The Kashmir Resolutions - Explanations

[Halaku Khan]

At least you now acknowledge that the UN resolutions take presidence over the Simla agreement, and nothing in Simla can legally override those resolutions. Good. That is the first part to you understanding the Kashmir issue better.

Actually, the UN resolutions being dead, the question of their precedence over anything does not arise.

Now, for the second part. It does not matter if the "situation" has changed. It is whether the applicability of the resolutions still exist. And yes, they do exist, because the sole purpose of the UN resolutions was to give the vote to the Kashmiri people. This applies now as it did when the resolution was past.

The Buddhist/Hindu/Muslim areas are irrelevently grouped anyhow. They are all Kashmiris, that is the important thing. It is up to them to decide their fate through the vote, as the UN resolutions call for.

No, it would completely outrageous, horrifying and contrary to all civilized laws to even consider handing over Buddhists and Hindus to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in which they would have to live as second class citizens, if at all they are allowed to live. That is a major reason why the UN resolutions are dead, although there are other reasons too.

 

[roadrunner]

Actually, the UN resolutions being dead, the question of their precedence over anything does not arise.

The basis for you suggesting the UN resolutions are dead have been disproven. You claimed the Simla Agreement nullified them. I showed you the SImla Agreement does not contradict any article from the UN charter, and since Article 103 of the UN charter implies that the obligations of the UN take precedence over any mutual agreement, the UN resolutions cannot be overruled by any agreement.

No, it would completely outrageous, horrifying and contrary to all civilized laws to even consider handing over Buddhists and Hindus to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in which they would have to live as second class citizens, if at all they are allowed to live. That is a major reason why the UN resolutions are dead, although there are other reasons too.

There's many Muslims that live in India as second class citizens, and perhaps some Hindus live in Pakistan as second class citizens (though there's many influential Hindus in Pakistan). This is not the point and has nothing to do with legality of the UN resolutions. Pakistan's constitution treats all its citizens as equals, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs. No one group has more rights than the other in Pakistan, and they are all subject to the same basic laws. More importantly, the UN resolutions cannot be overruled on something so subjective as this. The Kashmiris are a group of people irrespective of whether they are Muslims or Hindus, it is now for each of them to choose who they want to join.

 

[Halaku Khan]

The basis for you suggesting the UN resolutions are dead have been disproven. You claimed the Simla Agreement nullified them.

No I claimed that they are dead because the context is which they were made no longer holds. And this context includes the acceptability of considering a solution that involves handing over Buddhist and Hindu areas to the Islamic republic of Pakistan. The fate of the Buddhists and Hindus of J&K may have been considered a minor detail then, with all the upheaval going on everywhere - but now it would be completely unimaginable to hand them over.

No one group has more rights than the other in Pakistan, and they are all subject to the same basic laws.

That's the theory - but in practice there are spectacles like a former Federal Minister calling on Muslims to kill Ahmedis without fear. That too on national TV.

More importantly, the UN resolutions cannot be overruled on something so subjective as this.

You may say its a subjective detail but for many people it is an unimaginable horror. In today's time its just not an option.

The Kashmiris are a group of people irrespective of whether they are Muslims or Hindus, it is now for each of them to choose who they want to join.

First of all its not just Kashmiris - it is all the native residents of J&K.

By your logic all the people of undivided India were all one group irrespective of whether they were Hindus or Muslims.

 

[roadrunner]

No I claimed that they are dead because the context is which they were made no longer holds. And this context includes the acceptability of considering a solution that involves handing over Buddhist and Hindu areas to the Islamic republic of Pakistan. The fate of the Buddhists and Hindus of J&K may have been considered a minor detail then, with all the upheaval going on everywhere - but now it would be completely unimaginable to hand them over.

Then you're simply lying about what you said. Here is a quote from you.

No - Pakistan and India have specifically agreed in the Simla agreement to solve the Kashmir problem (and in fact all problems) bilaterally. So there is no question of involving any other party, including the UN.

Simla cannot override the UN resolutions in this case. Article 103 is proof of this.

Your new reason for ignoring the UN resolution does not have any legal basis whatsoever.

That's the theory - but in practice there are spectacles like a former Federal Minister calling on Muslims to kill Ahmedis without fear. That too on national TV.

