Kashmir's illegal occupation by India justifies calls for Azadi: JNU Professor.

[DesiGuy1403]

I don't support Yakub. I don't support Kasab either. But Kasab got due process. Yakub did not. Use your head. Nobody would have raised a voice even if Kasab was executed on the day of his capture(except may be concerned that the chance to nail Pak authorities was missed).

May be we should ask people of Mumbai who lost their near and dear ones if Yakub got justice!

Sorry, you support terrorists and are now bringing in all kinds of nonsense to justify your support for terrorists.
As long as you post your view supporting these kinds of terrorists who killed Indians, I will keep exposing you.

Next what? Will u guys bat for Godse on some pretext?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Nehru asked for ceasefire and UN ordered plebiscide under Indian army presence. For which Pakistan needed to vacate, which they didn't.

Pakistani military withdrawals under the UNSC resolutions were subject to an agreement between India, Pakistan and the UN appointed mediators on the specifics of the withdrawal. That agreement was never arrived at, largely due to Indian obduracy, so in that sense India is responsible for the lack of UNSC implementation.

Please see the discussion on the thread below to understand why:
https://defence.pk/threads/pakistan...agreement-sources.392233/page-11#post-7551106

 

[ito]

Pakistani military withdrawals under the UNSC resolutions were subject to an agreement between India, Pakistan and the UN appointed mediators on the specifics of the withdrawal. That agreement was never arrived at, largely due to Indian obduracy, so in that sense India is responsible for the lack of UNSC implementation.

Please see the discussion on the thread below to understand why:
https://defence.pk/threads/pakistan...agreement-sources.392233/page-11#post-7551106

But again, UN resolutions on Kashmir are voluntary on India. In that India is not responsible for the lack of UNSC implementation.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But again, UN resolutions on Kashmir are voluntary on India. In that India is not responsible for the lack of UNSC implementation.

This "voluntary" "non-binding" argument keeps being brought up - the fact is that there is nothing in the UN Charter that declares Chapter VI vs Chapter VII resolutions more/less binding than the other. The only distinguishing aspect is that Chapter VII resolutions can have enforcement mechanisms included. That said, how many other international treaties or agreements have 'enforcement mechanisms' along the lines of UNSC Chapter VII resolutions built in? Does the Simla Agreement have an enforcement mechanism? Even the IWT has a mechanism for international arbitration but no actual enforcement mechanisms built in.

The Indian government officially and repeatedly agreed to UNSC mediation (requested it in fact) and agreed to implement the UNSC Resolutions on J&K. There is nothing different about this agreement vs any other agreement or treaty India has entered into, save for the fact that India is choosing to willfully violate this particular agreement on the mechanisms of resolving the J&K dispute.

 

[rubyjackass]

May be we should ask people of Mumbai who lost their near and dear ones if Yakub got justice!

Sorry, you support terrorists and are now bringing in all kinds of nonsense to justify your support for terrorists.
As long as you post your view supporting these kinds of terrorists who killed Indians, I will keep exposing you.

Next what? Will u guys bat for Godse on some pretext?

Even terrorists get due process. That is how it is supposed to be. Asking that is not supporting a terrorist. Tomorrow you will also call the President of India anti-national for pardoning someone. There is a reason why justice is decided by the State and not the victims.

Lol exposing me. Good luck with that.

No and No.

By that logic we can kill anyone who speaks against India and those who invite them to speak, Umar Khalid and likes. And take action against those who don't report them, like Kanhiya. But we didn't kill them.

No that is not the logic. Comprehend what I wrote. Use your brains. Declaring war on a country is one thing. Calling the country to follow the spirit of the constitution or even for changes in constitution is different.

 

[ito]

This "voluntary" "non-binding" argument keeps being brought up - the fact is that there is nothing in the UN Charter that declares Chapter VII vs Chapter VIII resolutions more/less binding than the other. The only distinguishing aspect is that Chapter VIII resolutions can have enforcement mechanisms included. That said, how many other international treaties or agreements have 'enforcement mechanisms' along the lines of UNSC Chapter VIII resolutions built in? Does the Simla Agreement have an enforcement mechanism? Even the IWT has a mechanism for international arbitration but no actual enforcement mechanisms built in.

