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

[M. Sarmad]

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.

You are contradicting yourself here ....

India stressed that the UNMOGIP role has been "overtaken" by subsequent agreements signed by the two nations under which they resolved to settle differences "through bilateral negotiations".

Whereas 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

UN rejected Indian POV and maintained that "Given the disagreement between India and Pakistan about UNMOGIP’s mandate and functions, the Secretary-General’s position has been that UNMOGIP can only be terminated by a decision of the Security Council. In the absence of such a decision, UNMOGIP has been maintained with those same arrangements since then" (What Mr. Khan was claiming) ...


Despite continuous efforts by India to tell the world that UN resolutions have been superseded by Simla Agreement and Kashmir is a bilateral issue now , UN still recognizes Kashmir as a disputed territory and maintains its unarmed military observers in Kashmir ...... Pakistan`s position on Simla Agreement is stronger than India "legally" .. And as I have made clear already , Simla Agreement does not make Kashmir dispute essentially a "bilateral" one , and it does not make UN and its resolutions irrelevant (contrary to the Indian claim) ........

Simla Agreement is a temporary arrangement "Pending the final settlement.." ..... So what India did was to recognize Kashmir as a "dispute" until resolved bilaterally or by any other peaceful means .... So Kashmir will remain a disputed territory legally until a final settlement is reached between India and Pakistan , no matter how much Indians cry and whine about it ........

 

[VCheng]

You are contradicting yourself here ....

India stressed that the UNMOGIP role has been "overtaken" by subsequent agreements signed by the two nations under which they resolved to settle differences "through bilateral negotiations".

Whereas 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

UN rejected Indian POV and maintained that "Given the disagreement between India and Pakistan about UNMOGIP’s mandate and functions, the Secretary-General’s position has been that UNMOGIP can only be terminated by a decision of the Security Council. In the absence of such a decision, UNMOGIP has been maintained with those same arrangements since then" (What Mr. Khan was claiming) ...


Despite continuous efforts by India to tell the world that UN resolutions have been superseded by Simla Agreement and Kashmir is a bilateral issue now , UN still recognizes Kashmir as a disputed territory and maintains its unarmed military observers in Kashmir ...... Pakistan`s position on Simla Agreement is stronger than India "legally" .. And as I have made clear already , Simla Agreement does not make Kashmir dispute essentially a "bilateral" one , and it does not make UN and its resolutions irrelevant (contrary to the Indian claim) ........

Simla Agreement is a temporary arrangement "Pending the final settlement.." ..... So what India did was to recognize Kashmir as a "dispute" until resolved bilaterally or by any other peaceful means .... So Kashmir will remain a disputed territory legally until a final settlement is reached between India and Pakistan , no matter how much Indians cry and whine about it ........

And yet, these are the words of the Secretary-General of the UN:

"The office of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said on Thursday that "our good offices are available if both sides (India and Pakistan) were to request" mediation."

Exactly as specified in the Simla Agreement.

Any thoughts of wisdom on that quote specifically, Sir?

All your comments above relate to the role of UNMOGIP in observing the ceasefire, that is all.

 

[M. Sarmad]

And yet, these are the words of the Secretary-General of the UN:

"The office of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said on Thursday that "our good offices are available if both sides (India and Pakistan) were to request" mediation."

Exactly as specified in the Simla Agreement.

Any thoughts of wisdom on that quote specifically, Sir?

All your comments above relate to the role of UNMOGIP in observing the ceasefire, that is all.

No dear , you are wrong again . All my comments above relate to a lot of things , none of which has been disproved by you or any other Indian member . And you are contradicting yourself once again . If Kashmir Dispute was strictly a bilateral issue and UN had no role to play (as per Indian claim) , then why did UN reject the Indian demand of terminating UNMOGIP ??

Now coming to what the "office of UN Secretary General" said , Please show us where does it say that Kashmir dispute is essentially a "bilateral" dispute and UN has no role to play under any circumstances ?? A bilateral resolution is highly preferred , but in case both countries fail to resolve this dispute bilaterally , UN has to step in (as per the UN charter) ...... Now Pakistan claims that Both countries have failed to resolve this issue bilaterally so UN should intervene ... UN maintains that :"both countries have maintained channels of communications on the Kashmir issue. And that the composite dialogue could have gone faster than it is." [Ban Ki-Moon] (i.e the efforts for bilateral resolution haven`t failed yet) .....