One can compare this with Modi in Gujerat. This again is a weak argument with no legal basis. It is your interpretation. And no Federal Minister has called on Ahmadiyas to be killed, at least not one that held his job after saying such a thing.

You may say its a subjective detail but for many people it is an unimaginable horror. In today's time its just not an option.

Not really. The Hindu Chief Justice of Pakistan can look after all the Hindus in Pakistan and make sure they are treated fairly under the law. This is for another thread. This thread is on the UN resolutions, not what you feel.

First of all its not just Kashmiris - it is all the native residents of J&K.

By your logic all the people of undivided India were all one group irrespective of whether they were Hindus or Muslims.

All the people of undivided India had the chance to vote India or Pakistan when the choice was given. All the people in Kashmir should be given the same vote.

Can you stick to discussing the UN resolutions, or Simla if you like since this thread is on the legalities of the conflict, not your beliefs that Pakistan is an intolerant, baby killing country.

 

[Halaku Khan]

Then you're simply lying about what you said. Here is a quote from you.

My dear fellow if you try hard enough you may understand that those two statements that I made are not contradictory.

Simla cannot override the UN resolutions in this case. Article 103 is proof of this.

we have been over this - you'll have to go back to my previous posts.

Your new reason for ignoring the UN resolution does not have any legal basis whatsoever.

Sabbath is made for man and not man for the sabbath. Law has to bend to morality. If you are claiming that its OK for Buddhists and Hindus to be handed over to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, even after Pakistan's utterly savage, barbaric, and bestial behavior in 1971 - then that is completely unacceptable.

All the people of undivided India had the chance to vote India or Pakistan when the choice was given. All the people in Kashmir should be given the same vote.

I think you have a logical problem. First of all don't use the term Kashmiris because not all the people of J&K are Kashmiri. And furthermore not all Kashmiris are Muslim. Once you start using the right terminology, things should become obvious.

Can you stick to discussing the UN resolutions, or Simla if you like since this thread is on the legalities of the conflict, not your beliefs that Pakistan is an intolerant, baby killing country.

But it is precisely because of Pakistan's record that Buddhists and Hindus would be horrified by the prospect of being forced into the Islamic republic of Pakistan.

 

[roadrunner]

You are not debating the UN resolutions and the legality of Kashmir using the international standards.

What you are debating is whether Pakistan is a barbaric, hate-filled country. I do not mind for you to think this way, even though I strongly disagree, but this is not relevant to this thread since, we are discussing the legalities of the UN resolutions, and whether Pakistan was at fault, and whether India is not following those resolutions.

Your opinions of Pakistan do not matter.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

The basis for you suggesting the UN resolutions are dead have been disproven.

Actually UN resolutions are dead for all practical purposes because you never planned to work though UN system in the first place. Did UN resolution call for armed invasion (1947, 1965, Kargil). The purpose of a UN resolution was to solve the issue through the UN (International) system, no two ways about it. The moment you took another route (armed conflict)to solve the issue, I don't see why the other party (India) should respect the other other side of the bargain when you want it to. In short Pakistan has used the UN route whenever it was or is comfortable with it, it did not have qualms about abandoning it when it thought it could finish the conflict through armed means. Since Pakistan does not give two hoots about ending the staemate through Un system I don't understand why India should, after all the the international community seems to ignore the issue completely, even Pakistani government thinks it is not a viable solution, otherwise you would not be seeing your leaders talk about "Out of the box solution" etc . To sum it up UN resolutions are a piece of paper which Pakistan talks about following in sudden bursts whenever it does not have any other means, thus India need not adhere to UN resolution . So for Practical purpose UN resolutions are practically dead

IPF

 

[Halaku Khan]

Actually UN resolutions are dead for all practical purposes because you never planned to work though UN system in the first place. Did UN resolution call for armed invasion (1947, 1965, Kargil). The purpose of a UN resolution was to solve the issue through the UN (International) system, no two ways about it. The moment you took another route (armed conflict)to solve the issue, I don't see why the other party (India) should respect the other other side of the bargain when you want it to. In short Pakistan has used the UN route whenever it was or is comfortable with it, it did not have qualms about abandoning it when it thought it could finish the conflict through armed means. Since Pakistan does not give two hoots about ending the staemate through Un system I don't understand why India should, after all the the international community seems to ignore the issue completely, even Pakistani government thinks it is not a viable solution, otherwise you would not be seeing your leaders talk about "Out of the box solution" etc . To sum it up UN resolutions are a piece of paper which Pakistan talks about following in sudden bursts whenever it does not have any other means, thus India need not adhere to UN resolution . So for Practical purpose UN resolutions are practically dead

