my dear it was not just a 'mere' technicality as you suggest, but it reveal the actual understanding of Indian government of the situation and the situation on the ground in Kashmir during that time. (
01 Jan 1948)
Indian Complaint to the Security Council, lst January 1948
For your Kind information these two different chapter of UN charter deals with different situations, clearly visible and understandable to everyone but not to Indians.
Chapter VI deals with 'Disputes' of any kind between states.
Indian Government by filling the complain against Pakistan under this chapter accepted Kashmir as a '
Disputed Territory' & denied to term local uprising of Kashmir as a threat to the Peace, breach of Peace or the act of Aggression which falls under the chapter VII.
Chapter VII deals with : ACTION WITH RESPECT TO
THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
If the Kashmir upraising was an act of aggression by Pakistan and was a threat or a breach of peace of the region than
Why India did not file her complain under chapter VII ... ??
Why India accepted Pakistan as a Lawful & Equivalent party of the disputed under UN resolution .... ???
Why India didn't seek aggressive help of International community against Pakistan by filling the complain under chapter VII .... ??
My dear "
Action Speak Louder then Word", now I request to please term it again a '
MERE' Technicality
Dear there is just a difference b/w the implementation of resolutions under both chapters, as Chapter 6 prefers and recommend the settlement of the dispute between the parties of the dispute
peacefully under the recommendation of UN / SC.
While under chapter 7 UN / SC can take '
appropriate' action,
technically speaking every resolution of UN is obligatory to all of its members, but differ is just in the degree of implementation; some are just
moral obligation and other are binding.
I don't want to say but India by not implementing the UN resolution passed under Chapter 6
on its own request proving herself as an immoral state.