And then read this carefully so you may understand things in a better way :

Simla Agreement is a temporary arrangement "Pending the final settlement.." ..... So what India did was to recognize Kashmir as a "dispute" until resolved bilaterally or by any other peaceful means .... So Kashmir will remain a disputed territory (under international law and UN) until a final settlement is reached between India and Pakistan , no matter how much Indians cry and whine about it ........

 

[chhota bheem]

No dear , you are wrong again . All my comments above relate to a lot of things , none of which has been disproved by you or any other Indian member . And you are contradicting yourself once again . If Kashmir Dispute was strictly a bilateral issue and UN had no role to play (as per Indian claim) , then why did UN reject the Indian demand of terminating UNMOGIP ??

Now coming to what the "office of UN Secretary General" said , Please show us where does it say that Kashmir dispute is essentially a "bilateral" dispute and UN has no role to play under any circumstances ?? A bilateral resolution is highly preferred , but in case both countries fail to resolve this dispute bilaterally , UN has to step in (as per the UN charter) ...... Now Pakistan claims that Both countries have failed to resolve this issue bilaterally so UN should intervene ... UN maintains that :"both countries have maintained channels of communications on the Kashmir issue. And that the composite dialogue could have gone faster than it is." [Ban Ki-Moon] (i.e the efforts for bilateral resolution haven`t failed yet) .....



And then read this carefully so you may understand things in a better way :

Simla Agreement is a temporary arrangement "Pending the final settlement.." ..... So what India did was to recognize Kashmir as a "dispute" until resolved bilaterally or by any other peaceful means .... So Kashmir will remain a disputed territory legally (under international law) until a final settlement is reached between India and Pakistan , no matter how much Indians cry and whine about it ........

Still hanging on to straws.
cant see the obvious.dont make fun of yourself in front of others,i have seen some good posts by you,keep it that way.

 

[nForce]

No dear , you are wrong again . All my comments above relate to a lot of things , none of which has been disproved by you or any other Indian member . And you are contradicting yourself once again . If Kashmir Dispute was strictly a bilateral issue and UN had no role to play (as per Indian claim) , then why did UN reject the Indian demand of terminating UNMOGIP ??

Now coming to what the "office of UN Secretary General" said , Please show us where does it say that Kashmir dispute is essentially a "bilateral" dispute and UN has no role to play under any circumstances ?? A bilateral resolution is highly preferred , but in case both countries fail to resolve this dispute bilaterally , UN has to step in (as per the UN charter) ...... Now Pakistan claims that Both countries have failed to resolve this issue bilaterally so UN should intervene ... UN maintains that :"both countries have maintained channels of communications on the Kashmir issue. And that the composite dialogue could have gone faster than it is." [Ban Ki-Moon] (i.e the efforts for bilateral resolution haven`t failed yet) .....



And then read this carefully so you may understand things in a better way :

Simla Agreement is a temporary arrangement "Pending the final settlement.." ..... So what India did was to recognize Kashmir as a "dispute" until resolved bilaterally or by any other peaceful means .... So Kashmir will remain a disputed territory (under international law and UN) until a final settlement is reached between India and Pakistan , no matter how much Indians cry and whine about it ........

1.The bold part is rather open ended..

2.An issue is an issue.The UN recognizes it as an issue and wants both the countries to resolve it. What exactly is your point here?
3. Last time I checked it was the Pakistani General who made a statement and that triggered this thread.Do you know the official stance of GoI on this ? The External Affairs Ministry hands out a TO-DO list to its Pakistani counterpart, and says after these are done, then only we will consider talking about Kashmir.Are you even aware of what is going on in the World? So, now tell me, "Who is crying and whining?". Be realistic...

 

[M. Sarmad]

Still hanging on to straws.
cant see the obvious.dont make fun of yourself in front of others,i have seen some good posts by you,keep it that way.

And I didn`t expect any better from my clueless Indian friends like you .... You are the only one making fun of yourself here by trying to refute a detailed argument with a single stupid line ........

And by the way let me educate you , the first post I made on this thread : "India`s claim that Simla Agreement supersedes earlier UN resolutions is not legally tenable ......." is actually the "official" stance of Govt. of Pakistan on this matter and even your "experts" have not been able to disprove it in front of UN .. And here amateur teenagers with access to internet are trying to teach us international law and its implementation ......So better go and sleep my friend ... these are serious matters

1.The bold part is rather open ended..

2.An issue is an issue.The UN recognizes it as an issue and wants both the countries to resolve it. What exactly is your point here?
3. Last time I checked it was the Pakistani General who made a statement and that triggered this thread.Do you know the official stance of GoI on this ? The External Affairs Ministry hands out a TO-DO list to its Pakistani counterpart, and says after these are done, then only we will consider talking about Kashmir.Are you even aware of what is going on in the World? So, now tell me, "Who is crying and whining?". Be realistic...

