Simla agreement was a big mistake: Shahbaz Sharif

[Post Colonnial]

Simla agreement cannot supersede UN resolutions. There is no such specific article in it.

1) BY UN resolution if you mean the UNSEC resolution - have you actually read what it says? It specifically lays does SEQUENTIAL steps. 1st - Pakistan should get ALL its forces out of Kashmir 2nd - The join supervisory body that includes India must satisfy itself that Pakistan has complied with step-1 and 3rd - India must at that point remove most of its forces after leaving just sufficient forces in Kashmir to protect it from further invasion by Pakistan. If and when these three steps are completed is when India is required to conduct a referendum.

Pakistanis never read the resolution but keep referring to it. I encourage you to read the original text directly from UN website before commenting again on the subject UN resolutions. Cheers

 

[wiseone2]

View attachment 339506
The agreement had resulted in release of some 90000 Pakistani soldiers imprisoned by India following the 1971 war fought between the two South Asian neighbors


Simla agreement was a big mistake: Shahbaz Sharif

LAHORE: Terming the historic 1972 Simla agreement between India and Pakistan a "big mistake", Chief Minister of Pakistan's Punjab province Shahbaz Sharif has said it partially hurt the Kashmiris' freedom struggle.

"The Simla agreement was a big mistake [on the part of Islamabad] as it dampened the spirit of the Kashmiris fighting for their freedom and hurt their movement though it never stopped in Kashmir," Sharif told a conference on Kashmir here yesterday.

The agreement had resulted in release of some 90,000 Pakistani soldiers imprisoned by India following the 1971 war fought between the two South Asian neigbours.

Sharif's remarks drew criticism from the Pakistan People's Party whose then chairman and prime minister of the country, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and his Indian counterpart Indira Gandhi had signed the pact.

"Someone should teach the CM Punjab what foreign policy is. He can't possibly think mimicking SZAB [Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto] makes him a statesman," tweeted PPP chairperson Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...stake-shahbaz-sharif/articleshow/54614783.cms

ZAB did a great job salvaging a mess that he contributed to

 

[Laozi]

@jha Just stop exaggerate the things..And yes @Laozi would you mind sending me the book of that unbiased professional??? Cause until I don't get that I'd be in the darkness of ignorance my dear..
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/105117-Mukti-Bahini-the-forgotten-terrorists
have a look at it ..

My Dear

AND why should I try to wake a person who is pretending to be sleeping

moreover that person is laughing inside at the persons who try to wake him

Keep on living in fools paradise.I apologize to you for suggesting reading unbiased professionals. It's better for you to remain in delusion and learn from whatever is offered by Pakistani writers.

My sincere Apology and Warm Regards

LAOZI

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

View attachment 339506
The agreement had resulted in release of some 90000 Pakistani soldiers imprisoned by India following the 1971 war fought between the two South Asian neighbors


Simla agreement was a big mistake: Shahbaz Sharif

LAHORE: Terming the historic 1972 Simla agreement between India and Pakistan a "big mistake", Chief Minister of Pakistan's Punjab province Shahbaz Sharif has said it partially hurt the Kashmiris' freedom struggle.

"The Simla agreement was a big mistake [on the part of Islamabad] as it dampened the spirit of the Kashmiris fighting for their freedom and hurt their movement though it never stopped in Kashmir," Sharif told a conference on Kashmir here yesterday.

The agreement had resulted in release of some 90,000 Pakistani soldiers imprisoned by India following the 1971 war fought between the two South Asian neigbours.

Sharif's remarks drew criticism from the Pakistan People's Party whose then chairman and prime minister of the country, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and his Indian counterpart Indira Gandhi had signed the pact.

"Someone should teach the CM Punjab what foreign policy is. He can't possibly think mimicking SZAB [Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto] makes him a statesman," tweeted PPP chairperson Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...stake-shahbaz-sharif/articleshow/54614783.cms

what other options does pakistan had at that point of time ?

.
Wow..idiot.. do you really believe that crap.. that you blessed us back with those "prisoners of war" for nothing ??? Dude you were given back a chunk of land that was captured between 65 and 71 by Pakistan. It wasn't free.. it had a cost... And there was a significant number of civilians in that 90k(disputed figure) who were related to govt or ordinary people .. we ver well understand the pscyops behind this propaganda. And children here are taught our version.. so rest assured we give two hoots to your version.

1) BY UN resolution if you mean the UNSEC resolution - have you actually read what it says? It specifically lays does SEQUENTIAL steps. 1st - Pakistan should get ALL its forces out of Kashmir 2nd - The join supervisory body that includes India must satisfy itself that Pakistan has complied with step-1 and 3rd - India must at that point remove most of its forces after leaving just sufficient forces in Kashmir to protect it from further invasion by Pakistan. If and when these three steps are completed is when India is required to conduct a referendum.

