Let attempts Huge Infiltration - Kashmir on alert

[jeypore]

dabong1;337154]

9/11 saved the indians from the next phase of the freedom fighters push for total victory in kashmir.......you had the last 10 years to move on kashmir but you just wasted time and now you have to face the consequences.

Saved Indians from what, constant insurgancies and terrorist acts that has been going for last 20 years, big deal!!!! That is plain underestimation on your part that India is not capable of handeling it's own souvereigty. And might I add, useless boast, that these so called freedom fighters would have accomplished the job, but history has shown it has not accomplished much, besides terror and attack on soft target, mainly in the valley, which you consider Pakistanies.

Well why dont we start with india forfilling its promise to the kashmiris via the UN first.......you must be dreaming if you think was just going to sit by and let the indians have kashmir on a plate......dream on.

Until Pakistan harbors and aids these terrorist, India has a greater chance of kashmir being on its plate. If and a big IF, Pakistan found a peaceful means, then it will have a minute percentage of a chance of Indian side Kashmire.

regards.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As per first clause to Shimla agreement, the broader relationship between the two countries shall be governed by the "principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations". It doesn't bind the Shimla agreement to UN charters.

It explicitly endorses the charter and principles of the UN, which includes the UN resolutions.

By virtue of second clause, any specific dispute between the two countries (e.g. Kashmir), shall be settled "by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them." The wordings leave no scope for UN intervention, unless agreed upon by both the parties.

Yes that is key, and it is fact that India and Pakistan did in fact vote in favor of the UN resolutions, and therefore 'mutually agreed' to them, which therefore makes your argument about clause two invalid.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I read the thread and my thoughts are not changed. Where the UN charter is not binding, the specific provisions of bilateral accord apply.

In case of kashmir, hence, simla accord applies.

I don't think you read the thread, since the original argument you made was 'the same has not been honored by pakistan', which is what I recommended you read the thread for.

My response to Simla I have already given - Simla does not supersede the UN resolutions since the UN resolutions were agreed to by both sides, and Simla endorses the UN charter and principles.

if the intention was to supersede the UN resolutions, that were mutually agreed upon by both sides, clause two should have been phrased as "That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them henceforth.". Or some other explicit reference invalidating the UN resolutions.

We have none of that, therefore to argue Simla supersedes the UNSC resolutions is a blatant and self serving distortion of Simla.

Secondly, what agreement is binding, and how, even Simla? Please do explain how Simla, or any other bilateral agreement can be 'binding', and a commitment and agreement made in the UN, by agreeing to the UNSC resolutions declaring Kashmir disputed and to be resolved through plebiscite, cannot be binding.

 

[karnivore]

It explicitly endorses the charter and principles of the UN, which includes the UN resolutions.

General assembly resolutions, accept those dealing with the internal management of the UN, or Chapter VI resolutions are non-binding in nature and therefore outside the scope of UN. These resolutions are legally considered to be recommendatory in nature. UN Chater has nothing to do with unenforceable resolutions.

Kashmir resolutions are all Chapter VI resolutions. Therefore outside the scope of UN.

…what agreement is binding, and how, even Simla? Please do explain how Simla, or any other bilateral agreement can be 'binding', and a commitment and agreement made in the UN, by agreeing to the UNSC resolutions declaring Kashmir disputed and to be resolved through plebiscite, cannot be binding.

Truth be told, even Shimla agreement is not binding to anyone, since any party can easily do anything in direct contravention of the agreement and the best the aggrieved party can do is whine. Case in point Kargil.

However, in the context of UN resolutions, the concept of “enforceability” needs to be understood. If a party is aggrieved by the non-performance of another party, then he can resort to Court or Arbitrator for remedy and if the contract is enforceable, then the Court / Arbitrator can force the other party to perform or in any suitable manner indemnify the aggrieved party. If however, the contract is non-enforceable, then the aggrieved party may resort to the Court or Arbitrator, but the Court/Arbitrator can’t force the other party to perform or indemnify. Simply put, the parties to the contract can just walk away without performing. Thus the contract is not binding on the parties, as it does not cast any obligation to perform.