The Indian government officially and repeatedly agreed to UNSC mediation (requested it in fact) and agreed to implement the UNSC Resolutions on J&K. There is nothing different about this agreement vs any other agreement or treaty India has entered into, save for the fact that India is choosing to willfully violate this particular agreement on the mechanisms of resolving the J&K dispute.

For a Pakistani, "voluntary" "non-binding" may be just a nomenclature, but for India, they give the perfect legal alibi not to conduct the plebiscite.

These are the exact words of Koffi Annan

“The UN resolutions that come under chapter 7 of the charter were self-enforcing like those related to East Timor and Iraq. The second type of resolutions which do not fall in the purview of chapter 7 needed cooperation of the concerned parties for their implementation.

“The UN resolutions on Kashmir do not fall in the category of chapter 7 and hence required cooperation of the concerned parties for their implementation and in this case it is lacking,” Annan said.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

For a Pakistani, "voluntary" "non-binding" may be just a nomenclature, but for India, they give the perfect legal alibi not to conduct the plebiscite.

There is no 'voluntary' or 'non-binding' nomenclature in the UN Charter with respect to Chapter VI vs Chapter VII.

As I said, the only distinguishing aspect between the two is the Chapter VII (typo on my part in my earlier post) allows for enforcement mechanisms to be put in place, but the majority of international treaties and agreements do not have the kinds of enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure implementation that Chapter VII resolutions can have, so does that mean all such international treaties and agreements should be considered 'voluntary'?

 

[ito]

There is no 'voluntary' or 'non-binding' nomenclature in the UN Charter with respect to Chapter VI vs Chapter VII.

As I said, the only distinguishing aspect between the two is the Chapter VII (typo on my part in my earlier post) allows for enforcement mechanisms to be put in place, but the majority of international treaties and agreements do not have the kinds of enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure implementation that Chapter VII resolutions can have, so does that mean all such international treaties and agreements should be considered 'voluntary'?

You seem not get the point I am making. I am saying why India has not legally violated any UN resolutions. We are not discussing about other treaties, but I guess majority of them are enforceable. But UN has two Chapters under which a resolution can be passed, and each of them have different enforceable mechanisms. The explicit mention of enforceable mechanisms is what makes a resolution passed under Chapter 7 quite different from that passed under Chapter 6, and why UN resolutions can be quite different from the agreements and treaties you mentioned before in your previous post.

 

[axisofevil]

Even terrorists get due process. That is how it is supposed to be. Asking that is not supporting a terrorist. Tomorrow you will also call the President of India anti-national for pardoning someone. There is a reason why justice is decided by the State and not the victims.

Lol exposing me. Good luck with that.

No and No.


No that is not the logic. Comprehend what I wrote. Use your brains. Declaring war on a country is one thing. Calling the country to follow the spirit of the constitution or even for changes in constitution is different.

Nah bro terrorists use the freedoms and democratic system to get away with their ways. Such actions have to be called into play, because of there tactics they utilize. The main issue is controlling it properly so it used for only issues only like a severe national security threat.

Its very simple when the king signed Kashmir over to India, it was a done deal. Pakistan if you were so confident of obtaining Kashmir, then why did you attack?

 

[American Pakistani]

And you are right in doing so, according to my own countrymen in the video mentioned. Apparently voices like me are from some distant lalla land.
According to our award wining scholars, 40% of India is under military occupation, and India is illegally occupying Kashmir. - on record ( I would love to hear from @Joe Shearer on this )

This comes from the premier educational institute, which (un) luckily I did not go to. My third rate education surely corrupted my psyche, making me believing a lie of what we thought was nationalism. Give it a few years, I am sure these students in the background will grow up to become exemplary Bureaucrats, politicians, lawyers and activists and ensure the wrongs of the past are corrected, kashmir will be liberated, Siachin evacuated, India denuclearized.

Ameen to that.

It will happen.

I think you are mixing up. I did not posted any wiki links.

You did. Go back and check.

 

[dadeechi]

Ameen to that.

It will happen.



You did. Go back and check.

Why should I check? It is you who is getting mixed up.

