Gen Raheel Sharif calls Kashmir as "jugular vein of Pakistan"

[M. Sarmad]

Explained above.


All true. But all of these are beside the point.

Bingo.

Simla Agreement doesn't supersede UNSC resolutions. TRUE.
Simla Agreement doesn't terminate UNSC resolutions. TRUE.
Simla Agreement doesn't preclude Pakistan from raising UNSC resolutions and demand it's enforcement. TRUE.

.

So , after giving a detailed "rebuttal" , You have finally realized that you were wrong !!!

Now read my previous posts and see what I have been saying , and now you are saying exactly the same !!! Then why this childish statement :

You have been rebutted up, down, right, left and centre but you have shut your eyes, stuck your fingers into your ears and screaming 'LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA'

....

All true. But those are not the scope or purpose of Simla Agreement. What Simla Agreement does is give the power to VETO, if proposal from one is not liked by another. So if Pakistan raises UNSC resolutions and demand it's enforcement, India can legally say no it. Since India does not consider UNSC resolutions, in its current form, would be able to resolve Kashmir issue, India will never agree to implement UNSC resolutions, which in any case require Pakistan to act first.

Hence the claim, that UNSC resolutions have become irrelevant. Not superseded, not terminated. Just irrelevant.

Simla Agreement does not give the Power to Veto .... UN charter overrides any other agreement between member countries in case of a conflict . And if UN resolutions had become "irrelevant" , then why did Security Council not accept the Indian claim on relevance of the UN observer group at the LoC in Jammu and Kashmir, with India stressing the force's role has been "overtaken" by subsequent agreements signed by the two nations under which they resolved to settle differences "through bilateral negotiations". ???

Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the U.N. Masood Khan held that UNMOGIP continues to monitor the ceasefire in accordance with Security Council resolution and its mandate is “therefore fully valid, relevant, and operative“.

Mr. Khan said no bilateral agreement between the two nations has “overtaken or affected” the role or legality of the observer group .....

Unfortunately for you, Mr Legal Eagle, Kashmir is under Chapter VI. Ooops. Damn those baniyas.

Now that is another debate ......... Also I could give an answer to you post about "principles and procedures" of UN charter.. But I have already proven my point so no need for that now ....

Please do read the UNSC resolution before the rebuttal,

regards

No , I have never read them . You are the only person in the world who knows about the "text" of those resolutions ...... Happy Now ??....... My point is , it was India and not Pakistan who halted the plebiscite process and India was never serious in carrying out a plebiscite in Kashmir ... Nehru was dishonest from day 1 ...... And there is enough evidence/proof for this .... And I will make a new thread about it in Senior`s cafe soon ........

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Go to the occupied kashmir and see with your own eyes how much those loons love your bharat mata.

In another thread I mentioned that I was in Indian Kashmir during December last year. The people there seem to be more interested in living their daily lives and making as much money as they can out of tourism. I noticed the Indian flag on quite a few buildings (presumably government ones). The most glaring difference between Kashmir and other states of India were the large number of paramilitary personnel on patrol. The Kashmiri seemed more interested in fleecing the tourists than protesting for independence. Not to say that any aspiration for either their independence or merger with Pakistan should not be a priority of India. My point being that I question whether all this hype about the so called suppression of the Kashmiri really holds water

 

[Pakistani-nationalist]

In another thread I mentioned that I was in Indian Kashmir during December last year. The people there seem to be more interested in living their daily lives and making as much money as they can out of tourism. I noticed the Indian flag on quite a few buildings (presumably government ones). The most glaring difference between Kashmir and other states of India were the large number of paramilitary personnel on patrol. The Kashmiri seemed more interested in fleecing the tourists than protesting for independence. Not to say that any aspiration for either their independence or merger with Pakistan should not be a priority of India. My point being that I question whether all this hype about the so called suppression of the Kashmiri really holds water

They were just trying to make money from the foreign tourists and that was just about business.Deep down they hate the invaders who are occupying their land .

 

[Dash]

The first point of Shimla agreement says that "relationship between two countries is governed by UN," it doesn't refer to any settlement of claims"

 

[toxic_pus]

So , after giving a detailed "rebuttal" , You have finally realized that you were wrong !!!

Now read my previous posts and see what I have been saying , and now you are saying exactly the same !!! Then why this childish statement :

Amazing.

Your argument is that Simla Agreement doesn't count because UNSC resolutions are supreme and supersede everything and my argument is Simla Agreement makes UNSC resolutions redundant because it gives India a legally mandated choice to not to implement those resolutions.

