Kashmir: If progress is to be made, India must dictate the terms

[VCheng]

That can also apply to you. So its a matter of perspective huzoor.

Not really. I am only a private citizen. Those fauji blockheads illegally control the foreign and defense policy of a nuclear armed nation and hold the future of hundreds of millions in their hands.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Cite that actual resolution which was accepted by both parties as having 'superseded the initial requirement of requiring Pakistan to unilaterally demilitarize'.

Please reference UNSC Resolutions 80 (reference the McNaughton Report) and on-wards) - demilitarization of the disputed territory of J&K is subject to an agreement between India and Pakistan on the demilitarization.

This happens when you make a claim through your posterior and then try to support it by googling.

Article 25 is about 'decisions' of SC. And the only decision that the SC is allowed to make under Chapter VI is contained in Article 34. It is about investigations. That is, if UN decides to 'investigate' a complaint filed under Article 33, then both the parties will have to co-operate (combined reading of Article 25 & 34). Resolutions under Chapter VI are passed under Article 36 which are not 'decisions' of SC. Those are 'recommendations'.

The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment. [Article 36(1)]​

Did it even occur to you that if Article 25 becomes applicable to Chapter VI resolutions then these resolutions would no longer remain 'non-binding' and yet they are.

Incorrect - the term "decision" is not used as a substitute for the word "investigate". The UNSC can "decide" to undertake an "investigation" under Chapter VI, and it can "decide" to make recommendations under Chapter VI, just as it can "decide" to do the same under Chapter VII. The difference between the Chapter VI and Chapter VII resolutions, where they do exist, is over the ability of the UNSC to authorize means to "enforce" the "decisions" made. Therefore, whether the "decisions" made under Chapter VI or Chapter VII allow (or not) for the UNSC to authorize "enforcement" has no bearing on the fact that, as signatories to the UN Charter, and agreeing to UN mediation in the dispute (which India did by taking the dispute to the UN in the first place), these resolutions are legal commitments on the part of India and Pakistan.

You may, perhaps, wish to pay more attention to the language and its meanings instead of throwing around petty insults.

Accept that Chapter VI resolutions are recommendations and not binding. IWT is binding on both - if one violates, the other can take recourse.

Chapter VI resolutions are legal commitments on the part of the States that agreed to UN mediation just as much as the IWT is. Chapter VII resolutions are only "binding" because of the ability of the UNSC to authorize enforcement in pursuit of the implementation of Chapter VII resolutions. What "enforcement" mechanism does the IWT provide for in case of one State or the other refusing to honor the agreement?

It is Pakistan that reneged under one pretext or another as is evidenced by repeated admonition by various UN rapporteurs. And I didn't mean 'Pakistan would lose the case of J&K'. I was referring to cases that Pakistan has lost. Pay attention.

The discussion is over the dispute of J&K, so referring to unrelated "cases that Pakistan has lost" serves no purpose here. If the Indian position is that her case is strong and that Pakistan will lose, then why is India the party to the conflict reneging on her commitment to the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir and refusing to accept neutral arbitration to arrive at an agreement over demilitarization and the subsequent holding of a plebiscite?

You are a real piece of work. IWT works because India adheres to it and makes it work. Pakistan has no role in it.

And here you have established my earlier point for me - India's legal obligations under the IWT are no different than her legal obligations under the UN Charter to the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir. There is no "enforcement mechanism" in either case. It just so happens that India, so far, has chosen to abide by her commitment to uphold the IWT, while choosing to renege on her commitment to implement the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Again, your mental acrobatics fail to convince anyone who matters. That is the only problem with what you say.

One again, throwing around petty insults and inane one liners is not a substitute for a factual and rational rebuttal of the arguments I have made.

 

[VCheng]

One again, throwing around petty insults and inane one liners is not a substitute for a factual and rational rebuttal of the arguments I have made.

Sir, with all due respect, I have no problem with your wonderfully intricate rationalizations. Good job, I really mean it.

 

[Rizwan1Zb]

To Modi and Bharat mata ┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sir, with all due respect, I have no problem with your wonderfully intricate rationalizations. Good job, I really mean it.

There is nothing "intricate" about my rationalizations - it's an explanation in plain English of the plain English used in said agreements, treaties and statements under discussion, which is why your inability to respond without resort to petty insults and inane one liners is surprising.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

It has and to a large degree. The Pakistani establishment has moved to the idea that Kashmir cannot be won, but a situation must be created so that a more or less favourable outcome with the IB and Kashmir boundary threat. Where I mention threat I do not mean the Indian forces sitting across the working boundary or otherwise, but rather those pointed with their guns via Kashmir and by default the water supply.
This change isnt radical, but it rests on the basic notion that the state of constant conflict with India is no longer fruitful and that it is time to take advantage of India's rise for the benefit of Pakistan. Yet, there are still elements that oppose that change within the establishment so if one was to really look at it the Pakistani establishment is in a state of flux.

