Asaduddin Owaisi tells Pakistan to stop meddling in Kashmir

[Joe Shearer]

Sir, you are missing the point
What you or I personally believe is (or isn't) 'truthful' doesn't matter
Personal beliefs, individual accounts, etc have no bearing whatsoever on the legal status of Kashmir Dispute under the UN (and under International Law)

Perhaps I should explain my position a little more clearly.

I believe in the rule of law, in constitutionalism. I believe that a state is legitimate as long as it justifies the faith that its citizens repose in it, in their surrender of their rights to the state, and that such a justification comes from it honouring the individual rights of its citizens.

You will understand, then, if the present state of affairs in India is abhorrent, where individuals are intimidated by the majority, and their rights are violated. That makes the rights of the state unsound.

That also forms my views on Kashmir. As long as there is the rule of law, humanity survives. Where it breaks down, where there is distinction drawn between one human being and the other, and it is sought to be imposed by violent means, I oppose it. Whatever I have said on the subject of India has been governed by this. Whatever I have said on any matter on this forum or any other has been governed by the same principle. Whatever I have said on the subject of Kashmir has been governed by the same principle.



That does not mean that I will not continue to put your every argument to the severest tests that my mind can devise.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I have, and you know it.

It's okay, I sincerely wish you the best of luck in your position. I really do. (But there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.)

No, You haven't ...
Please post those on record statements.
Why are you beating about the bush?

 

[YeBeWarned]

It's election season, we will hear similar statements from Indian Muslims, as far as Kashmir is it doesn't matter what Indians think or Pakistani thinks , no matter how much we dislike the truth is Kashmir is a unfinished dispute which has to be solved in order to bring peace and stability in the region , with all parties involved and satisfied .

 

[VCheng]

No, You haven't ...
Please post those on record statements.
Why are you beating about the bush?

I have been very direct in my position and have posted those statements. And I bow out wishing you the best of luck.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I have been very direct in my position and have posted those statements. And I bow out wishing you the best of luck.

You, of course, are entitled to your personal opinion, my friend ... And I can respect your opinion
But here we are talking about the UN position and on record UN statements



No UN Sec-Gen, or any responsible official, can say that the UN has no role to play in Kashmir after the signing of Simla agreement, or that the UN Resolutions have become invalid now, or the Simla Agreement supersedes the UN resolutions, as long as Kashmir remains on the agenda of the UN Security Council as an unresolved international dispute, and with the UN observers still present in India and Pakistan to observe ceasefire violations on the disputed border

The UN's reluctance to mediate has nothing to do with the Simla Agreement. The UN made no serious effort to resolve this dispute after the early 1950's. By late 1950's, the UN was urging Pakistan and India to settle this matter "out of UN" ... Later, the USSR used "the veto" multiple times to avoid discussion on Kashmir in the Security Council. Simla Agreement was signed in 1972 only. So its not Simla that has made the UN practically irrelevant. The U.N had already been virtually elbowed out of the Kashmir dispute by Russia. However, the Simla Agreement no doubt does give the UN a little bit of "face-saving" .... Nothing more

 

[VCheng]

You, of course, are entitled to your personal opinion, my friend ... And I can respect your opinion
But here we are talking about the UN position and on record UN statements



No UN Sec-Gen, or any responsible official, can say that the UN has no role to play in Kashmir after the signing of Simla agreement, as long as Kashmir remains on the agenda of the UN Security Council as an unresolved international dispute, and with the UN observers still present in India and Pakistan to observe ceasefire violations on the disputed border

The UN's reluctance to mediate has nothing to do with the Simla Agreement. The UN made no serious effort to resolve this dispute after the early 1950's. By late 1950's, the UN was urging Pakistan and India to settle this matter "out of UN" ... Later, the USSR used "the veto" multiple times to avoid discussion on Kashmir in the Security Council. Simla Agreement was signed in 1972 only. So its not Simla that has made the UN practically irrelevant. The U.N had already been virtually elbowed out of the Kashmir dispute by Russia. However, the Simla Agreement no doubt does give the UN a little bit of "face-saving" .... Nothing more

Allah aap ko iss muhim may kamyaabi ataa fermaye. Aaaameeeeen.

 

[Hellfire]

@Vibrio
Come out from behind the bushes.

A bird in bush, sometimes, is worth two in hand sir.

Selective posting when I do feel like it

 

[Joe Shearer]

A bird in bush, sometimes, is worth two in hand sir.

Selective posting when I do feel like it

But did you read, dear chap? @M. Sarmad was in his best form. Such a keen brain! I was agonising over your absence.

 

[Hellfire]

You, of course, are entitled to your personal opinion, my friend ... And I can respect your opinion
But here we are talking about the UN position and on record UN statements



No UN Sec-Gen, or any responsible official, can say that the UN has no role to play in Kashmir after the signing of Simla agreement, or that the UN Resolutions have become invalid now, or the Simla Agreement supersedes the UN resolutions, as long as Kashmir remains on the agenda of the UN Security Council as an unresolved international dispute, and with the UN observers still present in India and Pakistan to observe ceasefire violations on the disputed border

The UN's reluctance to mediate has nothing to do with the Simla Agreement. The UN made no serious effort to resolve this dispute after the early 1950's. By late 1950's, the UN was urging Pakistan and India to settle this matter "out of UN" ... Later, the USSR used "the veto" multiple times to avoid discussion on Kashmir in the Security Council. Simla Agreement was signed in 1972 only. So its not Simla that has made the UN practically irrelevant. The U.N had already been virtually elbowed out of the Kashmir dispute by Russia. However, the Simla Agreement no doubt does give the UN a little bit of "face-saving" .... Nothing more

UN has been laid to rest. The bilateral agreement signed even by Pakistan aka Simla Agreement, rendered them to the annals of history.