Resolutions under Chapter VI are all recommendatory in nature and are hence non-enforceable. Which means that the UN (the Arbitrator) can’t force the non-performing party to perform. Thus UN can’t force Pakistan or India to honour their respective parts of the bargain. Which in turn makes the resolutions non-binding.

Yes that is key, and it is fact that India and Pakistan did in fact vote in favor of the UN resolutions, and therefore 'mutually agreed' to them, which therefore makes your argument about clause two invalid.

if the intention was to supersede the UN resolutions, that were mutually agreed upon by both sides, clause two should have been phrased as "That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them henceforth.". Or some other explicit reference invalidating the UN resolutions.

Shimla agreement does not supersede UN Charter, it circumvents the non-binding resolutions.

Just as there is nothing in the Shimla agreement that states that the clause is applicable prospectively, there is nothing that explicitly states that it is applicable retrospectively. Anyway, there is a third interpretation to it. Given the non-binding nature of the UN resolutions, if any party still wants those resolutions to be the basis for solution, then, even that has to be mutually agreed upon i.e. the other party must also agree to make the resolutions to be the basis for solution. If one party wants to involve a third party as arbitrator, then the other must agree to it.

If the old UN resolutions are indeed agreed upon to form the basis for solution then for Pakistan it would mean the almost impossible task of removing all its tribesmen from P0K and for India it would mean going against the popular sentiments of her citizens. That’s why, both the countries agree to the third interpretation and looks the other way.

 

[dabong1]

Saved Indians from what, constant insurgancies and terrorist acts that has been going for last 20 years, big deal!!!! That is plain underestimation on your part that India is not capable of handeling it's own souvereigty. And might I add, useless boast, that these so called freedom fighters would have accomplished the job, but history has shown it has not accomplished much, besides terror and attack on soft target, mainly in the valley, which you consider Pakistanies..

Its either one thing or the other.........you sit down and discuss kashmir in a manner that is acceptable to all parties or we unleash the freedom fighters on you......choice is yours.

Until Pakistan harbors and aids these terrorist, India has a greater chance of kashmir being on its plate. If and a big IF, Pakistan found a peaceful means, then it will have a minute percentage of a chance of Indian side Kashmire.

regards.

Pakistan will train,arm and assist the freedom fighters until you come to the table and reach a amicable solution.

You say kashmir is part of india and i say kashmir is part of pakistan.

You want to go by simila and i want UN.
We can either stay fixed to our old postions or move on the issue......the ball is in your court...at least play a shot we have not seen from you before.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

General assembly resolutions, accept those dealing with the internal management of the UN, or Chapter VI resolutions are non-binding in nature and therefore outside the scope of UN. These resolutions are legally considered to be recommendatory in nature. UN Chater has nothing to do with unenforceable resolutions.

Kashmir resolutions are all Chapter VI resolutions. Therefore outside the scope of UN.

I am aware of the differences between Chapter VI and VII resolutions, and I do not believe anyone here has argued that the UN act to enforce the Kashmir resolutions.

Truth be told, even Shimla agreement is not binding to anyone, since any party can easily do anything in direct contravention of the agreement and the best the aggrieved party can do is whine. Case in point Kargil.

Case in point Siachen as well. My point being that any commitment or agreement between any nation is for all intents and purposes 'non-binding'. If India were to violate the IWT tomorrow, even if arbitration gave a decision in Pakistan's favor, there is little Pakistan could do short of going to war to make India adhere to the decisions made by the mutually agreed upon arbiter.

This is why this 'non-binding' argument often raised by Indians is just a canard. The fact is that when India and Pakistan both agreed with the UN resolutions on Kashmir, they essentially entered into an agreement and commitment on the status of the territorial dispute and how to resolve it. That agreement is just as binding, or non-binding, as any other agreement India or Pakistan entered into or will enter into, so pointing out 'non-binding' is moot.

then the Court / Arbitrator can force the other party to perform or in any suitable manner indemnify the aggrieved party.