Unless you are suffering from serious aphasia, it is nowhere close to being 'exacly the same' as what you are saying.

Simla Agreement does not give the Power to Veto ....

That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations. [Simla Agreement, Clause (ii)]​

So what do those two phrases mean then? Or do you not know how a veto clause looks like in a legal document.?

UN charter overrides any other agreement between member countries in case of a conflict .

You wish. But sadly, it doesn't.

The text of Simla Agreement is out in the open & so is UN charter.

And if UN resolutions had become "irrelevant" , then why did Security Council not accept the Indian claim on relevance of the UN observer group at the LoC in Jammu and Kashmir, with India stressing the force's role has been "overtaken" by subsequent agreements signed by the two nations under which they resolved to settle differences "through bilateral negotiations". ???

That is a non-sequitur.

I have already explained you the context of irrelevance of UNSC resolutions. Once again, UNSC resolutions are irrelevant because, for enforcement of those, it would require acquiescence of India and India can legally decline to acquiesce due to Simla Agreement. It is of course another matter that UNSC resolutions can be enforced only, and only if Pakistan withdraws from P0K.

Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the U.N. Masood Khan held that UNMOGIP continues to monitor the ceasefire in accordance with Security Council resolution and its mandate is “therefore fully valid, relevant, and operative“.

Mr. Khan said no bilateral agreement between the two nations has “overtaken or affected” the role or legality of the observer group .....

Irrelevant.

Now that is another debate ......... Also I could give an answer to you post about "principles and procedures" of UN charter.. But I have already proven my point so no need for that now ....

Sure, if that helps you sleep.

PS: Management of this forum needs to seriously re-think about their policy on Think Tanks. Minimum that is expected of a Think Tank is that s/he would have some basic comprehension skill.

Yeah yeah. Keep twisting words liar.

That's what I thought. No arguments remain. Just some bran f@rts.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Amazing.
Your argument is that Simla Agreement doesn't count because UNSC resolutions are supreme and supersede everything and my argument is Simla Agreement makes UNSC resolutions redundant because it gives India a legally mandated choice to not to implement those resolutions.

Amazing truly !! Did you even bother to read my posts before "assuming" what my actual argument was ?? Or may be You have serious comprehension issues....... "Read" my posts or stop wasting my time kid.....

And the second part of your argument has been refuted already ... No need to repeat ...

That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations. [Simla Agreement, Clause (ii)]
So what do those two phrases mean then? Or do you not know how a veto clause looks like in a legal document.?

Let me educate you on this too ...

It is very essential to put the various words and phrases used in the above agreement in proper perspective and assign them the meaning in the context in which these are used. For instance once the two countries want their relationship continued to be governed by UN charter- the meaning of words “or through other peaceful means ” assumes a great significance. In the context in which these are used, it only envisages role of a third party in the settlement of dispute between the parties. As it a common knowledge that India & Pakistan have failed to settle their core dispute over Kashmir despite lapse of more than forty years since the Shimla agreement was signed and India, the first obligation of settling the dispute bilaterally vanishes. Since this obligation cannot be stretched upto eternity, we move to the next option of settling the dispute through “ other peaceful means” .This naturally envisages a role for third party mediation or reversion of matter back to UN. Since India Vociferously opposes a third party mediation by any party like USA or European Union, the settlement of dispute process has to be initiated by UN. In the Shimla agreement the two Countries have also reiterated to continue to be governed by UN charter. Article 103 of the said charter provides that 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.

No one who understands law/international law even a little bit would agree to your claim : "Simla Agreement gives India the power to VETO" against the UN resolutions and charter .

I have already explained you the context of irrelevance of UNSC resolutions. Once again, UNSC resolutions are irrelevant because, for enforcement of those, it would require acquiescence of India and India can legally decline to acquiesce due to Simla Agreement. It is of course another matter that UNSC resolutions can be enforced only, and only if Pakistan withdraws from P0K.

Answered already

Irrelevant

But to your disappointment , the UN didn`t think the same when it rejected the Indian claim in security council last year .....

PS: Management of this forum needs to seriously re-think about their policy on Think Tanks. Minimum that is expected of a Think Tank is that s/he would have some basic comprehension skill.

Surely ... If "that" helps you sleep

 

[HariPrasad]

Yesterday Rashid alvi of Congress said that if Kashmir is your jugular vein, we know how to cut that. This generated a lots of excitement in India.

