Modi trying in Kashmir Israeli-style settlements

[Nalini]

Lool, we don't get boycotted from international forums for gross human right violations nor we have to secure speicalmwaiver in UK for our foreign ministers

 

[Beny Karachun]

-People who flee countries due to human rights issues are considered refugees.

-People who go to other countries for better economic opportunities are considered immigrants.

We only talk because the people of Kashmir are campaigning to join Pakistan. We never comment on the other human rights issues across the rest of India because our only stake is Kashmir, where we will fight for their right to freedom on an international level.

Also, following your logic again, who are you to talk to us about human rights violations? Why are you complaining about us when you yourselves are running an apartheid state?

And you are fleeing because of both of them. What should we call you?
India owns Kashmir, and it will own Kashmir, I stand with India, we both are against the same type of enemy.

"who are you to talk to us about human rights violations?"
Sounds familiar, wasn't it what I said in the beginning?
You don't know what apartheid is, your country is its definition.

 

[Nalini]

 

[M. Sarmad]

Nope. The UNMOGIP is an observer mission to see what's happening on the LOC. Here's their official objective:


It proves / disproves nothing. If anything it recognises that it has a limited role after 1971 - which is quite consistent with the Simla Agreement.

So you accept that the UN still has a role to play in Kashmir, and that is quite consistent with the Simla Agreement.. Agreed ..

And right of self determination is not "given" by the UN to anyone. It is a principle of international law and nations are generally very wary in recognising such a principle given the slippery slope it might take to hurt their own self interest subsequently. If you read the text of Resolution 48, it does not mention self-determination or grant it legitimacy; as a matter of fact the resolution recognises accession to either India or Pakistan (so much for independent Kashmir).

Again, you are entitled to your own opinion, but I was quoting the opinion of a few experts on International Law.


[The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is an international human rights non-governmental organization based in Geneva. The Commission itself is a standing group of 60 eminent jurists(including senior judges, attorneys and academics) dedicated to ensuring respect for international human rights standards through the law. Commissioners are known for their experience, knowledge and fundamental commitment to human rights.]

ICJ sent a fact finding mission to Kashmir in 1995. The final report says about the Simla Agreement:



The people of Jammu and Kashmir were not parties to the Agreement and neither India nor Pakistan, both of which had conflicts of interest with the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir can be regarded as having authority to bind them. The members of the ICJ mission do not see, therefore, how the Simla Agreement can be regarded as having deprived the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir of any rights of self-determination to which they were entitled at the time of the Agreement... (p.92)

And

Both India and Pakistan should recognise and respond to the call for self-determination for the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir within its 1947 boundaries, inherent in the relevant United Nations resolutions. The United Nations should re-activate its role as a catalyst in this process. (p.98)


Full Report can be downloaded from their website:

http://www.icj.org/category/publications/reports/page/33/

What I am trying to say is that Pakistan's approach to the Kashmir issue should be founded on a territorial dispute (from 1947) and not support for 'self-determination'. The former is very fact specific, the latter suggests that Pakistan greatly respects self-determination - in which case it will have to be ready to voice similar support for all such movements whether Tibet or Balochistan and be prepared for other countries to voice similar sentiments.

For You guys Kashmir may be a territorial dispute only. I believe it is a humanitarian issue. And Pakistan's position on this dispute, unlike the Indian position, is consistent with the UN Resolutions and the International Law.

...possession by both India / Pak of their respective bits of Kashmir has been for 70+ years and the territories are deeply annexed to respective possessors -

Deeply annexed ?

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1448008235233430

 

[T-Rex]

Well I live about 2000 kilometers away from you, its probably not me.

One can smell the stench of a zionazi from across the globe and you're only 2000 kilometers away.

 

[salarsikander]

Well I live about 2000 kilometers away from you, its probably not me.


If you are not violating human rights I don't want to imagine what countries that do violate human rights do.

Certainly we don't get boycotted in international forums. We are yet to reach the level of Zionist

Lol did we get boycott for that ? Dumb loser