LOL. What is "prestige" ? India continued to advocate for china's seat in the Permanent security council EVEN AFTER THEY ATTACKED us in 1962. They finally became permanent in 1971.
You think the world thinks of us as "worthy of prestige" ? You think that raised our world standing ? or made us a Lauging stock of the world ?
All "contracts" and "Agreements" comes with an Expiry Date. Nothing in this world is "Permanent".
Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, there are provisions to sever and withdraw from the treaties.
One of the important factor is "Change in circumstances" and TERRORISM definitely qualifies as one. Especially after 9/11.
Only a FOOL would think china will look at IWT before considering it own Strategic interests.
China will continue to do what is in its best interest IRRESPECTIVE of IWT, Simla agreement or various India-China border agreements.
Same with EVERY OTHER SELF RESPECTING nation on the planet.
Only Nehruvian Indians live in this fantasy world where Nations give second thought to "agreements" over their National interests.
This is the Funniest point ever.
India has been in a state of WAR with pakistan from 1980's. Almost every day there is a new attack and every months there are deaths.
And you have the audacity to talk about "long term peace", when even short term peace is impossible and India is seeking to dismember pakistan for its own safety.
Pakistan won't get into a war with India on behalf of China because its generals stands to gain NOTHING from this. Their children still study in the west and they park their retirement fund in the west. China means nothing to them, just a balloon they wave in front of their own population, India and US.
Pakistani establishment ONLY concern is its own safety and survival and they will gladly and wil (has) happily sacrifice pakistan for that. Only somebody Naïve and ignorant of pakistani reality will claim otherwise.
Me thinks you're not really here to discuss but rather to troll. Have you read the convention and are you up to date on how international relations work?
You mirror other zealots of greener shade found here, you've made India to be a bigger than what it is. This bluster and dogmatic approach kills critical thinking. May i ask for any of your sources for a reading, it would be immensely helpfull to have reading material to contrast my views with.
I also see that you've not put forth your views on what will happen if india unilaterally breaks a treaty, but rather focused on countering mine with what your feelings on the topic are.
My views come from experience in foreign affairs, may i ask the source of yours? Or better yet to simply silence me all I'll ask is what you think would happen if India breaks a treaty.
From the vienna convention on law on treaties, for your perusal:
Procedure to be followed with respect to invalidity,
termination, withdrawal from or suspension of the
operation of a treaty
1. A party which, under the provisions of the present Convention, invokes either a defect in its
consent to be bound by a treaty or a ground for impeaching the validity of a treaty, terminating it,
withdrawing from it or suspending its operation, must notify the other parties of its claim. The
notification shall indicate the measure proposed to be taken with respect to the treaty and the reasons
2. If, after the expiry of a period which, except in cases of special urgency, shall not be less than
three months after the receipt of the notification, no party has raised any objection, the party making the
notification may carry out in the manner provided in article 67 the measure which it has proposed.
3. If, however, objection has been raised by any other party, the parties shall seek a solution
through the means indicated in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.
4. Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall affect the rights or obligations of the parties under
any provisions in force binding the parties with regard to the settlement of disputes.
5. Without prejudice to article 45, the fact that a State has not previously made the notification
prescribed in paragraph 1 shall not prevent it from making such notification in answer to another party
claiming performance of the treaty or alleging its violation.
Here you're claiming by invoking terrorism, we can suspend the treaty.
Kindly consider me an five year old moron with low intelligence and explain in simple terms how with respect to the statute you're quoting how India would go about using terrorism to break treaties and why if it can it hasn't already done so.