Pakistanis never read the resolution but keep referring to it. I encourage you to read the original text directly from UN website before commenting again on the subject UN resolutions. Cheers

]. No where does the resolution say "PAkistan army "needs to evacuate.. it asks PAkistan govt to evacuate militant groups in its controlled area..(which we don't have any today ) it doesn't refer anything to our army but yes Indian forces have been clearly mentioned to be evacuated in next step and govt pointed out to arrange plebiscite in a particular time. Our army is not a threat to the locals there neither they occupy the cities like yours do. Ours are either at loc or their units and people consider themselves safe with them around. In your case they are flooding and world knows how they are blinding the youth.

 

[Grevion]

So now after the continuous refusal of the UN to mediate on the Kashmir issue Pakistani leaders now want tho disobey the Simla agreement.

 

[JanjaWeed]

View attachment 339506
The agreement had resulted in release of some 90000 Pakistani soldiers imprisoned by India following the 1971 war fought between the two South Asian neighbors


Simla agreement was a big mistake: Shahbaz Sharif

LAHORE: Terming the historic 1972 Simla agreement between India and Pakistan a "big mistake", Chief Minister of Pakistan's Punjab province Shahbaz Sharif has said it partially hurt the Kashmiris' freedom struggle.

"The Simla agreement was a big mistake [on the part of Islamabad] as it dampened the spirit of the Kashmiris fighting for their freedom and hurt their movement though it never stopped in Kashmir," Sharif told a conference on Kashmir here yesterday.

The agreement had resulted in release of some 90,000 Pakistani soldiers imprisoned by India following the 1971 war fought between the two South Asian neigbours.

Sharif's remarks drew criticism from the Pakistan People's Party whose then chairman and prime minister of the country, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and his Indian counterpart Indira Gandhi had signed the pact.

"Someone should teach the CM Punjab what foreign policy is. He can't possibly think mimicking SZAB [Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto] makes him a statesman," tweeted PPP chairperson Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...stake-shahbaz-sharif/articleshow/54614783.cms

I think so too..return those 90000 POWs. Let's renegotiate the deal!

 

[Laozi]

Wow..idiot..

Okay idiot

No where does the resolution say "PAkistan army needs to evacuate..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_47
The final resolution adopted had two parts. The first part increased the Commission's strength to five members and asked it to proceed to the Indian subcontinent at once to mediate between India and Pakistan. The second part dealt with the Security council's recommendations for restoring peace and conducting a plebiscite. This involved three steps.[11][12]

• In the first step, Pakistan was asked to use its "best endeavours" to secure the withdrawal of all tribesmen and Pakistani nationals, putting an end to the fighting in the state.
• In the second step, India was asked to "progressively reduce" its forces to the minimum level required for keeping law and order. It laid down principles that India should follow in administering law and order in consultation with the Commission, using local personnel as far as possible.
• In the third step, India was asked to ensure that all the major political parties were invited to participate in the state government at the ministerial level, essentially forming a coalition cabinet. India should then appoint a Plebiscite Administrator nominated by the United Nations, who would have a range of powers including powers to deal with the two countries and ensure a free and impartial plebiscite. Measures were to be taken to ensure the return of refugees, the release of all political prisoners, and for political freedom.

The resolution was approved by nine votes against none. The Soviet Union and Ukraine abstained.[13]

 

[VCheng]

This agreement is main reason, despite best of its efforts by Pakistan the UN and other countries ask to solve all issues bilaterally

As long as the Simla Agreement remains in force, that will be the case. This is the price Pakistan paid for getting its prisoners of war back: all disputes, including Kashmir, were converted into bilateral issues.

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

Okay idiot


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_47
The final resolution adopted had two parts. The first part increased the Commission's strength to five members and asked it to proceed to the Indian subcontinent at once to mediate between India and Pakistan. The second part dealt with the Security council's recommendations for restoring peace and conducting a plebiscite. This involved three steps.[11][12]

• In the first step, Pakistan was asked to use its "best endeavours" to secure the withdrawal of all tribesmen and Pakistani nationals, putting an end to the fighting in the state.
• In the second step, India was asked to "progressively reduce" its forces to the minimum level required for keeping law and order. It laid down principles that India should follow in administering law and order in consultation with the Commission, using local personnel as far as possible.
• In the third step, India was asked to ensure that all the major political parties were invited to participate in the state government at the ministerial level, essentially forming a coalition cabinet. India should then appoint a Plebiscite Administrator nominated by the United Nations, who would have a range of powers including powers to deal with the two countries and ensure a free and impartial plebiscite. Measures were to be taken to ensure the return of refugees, the release of all political prisoners, and for political freedom.

The resolution was approved by nine votes against none. The Soviet Union and Ukraine abstained.[13]

Please quit putting the edited version you made for your QOM..

https://www.scribd.com/doc/159762116/The-1948-UN-Security-Council-Resolution-47-on-Kashmir
1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours:

(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and
Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes
of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of
material aid to those fighting in the State;



read it again.
and to prevent any intrusion into the State of SUCH ELEMENTS .

They are not talking about pakistan forces but those afghans we hired ,why would UN refer Pakistan Army as "such elements" . Read the indian responsibility section as well where they explicitly mention 'indian forces' to understand whats being said.