As I argued above in my example of a violation of the IWT, how exactly can an international court or arbiter enforce any decisions?

Shimla agreement does not supersede UN Charter, it circumvents the non-binding resolutions.

I fail to see how you could come to that conclusion given the first clause of Simla;

(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.

Just as there is nothing in the Shimla agreement that states that the clause is applicable prospectively, there is nothing that explicitly states that it is applicable retrospectively. Anyway, there is a third interpretation to it. Given the non-binding nature of the UN resolutions, if any party still wants those resolutions to be the basis for solution, then, even that has to be mutually agreed upon i.e. the other party must also agree to make the resolutions to be the basis for solution. If one party wants to involve a third party as arbitrator, then the other must agree to it.

If the old UN resolutions are indeed agreed upon to form the basis for solution then for Pakistan it would mean the almost impossible task of removing all its tribesmen from P0K and for India it would mean going against the popular sentiments of her citizens. That’s why, both the countries agree to the third interpretation and looks the other way.

On the contrary, since Simla explicitly speaks of the UN charter and principles 'governing relations' between the two countries, and at no point speaks of, or implies, circumvention or supersession, the mutually agreed upon and endorsed UNSC resolutions continue to be valid.

It is a different matter if India wants to violate those agreements and renege on its commitment, which is essentially what it is doing, but then call it what it is.

As to implementing the modalities of what the UNSC resolutions demand, that issue can be broached once India decides to review its decision of violating its commitments and agreement. Mere statements about the possibility, or not, of this or that does not make it so.

 

[Khajur]

Kashmir has been a contentious issue between india & pakistna since the beginning from 1947.Now since the kashmir vally was predominantly muslims,logically it should have gone to pakistan.

But though indian politician agreed to separation of pakistan on the basis of two nation theory to gain immediate objective of freedom,nobody in indian believe in two nation theory which lies heart of the problem of kashmir.

Why??

It is because even after partition on the basis of two nation theory,we have nearly same amount of muslims as in pakistan left in india now.For an hindu,its hard to believe in two nation theory when every day he hears "allahu akbar" coming from neighbourhood mosque on his way to his work place or place of worship(temple).

If 15 crores muslim can live together hindus with out too much of problem,its hard to explain to a hindu why cant/shouldnt 30crores more couldnt have lived with them peacefully.So though irrespective of pakistani opinion we do accept pakistans status as an independent state ,the two nation theory hold no water for us indians.

Now coming back to original topic terroists/freedom fighters fighting aganist indian security forces in kashmir,i must say no amount of terrorism or loss of lives can/will force india to surrender kashmir to pakistan.We have already fought 4 wars over kahsmir,its wont be any major differnece in net result even if u wage 40 wars or few more decades of this cross border terrroism.

What indian state is really bothers about is strong popular civil unrest like the one happened last yr in the vally over transfer of land for hindu shrine.In the absense of that indian state can sustain & cope pak backed act of terrorism indefinitely.And the more violent the terrorist activities become,the more the support grows inside india for suppressing them with brute force.

 

[karnivore]

Case in point Siachen as well.

Last para, Clause (ii) to the Shimla agreement states that “the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line.”

The problem with Siachen was that LoC was not marked there. It was not defined if Siachen was inside Indian side of Kashimir or inside the Pakistani side. So when IA occupied the post, it was not “altering” LoC, simply because it did not exist. So legally, India did not violate Shimla agreement by occupying Siachen.

My point being that any commitment or agreement between any nation is for all intents and purposes 'non-binding'. If India were to violate the IWT tomorrow, even if arbitration gave a decision in Pakistan's favor, there is little Pakistan could do short of going to war to make India adhere to the decisions made by the mutually agreed upon arbiter.