Well , Kashmir is an internationally recognized disputed territory . Both India and Pakistan claim the territory . Indians say Kashmir is "Atoot Ang" of India . Pakistanis say that "Kashmir is the jugular vein of Pakistan" ........ Now every one in your country including your PMs and other leaders repeatedly use "atoot ang" to describe Kashmir . And a statement by a Pakistani General repeating Pakistan`s narrative makes Indians go crazy , as if the General had said something that was very weird and quite unexpected !!

Even (supposedly) senior Indian members here started saying that the general does not know a damn thing about UN resolutions .......

Now same could be said about the Indians who repeat the "Atoot Ang" rhetoric ... Until a final agreement is reached , saying that "Kashmir is jugular vein of Pakistan" is no more wrong than saying "Kashmir is India`s integral part" ..... I hope you get my point !!

 

[chhota bheem]

And I didn`t expect any better from my clueless Indian friends like you .... You are the only one making fun of yourself here by trying to refute a detailed argument with a single stupid line ........

And by the way let me educate you , the first post I made on this thread : "India`s claim that Simla Agreement supersedes earlier UN resolutions is not legally tenable ......." is actually the "official" stance of Govt. of Pakistan on this matter and even your "experts" have not been able to disprove it in front of UN .. And here amateur teenagers with access to internet are trying to teach us international law and its implementation ......So better go and sleep my friend ... these are serious matters

Sometime a single line says a lot then what a full book can say.Do you know when was the last resolution by UN on Kashmir was and you do know how many wars we fought and how many agreements we had after Simla Agreement.

Now coming back to your stand Simla Agreement dsnt supersede UN resolutions,
It dsnt matter as long as UN dsnt want to get involved without India saying ok,

To put this in context, forget about India and Pakistan,iany two countries in the world want UN get involded to resolve their disputes even without any kind of UN resolution,UN will do that.
so whats different in our case,UN is saying the same thing " it will get involved only if both India and Pakistan agree to its involvement".
Whats the use of that kind on resolution if it dsnt help you a bit,which you keep harping about.
To copy pasting from net is easy.but to be logical isnt.

 

[toxic_pus]

Wash. Rinse. Repeat. This is really exasperating.

If Kashmir Dispute was strictly a bilateral issue and UN had no role to play (as per Indian claim) , then why did UN reject the Indian demand of terminating UNMOGIP ??

UNMOGIP was formed by a part of one set of resolutions (39 & 47) meant to monitor cease fire while the mechanism for resolution of Kashmir 'dispute' is covered by another set of resolutions. They are mutually exclusive. One has got nothing to do with another.

Simla Agreement makes the UN suggested mechanism to resolve Kashmir irrelevant, by making all differences between India and Pakistan bilateral. This is recognized by UN, as is evidenced by Mr Ban Ki Moon's comment posted here.

India's position on UNMOGIP is based entirely on a different premise. UNMOGIP was formed to monitor Cease Fire Line (CFL) which was based on the ground positions of both the countries in 1948. However in 1971 this line changed quite a bit, and although it followed, more or less, the contours of Karachi Agreement 1949, the original CFL line had ceased to exist. It was also renamed Line of Control (LoC). India's position is that since the 'object' that UNMOGIP is mandated to monitor no longer exists, its mandate has lapsed. Pakistan, of course disagreed and refused to terminate UNMOGIP at SC. So UN took the position that since there is no termination of mandate, UNMOGIP will continue to work.

UN's refusal to accept India's view on UNMOGIP's validity doesn't in any way negate that fact that Kashmir has become a bilateral issue by virtue of Simla Agreement. Those are two different issues based on two different premise, unconnected to each other.

A bilateral resolution is highly preferred , but in case both countries fail to resolve this dispute bilaterally , UN has to step in (as per the UN charter)

To the best of my knowledge there is no such Article. If you are referring to Article 103, it is entirely a different thing altogether. Article 103 states that obligation under UN Charter takes precedence if it is contradicted by any bilateral agreement. And obligation under UN Charter arises only under Chapter VII as per Article 2, para 7.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. [Chapter I/ Article 2/ Para 7]​

Simla Agreement is a temporary arrangement "Pending the final settlement.."

The complete clause reads:

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.​

You should stop quote mining from open source legal documents. What that part means is that both the parties shall maintain status quo until a dispute - any dispute - is resolved. It doesn't assign a temporary status to Simla Agreement.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Now same could be said about the Indians who repeat the "Atoot Ang" rhetoric ... Until a final agreement is reached , saying that "Kashmir is jugular vein of Pakistan" is no more wrong than saying "Kashmir is India`s integral part" ..... I hope you get my point !!