Wow, not just an idiot , you are a liar as well

 

[Post Colonnial]

.
]. No where does the resolution say "PAkistan army "needs to evacuate.. it asks PAkistan govt to evacuate militant groups in its controlled area..(which we don't have any today ) it doesn't refer anything to our army but yes Indian forces have been clearly mentioned to be evacuated in next step and govt pointed out to arrange plebiscite in a particular time. Our army is not a threat to the locals there neither they occupy the cities like yours do. Ours are either at loc or their units and people consider themselves safe with them around. In your case they are flooding and world knows how they are blinding the youth.

Please go to UN.org (http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unmogip/documents.shtml) and download the PDF.
in the page numbered 4 (physically the second sheet in the PDF) under article A.1.a you will find unequivocal langage that says "To secure from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein....."

Unless you claim Pakistani armed forces are not Pakistani nationals, I hope will admit your mistake.

 

[Chauvinist]

My Dear

AND why should I try to wake a person who is pretending to be sleeping

moreover that person is laughing inside at the persons who try to wake him

Keep on living in fools paradise.I apologize to you for suggesting reading unbiased professionals. It's better for you to remain in delusion and learn from whatever is offered by Pakistani writers.

My sincere Apology and Warm Regards
LAOZI

Remember one thing...Sleeping doesn't mean the person is dead.

and at least its a paradise not the "hell of wisdom" like there..Right ?? Which done surgical strikes without involving air strikes and yes which kept traitors like BLF backing up to stab Pakistan but couldn't give 60% of their population the toilets ??

And please you have a look on that unbiased professional because I fear that'd be Modi exaggerating than he has the capacity and who accepted to intrude and support insurgency there shamelessly.

Regards sweetheart and I'll send you the tea of Lahore gymkhana specially.
Chauvinist

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

Simla agreement cannot supersede UN resolutions. There is no such specific article in it.

Simla, depending on international lawyers/ scholars, supersedes UN Resolution.

A UN Resolution is a "suggestion" to participating parties of an argument brought before the Assembly and Council.

The Simla Agreement is a bilateral treaty that recognizes the acceptance of Bangladesh, which was required for the release of 90,000 Pakistani soldiers putting an end to the "3rd Indo-Pak War".

I would say, in fact, that Pakistan did a tremendous job in negotiating the terms (or India did a poor job). they could have really altered the Kashmir map during that negotiation.

I'm pretty sure India retained some conquered territory from West Pakistan.

 

[kadamba-warrior]

well, Pakistan HAD to sign that agreement. its not that they had a choice. they lost the war and had to bring back 90k POWs. I would say, in fact, that Pakistan did a tremendous job in negotiating the terms (or India did a poor job). they could have really altered the Kashmir map during that negotiation.

Yep, India lost it on the negotiating table what her soldiers won on the battlefield with their blood and sweat!

Whatever way we look at it, it was a disaster for India despite winning the war and a masterstroke for Pakistan from the position they were put in.

It is particularly alarming for India since it was signed by India's most audacious Prime Minister ever. Shudder to think what a weakling like MMS would have conceded in an unfortunate position of weakness.

 

[Khan_21]

Yep, India lost it on the negotiating table what her soldiers won on the battlefield with their blood and sweat!

Whatever way we look at it, it was a disaster for India despite winning the war and a masterstroke for Pakistan from the position they were put in.

It is particularly alarming for India since it was signed by India's most audacious Prime Minister ever. Shudder to think what a weakling like MMS would have conceded in an unfortunate position of weakness.

I always feel India punches much below its weight when dealing with Pakistan . While in regards to Pakistan they always punch above their weight and up the ante when it comes to India .

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

View attachment 339506
The agreement had resulted in release of some 90000 Pakistani soldiers imprisoned by India following the 1971 war fought between the two South Asian neighbors


Simla agreement was a big mistake: Shahbaz Sharif

LAHORE: Terming the historic 1972 Simla agreement between India and Pakistan a "big mistake", Chief Minister of Pakistan's Punjab province Shahbaz Sharif has said it partially hurt the Kashmiris' freedom struggle.

"The Simla agreement was a big mistake [on the part of Islamabad] as it dampened the spirit of the Kashmiris fighting for their freedom and hurt their movement though it never stopped in Kashmir," Sharif told a conference on Kashmir here yesterday.

The agreement had resulted in release of some 90,000 Pakistani soldiers imprisoned by India following the 1971 war fought between the two South Asian neigbours.

Sharif's remarks drew criticism from the Pakistan People's Party whose then chairman and prime minister of the country, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and his Indian counterpart Indira Gandhi had signed the pact.

"Someone should teach the CM Punjab what foreign policy is. He can't possibly think mimicking SZAB [Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto] makes him a statesman," tweeted PPP chairperson Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...stake-shahbaz-sharif/articleshow/54614783.cms

As far as the topic goes..

The Article 103 of UN Charter, member States obligations under the Charter take precedence over obligations under a bilateral agreement.

http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xvi/index.html
Article 103
In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.