This is why this 'non-binding' argument often raised by Indians is just a canard. The fact is that when India and Pakistan both agreed with the UN resolutions on Kashmir, they essentially entered into an agreement and commitment on the status of the territorial dispute and how to resolve it. That agreement is just as binding, or non-binding, as any other agreement India or Pakistan entered into or will enter into, so pointing out 'non-binding' is moot.

You can call this argument of “non-binding” as canard and you can call it moot. That’s mere rhetoric. The legal case is however strong in India’s favour.

As with the commitment issue, if the UN resolutions are going to be the basis for Kashmir solution, then just as India is obligated to hold plebiscite, Pakistan is equally obligated to remove all her tribesmen out of P0K. In fact, the plebiscite is subject to complete removal of these tribesmen, which after 60 odd years is a near impossible task.

Anyway, it seems to me that you are warming up to the fact that UN resolutions are useless piece of paper and the true solution lies in mutual discussions. Nice to know that.

…how exactly can an international court or arbiter enforce any decisions?

It appears that UN can and has in the recent past enforced its powers. In East Timor. UN maintained a civil administration for about 3 years, till its independence. A coalition of troops, lead by Australia, were stationed there during that time.

I fail to see how you could come to that conclusion given the first clause of Simla;

(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.

On the contrary, since Simla explicitly speaks of the UN charter and principles 'governing relations' between the two countries, and at no point speaks of, or implies, circumvention or supersession, the mutually agreed upon and endorsed UNSC resolutions continue to be valid.

Since this is not the last time that you are going to make this non-sequitur argument, let me take a one last stab at it.

Governing of the relation between two countries is not same as resolving of a specific conflict. International relationships involve trade, commerce, tariff, co-operation on any other economic or non-economic issues like resource sharing, immigration, security etc. As per Clause (i) to the Shimla agreement such issues are to be dealt with, within the basic framework of UN Charter i.e. governed by UN Charter. In case of any conflict, which may arise in maintaining such relationship, it is to be resolved as per the Clause (ii), i.e. through mutual agreement. Thus if any UN resolution exists and one party is desirous to resolve issues through such existing resolutions, the other party will have to agree to it.

It is a different matter if India wants to violate those agreements and renege on its commitment, which is essentially what it is doing, but then call it what it is.

As to implementing the modalities of what the UNSc resolutions demand, that issue can be broached once India decides to review its decision of violating its commitments and agreement, mere statements about the possibility, or not, of this or that does not make it so.

India’s commitment comes into play only after Pakistan has fulfilled her commitment. Good luck with that.

The only arguments that you have made so far, are all appeals to emotion. When it comes down to the hard fact of law, India is on pretty solid ground.

 

[Nihat]

Its either one thing or the other.........you sit down and discuss kashmir in a manner that is acceptable to all parties or we unleash the freedom fighters on you......choice is yours.

Oh boy !! , how scary is that.

With the way these infiltrators are being slaughtered in Kashmir these days , there may be a shortage of Virgins in Jannat.

India was down in the dumps in the 90's with little or no money to spend on new Technologies and Sophisticated weaponry , it's a different situation today though. With better monitoring and CI ops , it's extremely hard to push infiltrators through LoC without a vast majority of them being slaughtered in large numbers.

It's been 20 years since insurgency started and I don't think a single inch has been given or taken across the LoC , only thing it's done is make the life of Kahsmiris miserable.

 

[HAIDER]

That why these militants are now striking India business hub. They are walking out of Kashmir and moving toward center of India. Thats worst.
Second, keeping 60% of Indian forces to protect Kashmir is strategic deterrence of Pakistan. Why, because its sucking India resources badly. When more then half of Indian troops are busy in Kashmir ,then more open ground for other activities inside India. And Pak army will pull this strategic deterrence longer it can.
Third Indian army stationed in Kashmir is partially victim of Pak physco ops.Means not mentally and physically stable condition for combat zone.

