What's new

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

Kashmir .....its a dream for Pakistan that never comes true....all old pakistani officials are still in shock of east Pakistan ....and the new one needs something new...
 
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.

And now you are repeating your lines like a parrot , without trying to understand anything (Typical VCheng style ;)) ...... Let me try for one last time ..

The Kashmir dispute, though it appears to be predominantly a bilateral one between India and Pakistan, as is stressed by India, directly involves the international community. India itself took the dispute to the UN Security Council in 1948, where it is still registered as such and thus remains a pending agenda till it is resolved


As far as the legal position of the UN resolutions is concerned regarding unresolved conflicts, Article 103 of the UN Charter explicitly states: ‘ 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.’ Thus, under its own provisions, the UN itself has a legal obligation to play the role of a ‘moderator’ or ‘facilitator’ in efforts for the resolution of outstanding disputes on its agenda. UN prefers bilateral resolution , but has to step in when necessary , as an obligation (as per its own charter) . It is a matter of time only . UN never said that Kashmir dispute is essentially a "bilateral" dispute and UN has no role to play under any circumstances ..... So your argument is baseless

The UN resolutions are still valid, even though India has made many efforts to declare them‘dead’, particularly after the signing of the Simla Agreement on July 3, 1972 . This Indian claim has been refuted by various UN representatives who, on several occasions, have clarified that, only a bilateral agreement, which solves the problem, would legally supersede the numerous existing UN resolutions on that dispute. Also, in the absence of any fundamental change in the circumstances, the UN resolutions can become invalid only when the UN Security Council declares them null and viod


For example in 1956, the then UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjold, had clearly stated that ‘the UN decision is valid until it has been invalidated by the organ which took it.

In April 1990, the UN Representative, Francis Guiliani, clarified: ‘a bilateral agreement, which solved the problem, would supersede the resolution aimed at solving the issue. However, as long as the problem remained, the resolutions would remain in effect regardless of when they were adopted.’

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"


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 ........

Now choice is yours .. You can try to understand what is being told to you , or else ,You can keep crying and whining like the other Indian members here .....


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.

Though the Shimla Agreement was signed it could not provide a final solution to the Indo-Pak problem. For, after the signing of the Shimla Accord the Pakistani spokesman said, “we remain where we are until a final settlement is reached” which meant that this much publicized agreement was not a final one........

Simla Agreement assigns a "temporary" status to LoC and recognizes Kasmir issue as an "unsettled dispute" .. untill resolved bilaterally or by any other peaceful means !!

Indeed the talks about Shimla Agreement still continue to be mere eyewash. But only the Pakistanis can repose faith in Shimla Pact, as they do know that it was India’s diplomatic defeat.
 
Last edited:
Now choice is yours .. You can try to understand what is being told to you , or else ,You can keep crying and whining like the other Indian members here .....

I will not be "told" anything. I will make up my mind fairly and honestly. In this case, I think you are incorrect as proven by the UN Sec-Gen himself. The Simla Agreement stands. This will be my last comment on this topic with you.

Funny how you yourself admit it too:

So Kashmir will remain a disputed territory (under international law and UN) until a final settlement is reached between India and Pakistan
 
I will not be "told" anything. I will make up my mind fairly and honestly. In this case, I think you are incorrect as proven by the UN Sec-Gen himself. The Simla Agreement stands. This will be my last comment on this topic with you.

Funny how you yourself admit it too:

OK , You can keep crying and whining :lol: .......... Your choice mate
 
Last edited:
Despite Pakistan's contorted interpretations and requests for third party mediation, it is being rebuffed at every diplomatic level. When it realizes that it is up to Pakistan and India only to resolve this matter between themselves, as agreed upon in the Simla Agreement, things might progress. Until then, asking for UN or US mediation will remain a losing proposition for Pakistan.
 
Despite Pakistan's contorted interpretations and requests for third party mediation, it is being rebuffed at every diplomatic level. When it realizes that it is up to Pakistan and India only to resolve this matter between themselves, as agreed upon in the Simla Agreement, things might progress. Until then, asking for UN or US mediation will remain a losing proposition for Pakistan.