Now the interesting question that comes to fore is - does Pakistan have any courage to honour it's own commitments under an International Treaty it willingly signed?

Or will Pakistan continue to renege on a treaty aimed at establishing peace between the two by recognizing Kashmir as a dispute in 1972, thereby already marking the greatest concession one could expect India to make - of recognizing the Kashmir issue as a dispute?

 

[saiyan0321]

The UN's reluctance to mediate has nothing to do with the Simla Agreement. The UN made no serious effort to resolve this dispute after the early 1950's. By late 1950's, the UN was urging Pakistan and India to settle this matter "out of UN" ... Later, the USSR used "the veto" multiple times to avoid discussion on Kashmir in the Security Council. Simla Agreement was signed in 1972 only. So its not Simla that has made the UN practically irrelevant. The U.N had already been virtually elbowed out of the Kashmir dispute by Russia. However, the Simla Agreement no doubt does give the UN a little bit of "face-saving" .... Nothing more

The failure of UN to handle this dispute can be determined from the simple fact that since 1949 the UN made absolutely no effort nor mention of any form of governance amongst the areas that constituted Kashmir entirely.. Whatever pakistan or India were doing the UN made no effort to truly mediate the dispute.. It even refused to properly define what "local authority" means and to this day it has made no effort to rectify this nor guide the proper form of governance of the area. It was this lack of involvement that has allowed this dispute to become such a mess... If there is a barbed wire between Kashmir that separates two people then its the fault of UN to not take the matter into its own hand and offer proper and concrete governing solutions which could have evolved into a permanent solution to the dispute..

The hands off approach of UN with two enemy states to follow their own conflict has been a disaster for both nations and for the people of the region...

I understand that UN has very little power in face of vetoes but its inability to define or set guidelines for each and every aspect if the dispute has only contributed to the complex nature of the dispute...

At this point it is clear that only the two nations can solve this problem on their own...

Have you read the recent SC order.. Its not bad.

 

[Hellfire]

But did you read, dear chap? @M. Sarmad was in his best form. Such a keen brain! I was agonising over your absence.

I have been reading, albeit posting rebuttals here may not be understood by 99.99% of the "living entities" here. If I have to discuss Kashmir with M.Sarmad, VCheng, Saiyan0321, it needs a moderator whose only job is to keep away everyone else and allow a debate to continue. But alas, that is a very wishful thinking indeed.

So, why engage him? He has enough battles to fight along with the other two, as it is.

 

[VCheng]

UN has been laid to rest. The bilateral agreement signed even by Pakistan aka Simla Agreement, rendered them to the annals of history.

Now the interesting question that comes to fore is - does Pakistan have any courage to honour it's own commitments under an International Treaty it willingly signed?

Or will Pakistan continue to renege on a treaty aimed at establishing peace between the two by recognizing Kashmir as a dispute in 1972, thereby already marking the greatest concession one could expect India to make - of recognizing the Kashmir issue as a dispute?

I foresee the present stalemate persisting for a few decades at least until the inevitable conclusion of recognizing the AGPLs as international borders in considered viable.

I have been reading, albeit posting rebuttals here may not be understood by 99.99% of the "living entities" here. If I have to discuss Kashmir with M.Sarmad, VCheng, Saiyan0321, it needs a moderator whose only job is to keep away everyone else and allow a debate to continue. But alas, that is a very wishful thinking indeed.

So, why engage him? He has enough battles to fight along with the other two, as it is.

Battles? Never with me, sir, not any longer. I cannot afford battles on PDF any more, not with the moderators we have.

 

[Hellfire]

At this point it is clear that only the two nations can solve this problem on their own...

That is precisely what the Simla Agreement of 1972 envisaged, my dear sir. But what came of it? Genuine attempts at "peace in our time" undermined by two significant and public episode in 1999 and 2007.

I foresee the present stalemate persisting for a few decades at least until the inevitable conclusion of recognizing the AGPLs as international borders in considered viable

I will just say - no more an option being considered by Indians.

There are very selective threads where I comment the least and simply observe or mark them as 'interesting take/insight'. This being another one of them.

Now the policy has been re-defined to vacation of the territories of GB and PAK (or AJK as is called). History has been a great teacher for those who want to learn - economic prosperity is always followed up by reclamation of territories lost, just a matter of time.

 

[saiyan0321]

That is precisely what the Simla Agreement of 1972 envisaged, my dear sir. But what came of it? Genuine attempts at "peace in our time" undermined by two significant and public episode in 1999 and 2007.

What it envisaged will have to be done one day as the UN has only become weaker in its enforcement of any solution in world affairs and we have seen the limitations of the ICJ. The two nations will have to come to terms that they are not going anywhere and will eventually have to resolve its issues

 

[Hellfire]

What matters (legally) is that the UN never, ever declared Pakistan the aggressor state in J&K

Very true. Just as J&K's accession to India was never declared illegal?