 

[Gabbar]

That why these militants are now striking India business hub. They are walking out of Kashmir and moving toward center of India. Thats worst.
Second, keeping 60% of Indian forces to protect Kashmir is strategic deterrence of Pakistan. Why, because its sucking India resources badly. When more then half of Indian troops are busy in Kashmir ,then more open ground for other activities inside India. And Pak army will pull this strategic deterrence longer it can.
Third Indian army stationed in Kashmir is partially victim of Pak physco ops.Means not mentally and physically stable condition for combat zone.

I'll give you that militency is draining this country's resources but you have to admit the jihadi monster that GOP and ISI created it is biting back now. All of those mulas and hardliners that were freely recruiting for anti-India activities, and they are still doing it, are using these militents against Pakistanis since GOP is under pressure from US to stop them. It's like double edge sword that was and is being used against India and now the same sword is on GOP's neck.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Last para, Clause (ii) to the Shimla agreement states that “the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line.”

The problem with Siachen was that LoC was not marked there. It was not defined if Siachen was inside Indian side of Kashimir or inside the Pakistani side. So when IA occupied the post, it was not “altering” LoC, simply because it did not exist. So legally, India did not violate Shimla agreement by occupying Siachen.

That is an invalid argument. Clause two of paragraph 1 very explicitly justifies my argument of India's Siachen invasion being a blatant violation of Simla.

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations;

You can call this argument of “non-binding” as canard and you can call it moot. That’s mere rhetoric. The legal case is however strong in India’s favour.

As with the commitment issue, if the UN resolutions are going to be the basis for Kashmir solution, then just as India is obligated to hold plebiscite, Pakistan is equally obligated to remove all her tribesmen out of P0K. In fact, the plebiscite is subject to complete removal of these tribesmen, which after 60 odd years is a near impossible task.

Anyway, it seems to me that you are warming up to the fact that UN resolutions are useless piece of paper and the true solution lies in mutual discussions. Nice to know that.

It appears that UN can and has in the recent past enforced its powers. In East Timor. UN maintained a civil administration for about 3 years, till its independence. A coalition of troops, lead by Australia, were stationed there during that time.

Calling my points 'rhetoric' is merely an attempt to avoid the argument. I laid out quite specifically why India's argument of 'non-binding' is moot. As I pointed out earlier, any agreement India and Pakistan, or any other nation, arrive at will only be binding so long as the nations that have entered into that agreement choose to follow it, or a nation or nations are able to ensure compliance through coercive measures (military or non-military). IIRC, East Timor was under Chpater VII, a rare case, which is not being discussed here.

As for the UNSC resolutions being a 'useless piece of paper', I am pointing out that using the Indian rationale, any agreement or treaty that India enters into is a 'worthless piece of paper', since the reality behind all the convoluted Indian excuses is basically that India will only honor those agreements that it wishes to, regardless of prior commitments.

This is more a reflection on the perfidious nature of the Indian State than the UNSC resolutions.

Governing of the relation between two countries is not same as resolving of a specific conflict. International relationships involve trade, commerce, tariff, co-operation on any other economic or non-economic issues like resource sharing, immigration, security etc. As per Clause (i) to the Shimla agreement such issues are to be dealt with, within the basic framework of UN Charter i.e. governed by UN Charter. In case of any conflict, which may arise in maintaining such relationship, it is to be resolved as per the Clause (ii), i.e. through mutual agreement. Thus if any UN resolution exists and one party is desirous to resolve issues through such existing resolutions, the other party will have to agree to it.

You sir are now inventing things out of thin air, along with 'rhetoric' of your own of 'strong legal case' where there is none. We now have a cherry picked interpretation of the phrase 'relations between states', similar to your cherry picking to validate the Siachen invasion by India. The UN charter, that Clause 1 explicitly states shall govern relations between the two nations, clearly includes UNSC resolutions under chapter VI.

