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

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That is up to the UN, is it not? Why does it not proceed as you claim it should?

The UN has proceeded, by passing the relevant UNSC Resolutions - the current logjam is because of the refusal of one of the parties to the dispute (India) to act upon her commitments to the UNSC Resolutions passed. The onus is on India to act as a responsible member of the international community and engage with Pakistan in implementing the plebiscite in J&K.

Yes. That narrows it down right to the dot. The best reference would have been this.

That thread involved debates on this very issue between the two of us, I am sure you can recollect once you go through a few of those exchanges.

Except that the extant UN resolutions don't impose any legal commitment on either side.

Chapter VI resolutions may not be "binding", but they are legal commitments none the less, for States that are signatories to the UN Charter.

And IWT is 'settled difference' whereas Simla Agreement is about unsettled differences.

On the contrary, the repeated involvement of mediators in settling conflicting interpretations of the IWT indicate that the actual implementation and interpretation of the IWT remains open to question by one or both States. This is not dissimilar to the UNSC Resolutions, that both States committed to, but have differences over in terms of implementation.

Reference was to interpretation of statutes, not Simla Agreement.

I understand that, but since you referenced it, I assumed you wished to analyze some aspect of the Simla Agreement in the context of his work, and was asking you to specify what it was exactly.

 

[VCheng]

The UN has proceeded, by passing the relevant UNSC Resolutions - the current logjam is because of the refusal of one of the parties to the dispute (India) to act upon her commitments to the UNSC Resolutions passed. The onus is on India to act as a responsible member of the international community and engage with Pakistan in implementing the plebiscite in J&K.

So remind us all again what has the UN actually done AFTER the Simla Agreement was signed between Pakistan and India? The onus is on BOTH parties to resolve their issues bilaterally, not on any one of them and certainly not on any third party such as the UN.

On the contrary, the repeated involvement of mediators in settling conflicting interpretations of the IWT indicate that the actual implementation and interpretation of the IWT remains open to question by one or both States. This is not dissimilar to the UNSC Resolutions, that both States committed to, but have differences over in terms of implementation.

Let us not forget that Pakistan has always lost out in these claims of violations of the IWT by India, to date, with mediators ruling for India, not Pakistan.

 

[toxic_pus]

That thread involved debates on this very issue between the two of us, I am sure you can recollect once you go through a few of those exchanges.

So can you.

Chapter VI resolutions may not be "binding", but they are legal commitments none the less, for States that are signatories to the UN Charter.

Cite the Article that says so.

On the contrary, the repeated involvement of mediators in settling conflicting interpretations of the IWT indicate that the actual implementation and interpretation of the IWT remains open to question by one or both States. This is not dissimilar to the UNSC Resolutions, that both States committed to, but have differences over in terms of implementation.

IWT contains, within itself, the mechanism for conflict resolution. Referencing other agreements therefore is redundant and is in fact ultra vires. So yes, it is a 'settled difference'.

UNSC resolutions are not 'agreements'.

PS: It is probably because of this overt nationalistic interpretation of law/agreement that results in Pak's loss of all international cases against India and consequently, loss of face.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So can you.

I don't have to - I know my arguments (many made in debates against you) and have substantiated my position. Now, if you want to pretend that you don't recollect any of the debates we engaged in, despite being provided a link to the thread that many of those debates occurred on, then that is just laziness on your part.

Cite the Article that says so.

Chapter V, Article 25 of the UN Charter (Concerning the UNSC):
"The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."

IWT contains, within itself, the mechanism for conflict resolution. Referencing other agreements therefore is redundant and is in fact ultra vires. So yes, it is a 'settled difference'.

And the UNSC Resolutions (and the UN Charter overall) contain recommendations on dispute resolution mechanisms, mechanisms that can utilized to resolve the current impasse over demilitarization and other steps prior to conducting a plebiscite in J&K.

UNSC resolutions are not 'agreements'.

The UN Charter is essentially an international treaty, and under Article 25, quoted above, the Chapter VI UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir are essentially an agreement/commitment, one which India continues to renege on.

PS: It is probably because of this overt nationalistic interpretation of law/agreement that results in Pak's loss of all international cases against India and consequently, loss of face.

Until India stops reneging on her commitment to implement the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir, and agrees to mediation to establish the process of demilitarization and other steps leading to plebiscite in Kashmir, the argument that Pakistan would "lose the case of J&K" is merely speculation on your part. In fact, India's continued refusal to utilize the dispute resolution mechanisms of the UN point to a fear on her part that the case of a UN led plebiscite in Kashmir is not one she can win.

So remind us all again what has the UN actually done AFTER the Simla Agreement was signed between Pakistan and India? The onus is on BOTH parties to resolve their issues bilaterally, not on any one of them and certainly not on any third party such as the UN.