IPF

Very good point. Aside from the whole moral issue of handing over Buddhists and Hindus to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan - a strong legal case can be made that since Pakistan has violated the UN resolutions by first not withdrawing its forces and then by resorting to terrorism and force, the resolutions are no longer binding on India.

 

[roadrunner]

Actually UN resolutions are dead for all practical purposes because you never planned to work though UN system in the first place. Did UN resolution call for armed invasion (1947, 1965, Kargil). The purpose of a UN resolution was to solve the issue through the UN (International) system, no two ways about it. The moment you took another route (armed conflict)to solve the issue, I don't see why the other party (India) should respect the other other side of the bargain when you want it to. In short Pakistan has used the UN route whenever it was or is comfortable with it, it did not have qualms about abandoning it when it thought it could finish the conflict through armed means. Since Pakistan does not give two hoots about ending the staemate through Un system I don't understand why India should, after all the the international community seems to ignore the issue completely, even Pakistani government thinks it is not a viable solution, otherwise you would not be seeing your leaders talk about "Out of the box solution" etc . To sum it up UN resolutions are a piece of paper which Pakistan talks about following in sudden bursts whenever it does not have any other means, thus India need not adhere to UN resolution . So for Practical purpose UN resolutions are practically dead

IPF

This thread is on the UN resolutions, their applicability, the legalities of the agreements, and also proving that Pakistan did everything it could to implement the UN resolutions, India obstructed the demilitarization process.

Evidence has been presented, and not one of the Indians on this board has refuted the legal arguments presented here. As previously done, what you are saying is that Pakistan has discarded the resolutions (when it has not, and doesn't have the right to), Pakistan started armed conflict over Kashmir, neither of these make one jot of difference to the legality of the prior UN resolutions calling for plebiscite. If you did want them to make a difference, you would have to take it to the UN again to override the previous resolutions based on Pakistan having done something like initiate a war. It is not for you to unilaterally decide this, and tell the UN what resolutions it should keep, what it should not keep.

 

[roadrunner]

I'm warning you both. Stick to the UN resolutions. Else your posts will be deleted. This is not about whether you believe Pakistan to be a bad country, or whether you believe Pakistan should be punished for doing this or that. It is about international law, the UN resolutions.

 

[Halaku Khan]

I'm warning you both. Stick to the UN resolutions. Else your posts will be deleted. This is not about whether you believe Pakistan to be a bad country, or whether you believe Pakistan should be punished for doing this or that. It is about international law, the UN resolutions.

This is what I said in my last post:

Very good point. Aside from the whole moral issue of handing over Buddhists and Hindus to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan - a strong legal case can be made that since Pakistan has violated the UN resolutions by first not withdrawing its forces and then by resorting to terrorism and force, the resolutions are no longer binding on India.

I think it's pretty much on topic. You can't violate the resolutions, resort to terrorism and then complain that the other side is not following the resolutions.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

I'm warning you both. Stick to the UN resolutions. Else your posts will be deleted. This is not about whether you believe Pakistan to be a bad country, or whether you believe Pakistan should be punished for doing this or that. It is about international law, the UN resolutions.

Duhhh where did that come from!!!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Actually UN resolutions are dead for all practical purposes because you never planned to work though UN system in the first place. Did UN resolution call for armed invasion (1947, 1965, Kargil). The purpose of a UN resolution was to solve the issue through the UN (International) system, no two ways about it. The moment you took another route (armed conflict)to solve the issue, I don't see why the other party (India) should respect the other other side of the bargain when you want it to. In short Pakistan has used the UN route whenever it was or is comfortable with it, it did not have qualms about abandoning it when it thought it could finish the conflict through armed means. Since Pakistan does not give two hoots about ending the staemate through Un system I don't understand why India should, after all the the international community seems to ignore the issue completely, even Pakistani government thinks it is not a viable solution, otherwise you would not be seeing your leaders talk about "Out of the box solution" etc . To sum it up UN resolutions are a piece of paper which Pakistan talks about following in sudden bursts whenever it does not have any other means, thus India need not adhere to UN resolution . So for Practical purpose UN resolutions are practically dead

IPF

I think it's pretty much on topic. You can't violate the resolutions, resort to terrorism and then complain that the other side is not following the resolutions.