The above in conjunction with the mutual agreement part of clause two applies directly to the 'mutual agreement' on the UNSC resolutions, unless, as I said before, India is reneging on its commitments and agreement under the UNSC charter, in which case, call a spade a spade.

India’s commitment comes into play only after Pakistan has fulfilled her commitment. Good luck with that.

Again, the issue of Pakistan fulfilling her commitments does not arise so long as India continues to renege on her commitments in the UNSC to Pakistan and the Kashmiri people, and refuses to recognize the means of resolution agreed upon.

 

[karnivore]

That is an invalid argument. Clause two of paragraph 1 very explicitly justifies my argument of India's Siachen invasion being a blatant violation of Simla.

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations;

The clause that you have cited is the one that deals with conflict (differences) resolution. Till 1983, Siachen was not recognized by any party as “conflict”. Therefore this clause was not applicable at that time.

The main allegation against India is that, by virtue of last para, Clause (ii), i.e. no crossing of LoC, India is guilty of violating the Shimla agreement. India claims that she isn’t, because there was no LoC in the first place. The clause you have cited, was never really an issue and still isn’t.

Calling my points 'rhetoric' is merely an attempt to avoid the argument. I laid out quite specifically why India's argument of 'non-binding' is moot. As I pointed out earlier, any agreement India and Pakistan, or any other nation, arrive at will only be binding so long as the nations that have entered into that agreement choose to follow it, or a nation or nations are able to ensure compliance through coercive measures (military or non-military). ……

As for the UNSC resolutions being a 'useless piece of paper', I am pointing out that using the Indian rationale, any agreement or treaty that India enters into is a 'worthless piece of paper', since the reality behind all the convoluted Indian excuses is basically that India will only honor those agreements that it wishes to, regardless of prior commitments.

This is more a reflection on the perfidious nature of the Indian State than the UNSC resolutions.

This is what I called, appeal to emotion. You are not making any legal argument what so ever. Every country, before entering into an agreement with another, understands that an agreement is binding to the extent that it is willing to perform on it. Bilateral agreements therefore, always run the risk of walking on quicksand, even before the ink starts to dry. That’s not exactly rocket science.

Here is what I am arguing on the non-binding nature of UNSC resolutions:

1. UNSC resolutions on Kashmir are legally non-binding on any country (both India and Pakistan) and can’t be legally enforced by UN. Any party not respecting such resolution can’t be held legally guilty. Thus Pakistan got away, and continues to get away, by not removing her tribesmen. India can do squat about that.
   
   
2. Had the resolutions been binding and enforceable one, any country defaulting on her performance would have been legally guilty, and could have been classified as such. Remedy, in the nature of direct involvement of UN is available here. Case in point East Timor.

Whether a country is willing to perform or has willingly defaulted in performance, is a political debate, not a legal one. What will be the nature of remedy that will be available to the aggrieved party or how shall it be made available to the aggrieved party, is again a separate debate altogether. I have no intention of getting into that.

I am only defending the legal position of India and not the moral one. So please stop mixing the two.

IIRC, East Timor was under Chpater VII, a rare case, which is not being discussed here.

In law, precedents matter, even if it is just one or a rare one. East Timor is that precedence of enforcing power of UN , and can’t be dismissed by a casual wave of hand.

You sir are now inventing things out of thin air, along with 'rhetoric' of your own of 'strong legal case' where there is none. We now have a cherry picked interpretation of the phrase 'relations between states', similar to your cherry picking to validate the Siachen invasion by India. The UN charter, that Clause 1 explicitly states shall govern relations between the two nations, clearly includes UNSC resolutions under chapter VI.

The above in conjunction with the mutual agreement part of clause two applies directly to the 'mutual agreement' on the UNSC resolutions, unless, as I said before, India is reneging on its commitments and agreement under the UNSC charter, in which case, call a spade a spade.

And so the non-sequitur continues. I stand by what I had said earlier. However, I couldn’t help but notice that you have not actually rebutted my explanations, but have merely reiterated your own position.