The two parties have failed to resolve their issues bilaterally, which is not surprising. The entire idea of having mediators and independent third parties involved in resolving protracted disputes between parties is because neither party wishes to concede and sticks to their particular position. The onus is therefore on India to stop reneging on her international commitments to implement the UNSC Resolutions and use the dispute resolution mechanisms authorized under the UN Charter to work out a means of implementing the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir with Pakistan.

Let us not forget that Pakistan has always lost out in these claims of violations of the IWT by India, to date, with mediators ruling for India, not Pakistan.

And yet Pakistan continues to adhere to the IWT and dispute resolution mechanisms of the IWT. You have pointed out the fact that it is Pakistan that continues to abide by her treaties and agreements, while India continues to renege on them. If India is so certain of her legal position on J&K, then surely there is nothing for here to fear in taking advantage of the dispute resolution mechanisms of the UN and work towards holding an independent plebiscite in J&K.

 

[VCheng]

The two parties have failed to resolve their issues bilaterally, which is not surprising. The entire idea of having mediators and independent third parties involved in resolving protracted disputes between parties is because neither party wishes to concede and sticks to their particular position. The onus is therefore on India to stop reneging on her international commitments to implement the UNSC Resolutions and use the dispute resolution mechanisms authorized under the UN Charter to work out a means of implementing the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir with Pakistan.

The onus in on BOTH parties to resolve their disputes bilaterally as they agreed upon in the Simla Agreement.

And yet Pakistan continues to adhere to the IWT and dispute resolution mechanisms of the IWT. You have pointed out the fact that it is Pakistan that continues to abide by her treaties and agreements, while India continues to renege on them. If India is so certain of her legal position on J&K, then surely there is nothing for here to fear in taking advantage of the dispute resolution mechanisms of the UN and work towards holding an independent plebiscite in J&K.

What I have pointed out that that the claims made by Pakistan against India for violating the IWT were all proven to be false. Similarly, its attempts to make Kashmir a UN issue will go nowhere since third parties interpret the treaties impartially without any contrived mental gymnastics.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The onus in on BOTH parties to resolve their disputes bilaterally as they agreed upon in the Simla Agreement.

Simla explicitly allows third party mediation, and since the bilateral attempts at dispute resolution have gone nowhere, and, given the current Hindu-extremist Indian government's decision to cancel bilateral talks with Pakistan, do not appear to have any chance of succeeding, the onus in on India to accept some form of the dispute resolution mechanisms authorized under the UN Charter to determine how best to implement the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir.

What I have pointed out that that the claims made by Pakistan against India for violating the IWT were all proven to be false. Similarly, its attempts to make Kashmir a UN issue will go nowhere since third parties interpret the treaties impartially without any contrived mental gymnastics.

Again, what you have pointed out is the fact that Pakistan continues to adhere by the IWT and the conflict resolution mechanisms outlined by the IWT, as a responsible nation should, whereas India continues to renege on her commitments made under the UN Charter to implement the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir and refuses to utilize the dispute resolution mechanisms authorized under the UN Charter (or the third party mediation allowed under the Simla Agreement) to resolve the impasse over how to implement the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir.

 

[Judge]

Simla explicitly allows third party mediation, and since the bilateral attempts at dispute resolution have gone nowhere, and, given the current Hindu-extremist Indian government's decision to cancel bilateral talks with Pakistan, do not appear to have any chance of succeeding, the onus in on India to accept some form of the dispute resolution mechanisms authorized under the UN Charter to determine how best to implement the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir.

Again, what you have pointed out is the fact that Pakistan continues to adhere by the IWT and the conflict resolution mechanisms outlined by the IWT, as a responsible nation should, whereas India continues to renege on her commitments made under the UN Charter to implement the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir and refuses to utilize the dispute resolution mechanisms authorized under the UN Charter to resolve the impasse over how to implement the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir.

As far as India is concerned - India has made clear in unambiguous terms that we henceforth (post Shimla) accept no third party mediation.

And since consent of India is necessary for Pakistan to be able to induce third party mediation, India sits on a comfortable position.

Plus, considering that on our part we consider Kashmir issue to be resolved and are happy with status quo.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As far as India is concerned - India has made clear in unambiguous terms that we henceforth (post Shimla) accept no third party mediation.

And since consent of India is necessary for Pakistan to be able to induce third party mediation, India sits on a comfortable position.

Plus, considering that on our part we consider Kashmir issue to be resolved and are happy with status quo.

Let's make one thing clear - Shimla does not prevent third party mediation, it is India that is refusing third party mediation, refusing compromise during bilateral dialog and therefore India that is the roadblock in resolving the Kashmir dispute. India can sit on as "comfortable a position" as it wants, but that does not change that fact that it is India reneging on her commitments to implement the UNSC Resolutions, and that the entire world considers Kashmir to be disputed territory.

