature. This is in contrast to those under Chapter VII of UNSC charter which are binding and interventional in nature. Hence, UNSC cannot exactly enforce these resolutions. I do not have ability to post links as of yet otherwise I would have posted. My sources are easily discoverable by googling Chapter VI of UNSC and Chapter VII of UNSC charter.

Or alternatively, you may refrain from posting stupid comments and comparisons like you are doing ... No ?

I feel that current situation in Kashmir is a matter internal to India. Since you fail to accept that Kashmir, atleast the portion administered by India is Indian territory, I am simply explaining my understanding to you. If there is another particular thread which contains this subject matter in sufficient detail, I will be more than happy to take this discussion there and will link that to my further posts.

A lot has been said/discussed (here and elsewhere) about China's position regarding SCS issue. But that's not what this discussion was about.

You were trying to compare it with the Kashmir Dispute, and as already explained, it was an illogical and uninformed comparison.

I am fine to take this matter of discussion in another thread if you will be kind enough to link it. I disagree that this comparison is illogical and uninformed. If at all, you have shown limited understanding of legal standing of dispute between India and Pakistan and that of international treaties and conventions.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Resolutions of 1948 and 1949 are under Chapter VI of UNSC charter. These resolutions are generally understood to be non binding and advisory in nature. This is in contrast to those under Chapter VII of UNSC charter which are binding and interventional in nature. Hence, UNSC cannot exactly enforce these resolutions. I do not have ability to post links as of yet otherwise I would have posted. My sources are easily discoverable by googling Chapter VI of UNSC and Chapter VII of UNSC charter.

1) UN maintains that "NO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CAN BE DESCRIBED AS UNENFORCEABLE."


2) There always has been a general inability of the Permanent Five to agree upon imaginative and expansive applications of Chapter VI ... In Somalia, the Security Council deployed the UN's first operation, UNOSOM I, in mid-1992 to separate warring combatants and help delivery of humanitarian relief ....

UNOSOM I entered and operated without invoking Chapter VII

Further Reading: http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/6/1/1305.pdf



3) India approached UN under Chapter VI of the UN charter , BUT the decision taken by UN reflected that its resolutions were not based exclusively on this chapter .... The resolutions , apart from chapter VI , are based upon other chapters , including chapter VII

The fact that there does not exist any provision for the deputing of UN peace keeping mission under chapter VI makes it obvious that UN resolutions were not exclusively based on chapter VI .... The interim measures which included cease fire and deputation of United Nations Military Observer Group were based on Article 40 of chapter VII ...

Besides chapter VI and VII , UN resolutions are based on other chapters also(i.e Article 1 , Chapter I (2) and Article 55 , Chapter IX) ...

^^ And this is not my personal opinion. That is Rosalyn Higgins' opinion on 'Kashmir Resolutions and under which chapter they were passed' .. Source: 'Higgins, Rosalyn. United Nations Peace Keeping 1946-67: Documents and Commentary. London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1970. (349-51)

(Rosalyn Higgins is an expert on International Law; a Doctor of Juridical Science. She has served as a Judge in the International Court of Justice for fourteen years (and was elected President in 2006). Her competence has been recognised by many academic institutions, having received at least thirteen honorary doctorates)




4) While a recommendation under Chapter 6 by itself "may not" be binding, this is not the case in the Kashmir dispute. Here, the parties have consented to be bound by the resolutions of 13 August and 5 January. (13 M. WHITEMAN, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 360 (1968).



5) The UNSC Resolutions endorsed a binding agreement between India and Pakistan reached through the mediation of UNCIP, that a plebiscite would be held, under agreed and specified conditions. A letter dated December 23, 1948, from India's Secretary-General of the Ministry of External Affairs to the Representative of UNCIP, stated that the Indian Prime Minister's acceptance of the 5 January resolution was conditioned on Pakistan's acceptance of the resolution. By this letter, India consented to be bound by the resolution of 5 January and, through this, the resolution of 13 August as well. (Aide Memoire No. 1, Letter Dated 23 December 1948 From the Secretary General of the Ministry of External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations of the Government of India to Mr. Alfredo Lozano, Representative of UNCIP at 23, U.N. Doc. S/1196 (1949)




6) Self-Determination as a Binding Rule of International Law

13 Four instances may inform the principle of self-determination with a legal dimension.

(i) The principle of self-determination is binding upon the parties, whether they have adopted it as the basis or as a criterion for the settlement of a particular issue or dispute. In the peace treaties after World War I, and in the cases of Kashmir (after 1948), the Saar Territory (1955), and Algeria’s struggle for independence, the principle of self-determination was chosen as a basis for negotiation, and in the Agreement on Ending War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam (1973) the parties expressly recognized the South Vietnamese people’s right to self-determination.


http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873





7) The binding nature of these UN resolutions (as acknowledged by Indian officials)



Finally some quotes from Indian officials on Kashmir exemplifying their commitment to plebiscite rather than forced accession as history has found them do :-

We adhere strictly to our pledge of plebiscite in Kashmir; a pledge made to the people because they believe in democratic government; We don't regard Kashmir as a commodity to be trafficked in -Krishna Menon (Press statement in London, reported in the Statesman, New Delhi, 2nd August, 1951)

The Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible -Letter from Govt. of India to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, 11th September, 1951

I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken.
-Krishna Menon (Statement at UN Security Council, 24th January, 1957)

The resolutions of January 17, 1948 and the resolutions of the UNICP, the assurances given, these are all resolutions which carry a greater weight; that is because we have accepted them, we are parties to them, whether we like them or not. -Krishna Menon, (Statement at UN Security Council, 20th February, 1957)

These documents (UNCIP reports) and declarations and the resolutions of the Security Council are decisions; they are resolutions, there has been some resolving of a question of one character or another, there has been a meeting of minds on this question where we have committed ourselves to it. -Krishna Menon, (Statement at the Security Council, 9th October, 1957)


India believes that sovereignty rests in the people and should return to them. -Krishna Menon, (The Statesman, Delhi, 19th January, 1962)





Therefore, India is bound by word and deed to leave the future of Kashmir to the will of its people.

I feel that current situation in Kashmir is a matter internal to India. Since you fail to accept that Kashmir, atleast the portion administered by India is Indian territory

You may believe in whatever you want but the fact remains that Kashmir is an internationally recognized disputed territory under International Law whose final accession (to India or Pakistan) is yet to be decided.

I disagree that this comparison is illogical and uninformed. If at all, you have shown limited understanding of legal standing of dispute between India and Pakistan and that of international treaties and conventions.

Again, You may agree/disagree with whatever you want. I have clearly explained in my previous posts that why this comparison is illogical and uninformed. And I hadn't even discussed legal technicalities with you as that clearly is not your forte.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

@Azlan Haider @Deepika Maheshwari

UN resolutions on Kashmir have long gone past their utility and relevance

Forget about UN ; If Pakistan can get OIC to act ; it would be a MAJOR achievement

By the Way there is ALSO a very RECENT
UN resolution on NOT supporting terrorists
and not giving them Fertile grounds for carrying out their activities