India's establishment (or Think tank) too has been changing but sadly this has not been helping the change within the other side along.
Ive talked on this idea of establishment a little more here.
China/Pakistan/India - Was Nehru smarter than Modi? | Page 29

Not really @Oscar. No significant changes have taken place. Only the articulations/noises from the "Deep State" seem to have some changes. But that as well as the insignificant tactical changes have only been brought about because the "Deep State's" own position and power have been impacted upon in recent years. Any and all "changes" are strictly based on/premised on the "Deep State's" interests and the over-riding reasons to preserve them...........anyhow!

 

[SQ8]

Not really @Oscar. No significant changes have taken place. Only the articulations/noises from the "Deep State" seem to have some changes. But that as well as the insignificant tactical changes have only been brought about because the "Deep State's" own position and power have been impacted upon in recent years. Any and all "changes" are strictly based on/premised on the "Deep State's" interests and the over-riding reasons to preserve them...........anyhow!

If you are referring to the intersests to preserve the Deep State's "Power" within Pakistan.. then an alternative has been found with the extremists to continue and provide the impetus for a threat to justify the large existence. There is still a realisitc and concerted effort to end the pointless hostilities but one must realize that a lot of the institutional baggage still lives on within both sides... after all.. a person being sent to Siachen and losing 3 comrades in the cold.. and 2 to enemy fire will really not forget it that easily.

Regarding the "deep state" and Indian activites.. and so on.
The more I've interacted.. and more life goes on so to say and you meet people and hear their stories.. The more I've realized that the Deep State here, Indian Sleuths.. and the other parties.. play a VERY.. and I do mean VERY dirty game against each other that in many ways makes Goebbels not look like such a bad guy.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

If you are referring to the intersests to preserve the Deep State's "Power" within Pakistan.. then an alternative has been found with the extremists to continue and provide the impetus for a threat to justify the large existence. There is still a realisitc and concerted effort to end the pointless hostilities but one must realize that a lot of the institutional baggage still lives on within both sides... after all.. a person being sent to Siachen and losing 3 comrades in the cold.. and 2 to enemy fire will really not forget it that easily.

I agree with you whole-hertedly that "institutional baggage" persists on both sides of the border.
However; the question is: Which Institution really 'pulls all the strings' on either side?
That will explain the 'how', 'what', 'when' and 'how much' of all the efforts to end (or even tone down) the pointless hostilities have, and can lead to.
I may sound cynical; but I'm also very sanguine about that.

 

[SQ8]

I agree with you whole-hertedly that "institutional baggage" persists on both sides of the border.
However; the question is: Which Institution really 'pulls all the strings' on either side?
That will explain the 'how', 'what', 'when' and 'how much' of all the efforts to end (or even tone down) the pointless hostilities have, and can lead to.
I may sound cynical; but I'm also very sanguine about that.

I don't disagree there.. but as I mentioned in the post linked.. there is an Indian "Think Tank"/establishment which mirror Pakistan in Indian policy directions(if not the forceful implementations of them) just as the "Deep State" does in Pakistan. What has changed is that "Think Tank"'s willingness to talk.. something that previously was forcing a change within the ideas of the Deep state as well.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I don't disagree there.. but as I mentioned in the post linked.. there is an Indian "Think Tank"/establishment which mirror Pakistan in Indian policy directions(if not the forceful implementations of them) just as the "Deep State" does in Pakistan. What has changed is that "Think Tank"'s willingness to talk.. something that previously was forcing a change within the ideas of the Deep state as well.

See @Oscar; that kind of thing has been going on for quite a while.... via Track 2. But we have to be sangune enough to accept that most of that is defined by a spirit of: not "how far" but "how little", not by "how much gained" but by "how to cut losses". All this has a relationship to the "internal dynamics" on either side of the fence. And the strength of the concerned "Institution" on either side within its own internal dynamic context. Which is why the constant roller-coaster ride.

 

[SQ8]

See @Oscar; that kind of thing has been going on for quite a while.... via Track 2. But we have to be sangune enough to accept that most of that is defined by a spirit of: not "how far" but "how little", not by "how much gained" but by "how to cut losses". All this has a relationship to the "internal dynamics" on either side of the fence. And the strength of the concerned "Institution" on either side within its own internal dynamic context. Which is why the constant roller-coaster ride.

Question is, the current state of the coaster has a very dangerous track on it that may derail it forever.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Question is, the current state of the coaster has a very dangerous track on it that may derail it forever.

Not really.....even with the present 'stand-off'; Track 2 has been happening. But the problem is, the Indian side is still left perplexed as to 'who is in charge on the other side' and 'to what extent'. If that clears up one way or another; there will more clarity on the dialog (or the lack of it). Even the "Deep State" (IMO) is cogitating within itself to redefine some of its own attitudes. As was demonstrated in the "Saga in Isloo" which just took place; and while shifting the "balance of power" in Pakistan internally has severely hit Pakistan's "balance of strength" externally.
In these circumstances; no prospects of any 'eureka moments' even small ones.

 

[VCheng]

There is nothing "intricate" about my rationalizations - it's an explanation in plain English of the plain English used in said agreements, treaties and statements under discussion, which is why your inability to respond without resort to petty insults and inane one liners is surprising.

Yes Sir, you are correct.Your explanations in plain English are beyond my understanding. I admit that. Anything else, Sir?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Your explanations in plain English are beyond my understanding.

That was pretty obvious already, and only reinforced by this latest example of petulance on your part.