 

[Judge]

Let's make one thing clear - Shimla does not prevent third party mediation, it is India that is refusing third party mediation, refusing compromise during bilateral dialog and therefore India that is the roadblock in resolving the Kashmir dispute. India can sit on as "comfortable a position" as it wants, but that does not change that fact that it is India reneging on her commitments to implement the UNSC Resolutions, and that the entire world considers Kashmir to be disputed territory.

And what exactly do the mental gymnastics amount to in totality when the entire world put together can not make/induce/coerce India to budge an inch from its position?

As far as we are concerned, there is no dispute in Kashmir. We have the territory we want. We administer it, it is run as per the Indian Constitution...and that is the end of our concerns.

 

[toxic_pus]

I don't have to - I know my arguments (many made in debates against you) and have substantiated my position. Now, if you want to pretend that you don't recollect any of the debates we engaged in, despite being provided a link to the thread that many of those debates occurred on, then that is just laziness on your part.

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

Chapter V, Article 25 of the UN Charter (Concerning the UNSC):
"The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."

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.

And the UNSC Resolutions (and the UN Charter overall) contain recommendations on dispute resolution mechanisms, mechanisms that can utilized to resolve the current impasse over demilitarization and other steps prior to conducting a plebiscite in J&K.

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

The UN Charter is essentially an international treaty, and under Article 25, quoted above, the Chapter VI UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir are essentially an agreement/commitment, one which India continues to renege on.

Refer above.

Until India stops reneging on her commitment to implement the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir, and agrees to mediation to establish the process of demilitarization and other steps leading to plebiscite in Kashmir, the argument that Pakistan would "lose the case of J&K" is merely speculation on your part. In fact, India's continued refusal to utilize the dispute resolution mechanisms of the UN point to a fear on her part that the case of a UN led plebiscite in Kashmir is not one she can win.

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.

And yet Pakistan continues to adhere to the IWT and dispute resolution mechanisms of the IWT. You have pointed out the fact that it is Pakistan that continues to abide by her treaties and agreements, while India continues to renege on them.

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

Simla explicitly allows third party mediation, and since the bilateral attempts at dispute resolution have gone nowhere, and, given the current Hindu-extremist Indian government's decision to cancel bilateral talks with Pakistan, do not appear to have any chance of succeeding, the onus in on India to accept some form of the dispute resolution mechanisms authorized under the UN Charter to determine how best to implement the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir.

How about you keep what you have and we give up our claim on that and we keep what we have and you give up your claim on that.

Seems fair. Doesn't it.

We administer it, it is run as per the Indian Constitution...and that is the end of our concerns.

A quick note here: UNSC resolutions actually require Pakistan to vacate P0K and hand over administration to 'local authorities' who will administer the vacant land under direct supervision of UN. No such recommendations for India and in fact India was allowed to retain her army, although in reduced number, and administer IAK as she deemed fit.

 

[Sankpal]

Only one solution..................... Make LOC as a permanent border...There is no other solution.

India would't give single inch kashmir to Pakistan and Pakistan will can't do anything. Problem will persist same..

 

[Fracker]

After reading the article, Pakistani Sweets on devali looks more sweeter.. hats of Pakistani Government & Army

 

[VCheng]

Simla explicitly allows third party mediation, and since the bilateral attempts at dispute resolution have gone nowhere, and, given the current Hindu-extremist Indian government's decision to cancel bilateral talks with Pakistan, do not appear to have any chance of succeeding, the onus in on India to accept some form of the dispute resolution mechanisms authorized under the UN Charter to determine how best to implement the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir.

Again, what you have pointed out is the fact that Pakistan continues to adhere by the IWT and the conflict resolution mechanisms outlined by the IWT, as a responsible nation should, whereas India continues to renege on her commitments made under the UN Charter to implement the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir and refuses to utilize the dispute resolution mechanisms authorized under the UN Charter (or the third party mediation allowed under the Simla Agreement) to resolve the impasse over how to implement the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir.

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

 

[livingdead]

Let's make one thing clear - Shimla does not prevent third party mediation, it is India that is refusing third party mediation, refusing compromise during bilateral dialog and therefore India that is the roadblock in resolving the Kashmir dispute. India can sit on as "comfortable a position" as it wants, but that does not change that fact that it is India reneging on her commitments to implement the UNSC Resolutions, and that the entire world considers Kashmir to be disputed territory.

what is your solution to the kashmir problem that you think has good chance of being accepted by both sides.

 

[Armstrong]

what is your solution to the kashmir problem that you think has good chance of being accepted by both sides.

Let me and @SarthakGanguly have an arm wrestling match; one Kashmiri vs another - The winner takes Kashmir !

Heck I'd even throw in half of Jammu and whole of Ladakh as a birthday gift for my nephew/niece from the North-East @Tshering22 !