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

[unbiasedopinion]

why everytime, all the pakistani members shy away when ever there is detailed discussion about UN resolution on Kashmir especially the First Step i.e. Pakistan to remove its forces, tribals , outsiders from while Jammu Kashmir under its control?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

all the pakistani members shy away when ever there is detailed discussion about UN resolution on Kashmir especially the First Step i.e. Pakistan to remove its forces, tribals , outsiders from while Jammu Kashmir under its control?

The UN resolution is archaic. Both countries had agreed to ignore it, as per Shimla Agreement.

 

[unbiasedopinion]

The UN resolution is archaic. Both countries had agreed to ignore it, as per Shimla Agreement.

I agree but even if for argument sake, we consider UN resolution validity still today, even then why I have not seen any rebuff from Pakistani members on this first step? They always reply to all the points, shout from rooftop about UN plebiscite resolution etc etc but never about they very first step.

 

[Pride]

Well, even then officially both India and Pakistan are bound by the Shimla Agreements.

That is what I am saying, there is nothing official about it when both country violates the same.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

That is what I am saying, there is nothing official about it when both country violates the same.

India has not violated it. The Shimla Agreement put India as the guarantor. In case the other party is misbehaving, India gets the right to reply - to some extent. Which is what India did. The rest of the controls - starting for sharing water, to the LOC - all clauses are followed to the letter.

 

[Pride]

India has not violated it. The Shimla Agreement put India as the guarantor. In case the other party is misbehaving, India gets the right to reply - to some extent. Which is what India did. The rest of the controls - starting for sharing water, to the LOC - all clauses are followed to the letter.

Quick reminder - 1984 Siachin.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Quick reminder - 1984 Siachin.

Even quicker comeback to you: Siachen was not covered in any agreement, least of all the Shimla agreement.

 

[Pride]

Even quicker comeback to you: Siachen was not covered in any agreement, least of all the Shimla agreement.

The point is not to utilize the loop holes. Siachen was never considered in scope of discussion because nobody bothered that area before 84. This is the statement from Shimla pact:-

"(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line."

Now if you don't think Siachen is part of J&K or Siachen should have been discussed without war then thats just our perspective.

 

[SledgeHammer]

best way to solve Kashmir issue is to give the right to Kashmiri peoples to choose for themselves ..

And they choose for themselves in State and Central elections, it's high time for you to give similar rights to Pakistani Kashmiris.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

The point is not to utilize the loop holes. Siachen was never considered in scope of discussion because nobody bothered that area before 84. This is the statement from Shimla pact:-

"(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line."

Now if you don't think Siachen is part of J&K or Siachen should have been discussed without war then thats just our perspective.

There was no delineation of the LOC beyond Point NJ9842, when the Shimla Agreement took place.

 

[Pride]

There was no delineation of the LOC beyond Point NJ9842, when the Shimla Agreement took place.

We may continue discussing but point remains the same that all J&K issues were supposed to be discussed Bilaterally. We just took advantage of the loop hole so strategically we are right but that gave Pak chance to make lots of noise.

 

[toxic_pus]

The point is not to utilize the loop holes. Siachen was never considered in scope of discussion because nobody bothered that area before 84. This is the statement from Shimla pact:-

"(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line."

Now if you don't think Siachen is part of J&K or Siachen should have been discussed without war then thats just our perspective.

Note the underlined part. That clause is applicable only to the 'line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971' which in itself is a reference to Karachi Agreement, 1949. As @Capt.Popeye correctly pointed out, Siachen was not delimited then.

If you however argue about the spirit of Simla Agreement, then it was Pakistan who first violated Simla Agreement, by trying to 'alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations' by granting mountaineering permissions to foreign nationals. That changed the legal status of Siachen from being 'undemarcated', (as in neutral) to 'demarcated', in favour of Pakistan.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

We may continue discussing but point remains the same that all J&K issues were supposed to be discussed Bilaterally. We just took advantage of the loop hole so strategically we are right but that gave Pak chance to make lots of noise.

No. What you say does not make sense at all. Pakistan was bound by the the clauses of the UN Resolution/s. It did not; but still says "UN Resolution, UN Resolution, UN Resolution" all time. So people will make noise regardless of anything at all.

 

[Mav3rick]

How many time we will have to discuss it to reach same conclusions eveytime ?? Diplomacy, UN or Terroism can't pressure India to part with it's Kashmir. Integrity of India is non-negotiable .

Recently Pakistan seems to have taken the refuse of UN , forgetting that Kasmir occupied by it have largely been infiltrated by Punjabi Sunnies in absence of any law like India's article 370 .So chances of resolution is null void, if there were any chances for UN resolution then it existed only during Nehru era . It should have pulled back it's forces and let UN conduct plebiscite.

If Pakistan doesn't respect much recent Shimla agreement then their is no guarantee that it will respect any future agreements. I will suggest India to go back on Indus water treaty if Pakistan repeatedly goes back on Shimla agreement.

That may ultimately leave no other choice for Pakistan but to go to a full scale war against India, in a scenario where it will have nothing more to lose anyway. That is not a scenario any progressive Indian government would want.

Narrow confines of Ñationalism ??

How about you and your whole country coming out of still narrower confines of religion ??

You must be confusing indulgence in SATI and burial of live infant girls in your country with us. You still have time to correct yourself by attempting to crawl out of the minuscule space you have dug yourself into in regards to religion.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

We just took advantage of the loop hole so strategically we are right but that gave Pak chance to make lots of noise.

So you wish India NOT to take advantage of a loophole? Taking advantage of situations is vital to protecting our interests. India is not out to appear morally superior. Only to protect India. By any means necessary. Pakistan's job is to make noise. They did it before the Shimla Agreement was signed (hell they declared war in 1965 to 'liberate Kashmir' ) and they sure will make noise after another dozen such agreements.

And that is fine (for them), because it is in their National Interest. Kashmir is the last geopolitical reason (the other being Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist phobia) to hate India and keep Pakistan united. - That they are only barely doing now. They need the Kashmir issue to continue badly.

Quick reminder - 1984 Siachin.

Good point. Siachen is not under the ambit of the Shimla Agreements. The border delimitation is restricted to the definition of the LOC. After the Saltoro ridge that is undefined and remains so to this date.