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

[nair]

nair common yaar
in this @ least give some credit to our leader Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, I mean from such weak position on ground, he actually managed to get the most & some more out of a very desperate situation, like him or hate but one can't deny his political brilliance, wish he had rule Pakistan for more

I give him full credit...... But IG's fabulous effort of 71 would have been better once this was settled once for all... Have you ever imagined what would have been the relationship between Pak and India "with No kashmir problem"....

 

[INDIC]

Yes ... That is the point ... India can not "unilaterally" declare that UN resolutions are no longer valid and Simla agreement has superseded them ...

All you are doing is twisting the words.

 

[somnath]

BJP condemns Pakistan army chief's Kashmir remarks

The BJP on Thursday condemned Pakistan Army chief Gen Raheel Sharif's comment that Kashmir was Islamabad's 'jugular vein', and said Pakistan occupied Kashmir was an integral part of India.

"BJP condemns statement made by army Pakistan army chief...Azad Kashmir (Pakistan occupied Kashmir) is an integral part of India," Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nirmala Sitharaman said.

"It is important that the Pakistan authorities remember that peace in this region cannot be affected by their hawkish uncalled for statements," she said.

Addressing a ceremony at the army headquarters in Rawalpindi Wednesday, Gen Raheel Sharif said Kashmir was was an international dispute over which UN resolutions existed and the resolutions were crucial for peace and stability in the region.

The BJP leader also demanded a clarification from Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

"Civilian elected government of Pakistan should speak up so that the region remains peaceful and help the development of all regions around. This uncalled for statement should be condemned," she said.

"Such statements do not help in building good neighbourhood.

BJP condemns Pakistan army chief's Kashmir remarks - IBNLive

 

[M. Sarmad]

Both Pakistan and India agreed to resolve ALL disputes between them bilaterally when they signed the Simla Agreement. Legally, that is a binding and pretty robust argument:

"(ii) 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."

And how does that "refute" what I have claimed ????


@INDIC .. prove me wrong my friend .. can u ?

 

[VCheng]

And how does that "refute" what I have claimed ????


@INDIC .. prove me wrong my friend .. can u ?

It clearly indicates that all disputes are to be resolved bilaterally. That means two sided. That means India and Pakistan. That means no UN or any other third party. Unless both agree to invite a third party. That means I am correct.

 

[M. Sarmad]

It clearly indicates that all disputes are to be resolved bilaterally. That means two sided. That means India and Pakistan. That means no UN or any other third party. Unless both agree to invite a third party. That means I am correct.

no ... That only means that u are "trolling" ... U can carry on ..

 

[VCheng]

no ... That only means that u are "trolling" ... U can carry on ..

Where have I trolled? Have I not been factually and logically correct, in a polite manner, relevant to the topic?

Please tell me how you read the following?

"(ii) 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."

 

[SamantK]

Your general is stupid, he either does not know about the part given away to China or the Simla agreement.

Also, he must be wondering on his stupid statement. Pakistan's Jugular vein in the hands of India and China

 

[M. Sarmad]

Where have I trolled? Have I not been factually and logically correct, in a polite manner, relevant to the topic?

Please tell me how you read the following?

"(ii) 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."

Now read carefully what I wrote earlier :

India's stand that the Simla Agreement of 1972 supersedes earlier UN resolutions on Kashmir is not legally tenable even as it sought "serious negotiations" on all outstanding disputes.

How one country can decide that UN Security Council resolutions are no more valid ?


The legal process is that if "Pakistan, India and Kashmiris reach an agreement on the settlement of the Kashmir dispute, they would have to go back to the UN Security Council to get another resolution to endorse that procedure",

"So this argument has no legal basis"



How a bilateral agreement, which does not state it intends to override the UN resolutions, could "override UN Security Council resolutions. ??

 

[VCheng]

Now read carefully what I wrote earlier :

India's stand that the Simla Agreement of 1972 supersedes earlier UN resolutions on Kashmir is not legally tenable even as it sought "serious negotiations" on all outstanding disputes.

How one country can decide that UN Security Council resolutions are no more valid ?


The legal process is that if "Pakistan, India and Kashmiris reach an agreement on the settlement of the Kashmir dispute, they would have to go back to the UN Security Council to get another resolution to endorse that procedure",

"So this argument has no legal basis"



How a bilateral agreement, which does not state it intends to override the UN resolutions, could "override UN Security Council resolutions. ??

One country did not sign the treaty, two did. And they both decided to resolve all issues bilaterally. The language of the bilateral agreement clearly overrides the previous resolutions.

And besides, my stance is proven correct by the responses to Pakistan's repeated requests for a third party to get involved.

 

[ares]

And how does that "refute" what I have claimed ????


@INDIC .. prove me wrong my friend .. can u ?

UN resolution 47(on Kashmir) was passed under Chapter VI of UN charter, hence is non binding and has no mandatory enforceability.

When India - Pakistan signed 1974 Shimla agreement thereby agreeing to solve all issues bilaterally, thereby doing away with any third party mediation(isin't it surprising why no country in world agrees to Pakistani pleas of mediation in Kashmir) including any UN recommendation, unless both parties agree to it.

 

[toxic_pus]

India's stand that the Simla Agreement of 1972 supersedes earlier UN resolutions on Kashmir is not legally tenable even as it sought "serious negotiations" on all outstanding disputes.

How one country can decide that UN Security Council resolutions are no more valid ?

How a bilateral agreement, which does not state it intends to override the UN resolutions, could "override UN Security Council resolutions".??

The UNSC resolutions are not invalid par se. Those have become redundant after Shimla Agreement.

Shimla Agreement requires both the countries to agree to the means of conflict resolution. If one country wants it to be via UNSC resolution, then the other will have to agree to that too.

The legal process is that if "Pakistan, India and Kashmiris reach an agreement on the settlement of the Kashmir dispute, they would have to go back to the UN Security Council to get another resolution to endorse that procedure",

There is no such thing. Kashmiris are not even a party to the 'dispute'.

Try to keep up.

 

[M. Sarmad]

One country did not sign the treaty, two did. And they both decided to resolve all issues bilaterally. The language of the bilateral agreement clearly overrides the previous resolutions.

And besides, my stance is proven correct by the responses to Pakistan's repeated requests for a third party to get involved.

Exactly ... One country did not sign the Simla Agreement, two did .... Hence one country alone can not claim that this agreement supersedes UN resolutions when the text of agreement does not say so and the other country also rejects this ... Hope I am clear now

 

[INDIC]

@Azlan Haider you are just playing with words.

 

[M. Sarmad]

The UNSC resolutions are not invalid par se. Those have become redundant after Shimla Agreement.

Shimla Agreement requires both the countries to agree to the means of conflict resolution. If one country wants it to be via UNSC resolution, then the other will have to agree to that too.


There is no such thing. Kashmiris are not even a party to the 'dispute'.

Try to keep up.

Both the countries have failed to resolve the dispute bilaterally and both countries have violated Simla Agreement on a number of occasions ... So it naturally brings us back to the UN resolutions ... Which haven't been superseded by anything "legally" ...

@Azlan Haider you are just playing with words.

I am still waiting for a "rebuttal".