 

[MilSpec]

@Cherokee @Joe Shearer @Spectre

Can someone please explain the take of the respected JNU Professor here. If someone could please breakdown the illegal occupation of kashmir it would help our understanding of the UNSC resolutions. I am sure when the Award winning professor of JNU can recall, essays by a Dalit students, Golwalkars accounts,then there might be chance that the academician also knows and understand the UNSC resolutions and the pre-requisites for the plebiscite, but interprets it completely contrary to my feeble understanding the pre-requisites (obviously I have not attended any institute in the league of the esteemed JNU or jadavpur that i can comprehend such complex matters). Please do shine some light on this illegal occupation of Kashmir in violation of the UNSC resolutions and 40% of India under military occupation that brilliant scholar here has revealed.

 

[Spectre]

@Cherokee @Joe Shearer @Spectre

Can someone please explain the take of the respected JNU Professor here. If someone could please breakdown the illegal occupation of kashmir it would help our understanding of the UNSC resolutions. I am sure when the Award winning professor of JNU can recall, essays by a Dalit students, Golwalkars accounts,then there might be chance that the academician also knows and understand the UNSC resolutions and the pre-requisites for the plebiscite, but interprets it completely contrary to my feeble understanding the pre-requisites (obviously I have not attended any institute in the league of the esteemed JNU or jadavpur that i can comprehend such complex matters). Please do shine some light on this illegal occupation of Kashmir in violation of the UNSC resolutions and 40% of India under military occupation that brilliant scholar here has revealed.

As I earlier stated with respect to a similar post by you, I cannot endorse the erroneous take of the said JNU Professor. However freedom of expression gives him the right to be vocally wrong in his personal capacity.

If elected or selected public officials would have made such a statement then those would have been grounds of for their removal.

Frankly I am bamboozled by the extreme over-reaction by all parties concerned. Our republic is made of much sterner stuff and can easily withstand ill considered remarks provided the custodians of our republic show maturity. The trick here is to act like parents suffering the vagaries of temperamental teenagers - sure they are insufferable and make life a living hell but they are your children, one can't just kill them or throw them out.

 

[MilSpec]

As I earlier stated with respect to a similar post by you, I cannot endorse the erroneous take of the said JNU Professor. However freedom of expression gives him the right to be vocally wrong in his personal capacity.

It's her, did you watch the video btw?
Error, really, is it ?
Because there are no scope for error on the Right, its all intolerance, saffron terror and award wapsi. Here a Professor, winner of a national award- Ramanujan award, who is armed with every word of golwalkar, even a 100 year old essay that condones the british raj, cannot have an escape route of "just a factual error". Would you concede such "error", if there was a small generalization on JNU or jadavpur....

If elected or selected public officials would have made such a statement then those would have been grounds of for their removal.

Frankly I am bamboozled by the extreme over-reaction by all parties concerned. Our republic is made of much sterner stuff and can easily withstand ill considered remarks provided the custodians of our republic show maturity. The trick here is to act like parents suffering the vagaries of temperamental teenagers - sure they are insufferable and make life a living hell but they are your children, one can't just kill them or throw them out.

lets not conflate the issue, I don't care what students say, it is obvious that students will chant freedom from India, when the teacher here on the campus is saying 40% of India is under occupation and Kashmir illegally occupied. I do something earlier suggested to me : Hang my head in shame.

 

[911]

As I earlier stated with respect to a similar post by you, I cannot endorse the erroneous take of the said JNU Professor. However freedom of expression gives him the right to be vocally wrong in his personal capacity.

If elected or selected public officials would have made such a statement then those would have been grounds of for their removal.

Frankly I am bamboozled by the extreme over-reaction by all parties concerned. Our republic is made of much sterner stuff and can easily withstand ill considered remarks provided the custodians of our republic show maturity. The trick here is to act like parents suffering the vagaries of temperamental teenagers - sure they are insufferable and make life a living hell but they are your children, one can't just kill them or throw them out.

Freedom of speech is not a problem. But intentionaly or unintentionaly they are potentialy creating hundreds of Arundhati Roy s. They could use same freedom of speech in valley and do other way around. And Kashmiri Pandits are not even given space to speak.

This issue is hanging since decades. And since it is a major cause of enmity between India and Pakistan, Americans and Brits will not let it solve anytime soon. They will never let us have final war, nor any peaceful solution. They like it hanging. They can easily flame religious violence if it ever reaches a resolution.

But since unlike Pakistan, Indian government is happy with status quo, it needs unrest from within. Not saying that these institutes are being funded, but sometimes 'order from top' does the job. So we need to crackdown the top. Or just let it happen, its just freedom of speech.