That is the most accurate and realistic interpretation of the situation obtaining. While the process of bilateralisation was initiated in de jure terms at Simla; the de facto process got completed later. Since that was a continuing thing; its hard to put a date-line on that, but it happened in the 1990s. The process was complete by 1999, and Kargil hammered in the final nail and wrote the epitaph (to use a mixed metaphor :D ). Now it has been demonstrated time again through the pronouncements that periodically emanate from UN and USA. The others scarcely even mention it.
Apart from that the usual verbiage and rhetoric are heard sporadically, but to no avail.

Interestingly, there has been great deal of discussion in Strategic Circles in India that Indira Gandhi could have and should have even pushed for more changes in the status quo at Simla, using the 93.000 unfortunate POWs; but that will be the topic of another discussion.
 
India wil fail Pakistan will triumph Russia will fall ukrain will rise if you ask me that's a nice rhyme :)
 
Indeed the talks about Shimla Agreement still continue to be mere eyewash. But only the Pakistanis can repose faith in Shimla Pact, as they do know that it was India’s diplomatic defeat.
So long as the rest of the World, including global bodies, continue to think that they would need India's permission to meddle, we will take that 'diplomatic defeat' everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.

Meanwhile, just the other day US refused to mediate unless India agreed.
 
The irony here is that the BJP sees the Shimla agreement as a treacherous event foisted on India by Mrs.Indira Gandhi.
 
So long as the rest of the World, including global bodies, continue to think that they would need India's permission to meddle, we will take that 'diplomatic defeat' everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.

Meanwhile, just the other day US refused to mediate unless India agreed.

You can close your eyes and tell yourself that "all is well" and continue living in denial for some time more ... But the fact remains "Kashmir is an internationally recognized disputed territory" and "Kashmir is a potential Nuclear Flashpoint" !!

The irony here is that the BJP sees the Shimla agreement as a treacherous event foisted on India by Mrs.Indira Gandhi.

Indira Gandhi failed to settle India`s longstanding issues with Pakistan at Simla .. Mrs. Gandhi failed to get an agreement converting the ceasefire line in Kashmir into the international border in the parleys held at Shimla from 28 June to 2 July.

Most probably It was a gesture of goodwill towards the People of Pakistan that would befriend them in course of time ... Unfortunately , for her and for the people of sub continent , it didn`t work .
 
Indira Gandhi failed to settle India`s longstanding issues with Pakistan at Simla .. Mrs. Gandhi failed to get an agreement converting the ceasefire line in Kashmir into the international border in the parleys held at Shimla from 28 June to 2 July.

Most probably It was a gesture of goodwill towards the People of Pakistan that would befriend them in course of time ... Unfortunately , for her and for the people of sub continent , it didn`t work .

No it was not because of that.
 
You can close your eyes and tell yourself that "all is well" and continue living in denial for some time more ... But the fact remains "Kashmir is an internationally recognized disputed territory" and "Kashmir is a potential Nuclear Flashpoint" !!

Well..... considering that you chaps have been closing your eyes to reality for the last 65+ years, you really are in no position to comment on anyone else supposedly closing their eyes.
 
"Kashmir is an internationally recognized disputed territory"

No one is disputing that. You are the only one who is failing to get the point. It is an internationally recognized bilateral dispute, but to have a third party's involvement, an unanimous agreement of both the parties involved (India and Pakistan) is necessary. You can of course keep trying but as long as the Shimla agreement is valid that is how it is going stay.
 
No one is disputing that. You are the only one who is failing to get the point. It is an internationally recognized bilateral dispute, but to have a third party's involvement, an unanimous agreement of both the parties involved (India and Pakistan) is necessary. You can of course keep trying but as long as the Shimla agreement is valid that is how it is going stay.

Please read the previous posts and try to disprove what I have said (if you can) ... Otherwise keep crying and whining , No one cares
 
Back
Top Bottom