 

[VCheng]

And if UN resolutions had become "irrelevant" , then why did Security Council not accept the Indian claim on relevance of the UN observer group at the LoC in Jammu and Kashmir, with India stressing the force's role has been "overtaken" by subsequent agreements signed by the two nations under which they resolved to settle differences "through bilateral negotiations". ???
Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the U.N. Masood Khan held that UNMOGIP continues to monitor the ceasefire in accordance with Security Council resolution and its mandate is “therefore fully valid, relevant, and operative“.
Mr. Khan said no bilateral agreement between the two nations has “overtaken or affected” the role or legality of the observer group

UNMOGIP is there to monitor the ceasefire as observers. The resolution of the Kashmir dispute is however a bilateral matter.

Anybody who disagrees with that is welcome to do so, but the actions of UN prove that the above interpretation is correct, regardless of what Mr. Khan says.

==================================

Having said that, it would be to the everlasting benefit of both India and Pakistan to understand that the stalemate does not serve anybody. The political leadership of both sides should have the foresight to work together to convert the existing ceasefire line into an recognized international border, and get on with serving their own people better without being held hostage by this historic baggage.

 

[toxic_pus]

Amazing truly !! Did you even bother to read my posts before "assuming" what my actual argument was ?? Or may be You have serious comprehension issues....... "Read" my posts or stop wasting my time kid.....

A better way to stop wasting your own time would to stop responding to my posts. But I guess you like wasting your time. Also, you could have pointed out my error in judgment instead of throwing a tantrum. That would have saved you some time.


This is a doozy:

It is very essential to put the various words and phrases used in the above agreement in proper perspective and assign them the meaning in the context in which these are used. For instance once the two countries want their relationship continued to be governed by UN charter (Only the 'principles and purpose' as enshrined in Article 1 & 2)- the meaning of words “or through other peaceful means ” assumes a great significance. In the context in which these are used, it only envisages role of a third party in the settlement of dispute between the parties (In which parallel universe does that happen?). As it a common knowledge that India & Pakistan have failed to settle their core dispute over Kashmir despite lapse of more than forty years since the Shimla agreement was signed and India, the first obligation of settling the dispute bilaterally vanishes (Really? Under which international law? Which article, section, sub-section, clause, para of that law?). Since this obligation cannot be stretched upto eternity, we move to the next option of settling the dispute through “ other peaceful means” .This naturally envisages a role for third party mediation or reversion of matter back to UN. Since India Vociferously opposes a third party mediation by any party like USA or European Union, the settlement of dispute process has to be initiated by UN (Anybody other than the parties to a 'dispute' is a third party. UN is a third party too). In the Shimla agreement the two Countries have also reiterated to continue to be governed by UN charter (Again, that is a reference to Article 1 & 2). Article 103 of the said charter provides that 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 (Except that those baniyas were clever enough to ensure that UNSC resolutions didn't give rise to any 'obligations under the present Charter' to India. The magic of Chapter VI).

So much jibberjabber yet nary a peep about what constitutes a veto in legal document, or what do the phrases I had underlined imply. Nice evasion. Nice strawman.

No one who understands law/international law even a little bit would agree to your claim : "Simla Agreement gives India the power to VETO" against the UN resolutions and charter .

And no one who has the basic faculty to comprehend simple English would agree to your claim to my claim. Here is my 'claim'

What Simla Agreement does is give the power to VETO, if proposal from one is not liked by another. So if Pakistan raises UNSC resolutions and demand it's enforcement, India can legally say no it.​

Apparently, the highlighted part means 'veto against UN resolutions and charter'.

*sigh*

 

[surya kiran]

UNMOGIP is there to monitor the ceasefire as observers. The resolution of the Kashmir dispute is however a bilateral matter.

Anybody who disagrees with that is welcome to do so, but the actions of UN prove that the above interpretation is correct, regardless of what Mr. Khan says.

==================================

Having said that, it would be to the everlasting benefit of both India and Pakistan to understand that the stalemate does not serve anybody. The political leadership of both sides should have the foresight to work together to convert the existing ceasefire line into an recognized international border, and get on with serving their own people better without being held hostage by this historic baggage.

Right now, its a ego issue. Just convert the LoC into the IB. Both countries stop carrying out covert and overt actions or support to non state actors in each others countries. Residents from both sides of Kashmir can move within the territories of J&K without visa requirement which can be authorised via a passport stamp.

But then......well.....wishes wishes.....