Again, the issue of Pakistan fulfilling her commitments does not arise so long as India continues to renege on her commitments in the UNSC to Pakistan and the Kashmiri people, and refuses to recognize the means of resolution agreed upon.

Interesting. IIRC, India’s commitments (i.e. plebiscite) come with a string attached to Pakistan’s commitment (i.e. complete removal of Pak tribesmen). Dare I request you to point out the supposed commitments of India, that precede or are independent of the Pakistan’s commitment. And while you are at it, please cite the UNSC resolution number as well.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The clause that you have cited is the one that deals with conflict (differences) resolution. Till 1983, Siachen was not recognized by any party as “conflict”. Therefore this clause was not applicable at that time.

More cherry picking and selective interpretations. The 'dispute' was the disputed territory of J&K, of which Siachen is a part, hence the applicability of this clause.

The Indian violation of Simla here is clear.

This is what I called, appeal to emotion. You are not making any legal argument what so ever. Every country, before entering into an agreement with another, understands that an agreement is binding to the extent that it is willing to perform on it. Bilateral agreements therefore, always run the risk of walking on quicksand, even before the ink starts to dry. That’s not exactly rocket science.

It apparently is rocket science since it took you this long to actually accept the point I have been making that the agreements and commitments made in the UN are just as binding, or not, as any other agreement arrived at between India, Pakistan or any other nation, including Simla. To single out the UNSC resolutions for this litany of 'non-binding' excuses, in order to justify reneging on the commitments made in the UNSC, is where this intellectual dishonesty on the part of Indians comes into play.

That is the point here, India agreed and committed to a certain position in the UNSC as did Pakistan, and India reneged on that agreement and commitment by refusing to implement the UNSC resolutions. As I said, you can construct convoluted excuses and go around in circles all you want, but the simple fact is that India entered into commitments and agreements in the UNSC, and violated her commitments and agreements, enforceable or not, binding or not - so call a spade a spade.

The argument on the binding or nonbinding nature of the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir is therefore irrelevant, the perfidious nature of the Indian state, as amply demonstrated by Nehru's own words in 'presenting one face to the world while doing the opposite' (in reference to his intent to never implement the UNSC resolutions).

I fail to see why you continue to raise East Timor when 'enforcement' is not an issue that has been raised by me - what I have pointed out is that India's refusal to implement the UNSC resolutions is a violation of the agreement entered into in the UNSC with Pakistan.

And so the non-sequitur continues. I stand by what I had said earlier. However, I couldn’t help but notice that you have not actually rebutted my explanations, but have merely reiterated your own position.

Actually I did refute your argument, it is you who chose to not answer this time around. Your 'argument' was to disingenuously apply an interpretation to the phrase 'relations between states' that fit your POV, when there is nothing in Simla that makes the sort of distinctions you are pulling out of thin air.

Interesting. IIRC, India’s commitments (i.e. plebiscite) come with a string attached to Pakistan’s commitment (i.e. complete removal of Pak tribesmen).

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough - I am not suggesting that Pakistan has no commitments of her own to fulfill, I am pointing out that when the Indian position continues to be one that rejects the UNSC resolutions completely, asking Pakistan to fulfill her commitments under the same UNSC resolutions is rather absurd logic.

When and if India decides to reverse her decision of reneging on her commitment to the UNSC resolutions, the argument of Pakistan implementing her own commitments under the UNSC resolutions becomes a valid one.

 

[Cheetah786]

2009 - 1947 = 62 years. 62 years bachche! Inspite of everything that has been thrown at us from across the border we have held onto Kashmir for 62 years with a death-like grip!

You guys couldn't even hold onto a part of your country after a "little action" in 1971. It shows who's more terrified of a "little-action".

did we forget Pakistan liberated some of kashmire from you and if Americans didnt help ya in 1962 you had lost lot more then you bargain for to the chinese and that parts were attached to india no other hostile nation was in between yet you still lost so may be you wanna reconsider your answer again.