To put it into the simplest possible terms (in the fervent hope that it will work for you); India considers Kashmir to be an 'atoot ang' simply because India does not consider circumcising off Kashmir.

Now about the 'jugular vein' rhetoric; let me explain that also in the simplest possible terms to you. All the assorted Honchos in Pakistan have to resort to that simply to explain away the adventures and miasdventures resorted to so far right from "Gibraltar" etc (but to no avail) that have been indulged in so far. So that no explanations will need to be be given for all the people that have died because of the 'throttling of the jugular vein'. That is simply the reality.
Geddit.

 

[livingdead]

@Azlan Haider we call it atoot ang becuse we claim India will face serious consequences if we let kashmir go.
Pakistan survived without kashmir for 65 years, its more of a second kidney/testicle/eye than jugular vein.

 

[Uzair2118]

Inshallah Kashmir will be or atleast the part that india has occupied will be a part of Pakistan again.

And oh

There is a war coming

 

[Slayer786]

Pakistan has often described Kashmir as the "jugular vein" but this is the first time Gen Sharif has used the term or spoken about Kashmir since taking over late last year.

What took the Gen Sharif so long to utter the rhetorical term?

Arey bhai, samja karo. Josh dilanay kay liyay public ko bolna parta hain. Just like during indian elections Modi and company are bashing Pakistan for votes. Its all politics.

 

[ranjeet]

Arey bhai, samja karo. Josh dilanay kay liyay public ko bolna parta hain. Just like during indian elections Modi and company are bashing Pakistan for votes. Its all politics.

I know man, was trying my hand at little trolling that time.

 

[VCheng]

No dear , you are wrong again . All my comments above relate to a lot of things , none of which has been disproved by you or any other Indian member . And you are contradicting yourself once again . If Kashmir Dispute was strictly a bilateral issue and UN had no role to play (as per Indian claim) , then why did UN reject the Indian demand of terminating UNMOGIP ??

Now coming to what the "office of UN Secretary General" said , Please show us where does it say that Kashmir dispute is essentially a "bilateral" dispute and UN has no role to play under any circumstances ?? A bilateral resolution is highly preferred , but in case both countries fail to resolve this dispute bilaterally , UN has to step in (as per the UN charter) ...... Now Pakistan claims that Both countries have failed to resolve this issue bilaterally so UN should intervene ... UN maintains that :"both countries have maintained channels of communications on the Kashmir issue. And that the composite dialogue could have gone faster than it is." [Ban Ki-Moon] (i.e the efforts for bilateral resolution haven`t failed yet) .....



And then read this carefully so you may understand things in a better way :

Simla Agreement is a temporary arrangement "Pending the final settlement.." ..... So what India did was to recognize Kashmir as a "dispute" until resolved bilaterally or by any other peaceful means .... So Kashmir will remain a disputed territory (under international law and UN) until a final settlement is reached between India and Pakistan , no matter how much Indians cry and whine about it ........

And yet the UN refuses to mediate unless both India and Pakistan agree as per the terms of the Simla Agreement as proven by the quote of the Secretary-General given above.

 

[nForce]

Well , Kashmir is an internationally recognized disputed territory . Both India and Pakistan claim the territory . Indians say Kashmir is "Atoot Ang" of India . Pakistanis say that "Kashmir is the jugular vein of Pakistan" ........ Now every one in your country including your PMs and other leaders repeatedly use "atoot ang" to describe Kashmir . And a statement by a Pakistani General repeating Pakistan`s narrative makes Indians go crazy , as if the General had said something that was very weird and quite unexpected !!

Even (supposedly) senior Indian members here started saying that the general does not know a damn thing about UN resolutions .......

Now same could be said about the Indians who repeat the "Atoot Ang" rhetoric ... Until a final agreement is reached , saying that "Kashmir is jugular vein of Pakistan" is no more wrong than saying "Kashmir is India`s integral part" ..... I hope you get my point !!

Please don't whine about which member told you what and please try to make your comments short, brief and to the point.It becomes really difficult to comprehend if you throw a river of words at me.

I put forward some points categorically and precisely.If you have any disagreement with that, reply to the point.

Also, about this comment by this general, I was expecting this kind of comment to be made by a politician or even better,a bureaucrat, not by an army general.After all, in a democratic country, it is not army or airforce or navy's prerogative to make policies for the nation, or even represent them in a global platform.There are specific ministries for that purpose.