First off, the UN resolutions did not exist in 1947, when the Tribal invasion took place, in response to the Maharajah's atrocities.

Secondly, show me where the UN resolutions suggest that 'armed conflict' in the area governed by the resolutions invalidates them. The resolutions remain valid unless the dispute is resolved, or they are superseded by another set of resolutions, nor does Simla (first clause in the agreement) invalidate them, as RR has argued.

Third, go through the views of Nehru from the fifties, including direct quotes, to see how he had already determined unilaterally that India was going to annex the territory in violation of the UNSC resolutions, and not hold a referendum. The militancy and war in 1965 came about long after Nehru and the GoI's decision to say 'heck with the UN resolutions'. Check the dates.

The decision to not implement the UN resolutions has been clearly shown to be that of India's, through the views of Owen Dixit, and Nehru's own words.

 

[Halaku Khan]

First off, the UN resolutions did not exist in 1947, when the Tribal invasion took place, in response to the Maharajah's atrocities.

Tribal invasion was more likely a behavioral response to the urge to grab territory. But leave that aside - we are talking about the post 1947 period.

Secondly, show me where the UN resolutions suggest that 'armed conflict' in the area governed by the resolutions invalidates them.

Pakistan violated the UN resolutions first by not withdrawing its forces, and has since violated them by innumerable acts of terror and violence.

When one party to any agreement takes any step that is inconsistent with the agreement, the agreement ceases to be binding on the other party.

I hope you are not going to argue that Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism and violence is consistent with the UN resolutions' requirements of withdrawal of all forces and tribesmen and nationals.

And of course there is also the whole issue of whether an agreement which was signed sixty years ago is appropriate for today's conditions. That is another ground which can invalidate the agreement.

Third, go through the views of Nehru from the fifties, including direct quotes, to see how he had already determined unilaterally that India was going to annex the territory in violation of the UNSC resolutions, and not hold a referendum. The militancy and war in 1965 came about long after Nehru and the GoI's decision to say 'heck with the UN resolutions'. Check the dates.

The decision to not implement the UN resolutions has been clearly shown to be that of India's, through the views of Owen Dixit, and Nehru's own words.

All that doesn't count because the ball was not in India's court.

 

[roadrunner]

Pakistan violated the UN resolutions first by not withdrawing its forces, and has since violated them by innumerable acts of terror and violence.

This has been proven wrong at least 6 times in this thread. Can't you read it?

Pakistan did not have to withdraw ALL its forces. It needed to only start withdrawing its forces. The keyworda are "are being withdrawn". Whilst those forces were being witdrawn, India was to agree to withdraw its troop number down to 18,000. It refused, and that is why the process broke down. It's all mentioned in the first page or two of this thread with the resolutions. I don't know why you can't read it.

When one party to any agreement takes any step that is inconsistent with the agreement, the agreement ceases to be binding on the other party.

Nope. That's not how it works. When an agreement becomes binding, you are obliged to follow it. It's like a contract. If you break it, then you've acted illegally. Until you rectify the situation by following that contract through, you're acting illegally.

I hope you are not going to argue that Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism and violence is consistent with the UN resolutions' requirements of withdrawal of all forces and tribesmen and nationals.

Pakistan did not have to withdraw all its forces. Get this through your head. It only needed to start withdrawing its forces, which Pakistan did.

And of course there is also the whole issue of whether an agreement which was signed sixty years ago is appropriate for today's conditions. That is another ground which can invalidate the agreement.

If it is inappropriate you'll need to get another UN resolution to invalidate the present one. Until you do, those "old" resolutions are binding.

All that doesn't count because the ball was not in India's court.

Nope. Everything you've said in your post, I have disproven in this reply. If you'd cared to read the earlier posts, you'd find they were disproved many moons ago. Pakistan did not have to completely withdraw its forces, it only needed to start withdrawing its forces, which it did.