 

[MilSpec]

No , I have never read them . You are the only person in the world who knows about the "text" of those resolutions ...... Happy Now ??....... My point is , it was India and not Pakistan who halted the plebiscite process and India was never serious in carrying out a plebiscite in Kashmir ... Nehru was dishonest from day 1 ...... And there is enough evidence/proof for this .... And I will make a new thread about it in Senior`s cafe soon ........

mention me on the thread, I am looking forward to read your perspective,

thanks

 

[toxic_pus]

UNMOGIP is there to monitor the ceasefire as observers. The resolution of the Kashmir dispute is however a bilateral matter.

That is actually correct. Their presence has got nothing to do with resolution of Kashmir dispute and hence irrelevant.

Following the India-Pakistan hostilities at the end of 1971 and a subsequent ceasefire agreement of 17 December of that year, the tasks of UNMOGIP have been to observe, to the extent possible, developments pertaining to the strict observance of the ceasefire of 17 December 1971 and to report thereon to the Secretary-General.

UNMOGIP​

 

[Capt.Popeye]

UNMOGIP is there to monitor the ceasefire as observers. The resolution of the Kashmir dispute is however a bilateral matter.

Anybody who disagrees with that is welcome to do so, but the actions of UN prove that the above interpretation is correct, regardless of what Mr. Khan says.

==================================

Having said that, it would be to the everlasting benefit of both India and Pakistan to understand that the stalemate does not serve anybody. The political leadership of both sides should have the foresight to work together to convert the existing ceasefire line into an recognized international border, and get on with serving their own people better without being held hostage by this historic baggage.

You are CORRECT in all your statements there. Resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir issue(s) have progressively evolved from a (slightly) multilateral one to a bilateral one over the years. That process actually began when Pakistan reneged on one particular aspect/requirement of the original resolution/s. That was naturally used by India to stonewall any further movement/s. Finally the Simla Agreement completed the process of conversion to bilateralism.

Now the status quo will continue as long as the two parties remain intractable. As for the UN and the rest of the world; they have simply moved on and just do not care. Add to that; the fact that Pakistan has repeatedly sought to use all kinds of means (over six decades) including Non-State Actors ( a particular gift from Pakistan to our contemporary lexicon of the English language) and Low Intensity Conflict to seek to swing the outcome. But to no avail. Combine that with the proliferation, of Extremist and Jihadi elements in what some parties like to call the 'epicenter of terrorism' etc. has just washed away any "moral grounds" that Pakistan sought to portray.

So the upshot of it all is that the International Community just does not give a $hit anymore; to put it bluntly. That is the hard reality; which will not change.

Your last statement is particularly valuable and important. But with the continuing atmosphere of utter mistrust and cynicysm, there is unlikely to be any changes in the visible future. In the light of that; status quo will rule till.........

 

[VCheng]

So the upshot of it all is that the International Community just does not give a $hit anymore; to put it bluntly. That is the hard reality; which will not change.
Your last statement is particularly valuable and important. But with the continuing atmosphere of utter mistrust and cynicysm, there is unlikely to be any changes in the visible future. In the light of that; status quo will rule till.........

I will disagree that the world does not care any more. Both USA and UN recognize the Kashmir issue as a potentially dangerous situation between two nuclear adversaries, and keep a close eye on the situation. In such a case, even stalemate is not a bad outcome. However, I do agree with you that stalemate is not a permanent solution and that it will take vision on both sides to move past this to make some progress towards resolving this issue. But how to make those who choose to remain blind, see?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I will disagree that the world does not care any more. Both USA and UN recognize the Kashmir issue as a potentially dangerous situation between two nuclear adversaries, and keep a close eye on the situation. In such a case, even stalemate is not a bad outcome. However, I do agree with you that stalemate is not a permanent solution and that it will take vision on both sides to move past this to make some progress towards resolving this issue. But how to make those who choose to remain blind, see?

With your permission; may I qualify your first two statements. The UN and the USA only care to the extent that it is a continuing flare-point. Going further; the UN is a far more emasculated body than it has been in the past. While the USA is much less benignly disposed to Pakistan's actions (or peccadilloes) than in the past. Reality dictates that we factor that in. If I may say so; their concern only extends to not seeing a nuclear conflagration erupting, which is some-what of a nuanced thing. But to transpose that into a burning desire to push forth a solution.........?
Actually some entities (not necessarily Indian) will even "wink at" no resolution being found.

That said; I do absolutely believe that India and Pakistan (NOT the rest of the world) will do well to seek and find a workable solution to the imbroglio.