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

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yeah, and you guys will de-militarize with mutual consensus

We'll see, once the Indian government stops reneging on her agreement to implement the UNSC resolutions calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir, and actually engages with the Pakistani government on coming up with a mutually acceptable plan on the "HOW" of demilitarization and the plebiscite.

 

[Mav3rick]

You don't have anything to loose ?? Are you so deprived right now ?? Curse your country that couldn't give you anything to loose even in 67 years.

Lack of common sense and understanding is a common trait amongst your kind, I have noticed. Let me explain again, in case India initiates a water war, Pakistan may eventually become draught and lose all agricultural activity thus putting Pakistan in a position where it has nothing more to lose by going to a decisive war against India.

But let me tell you what you can loose. You will loose your part of kashmir or may be even your existing country if ever next full blown war happens in future.

In your dreams, you probably win back Kashmir everyday. But in the last 67 years you have been unable to get Azad Kashmir back. And any future war will be disastrous for India to the point where India will never be able to bully any of her neighboring countries again.

Okay dimwit , if you say so.

I didn't call you that but it is good to know that you are aware of where you are.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

We'll see, once the Indian government stops reneging on her agreement to implement the UNSC resolutions calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir, and actually engages with the Pakistani government on coming up with a mutually acceptable plan on the "HOW" of demilitarization and the plebiscite.

Indian govt is not gonna any such thing. You are being opportunistic anyway. After creating a lot of dissonance you're aksing for plebiscite. Maybe we'll wait till when the wind blows our way.

 

[SwAggeR]

Lack of common sense and understanding is a common trait amongst your kind, I have noticed. Let me explain again, in case India initiates a water war, Pakistan may eventually become draught and lose all agricultural activity thus putting Pakistan in a position where it has nothing more to lose by going to a decisive war against India.





In your dreams, you probably win back Kashmir everyday. But in the last 67 years you have been unable to get Azad Kashmir back. And any future war will be disastrous for India to the point where India will never be able to bully any of her neighboring countries again.





I didn't call you that but it is good to know that you are aware of where you are.

:blaw: :blaw:

kid you are not worth engaging in discussion , so I won't waste time on you.

 

[Mav3rick]

Every leader, every commander, from the greatest genius to the absolutely delusional has had an objective, no matter how hopeless, when going to war. The way you've written it, Pakistan and it's Generals would be the first country, maybe even the first entity to go to war without any reason, save perhaps,"We have nothing to lose anyway".

But that apart, let's assume you're going to war with India. You can't do it by sitting inside your territory and fighting off the coward carrot loving baniyas, coz the coward's too scared (read terrified shitless) to invade you. You're actually going to have to invade the vegii land to start the war. Now I'm not a student of history, but invasion is anything but a cup of tea for PA, unless it's the Senate House of PAK.

But keeping aside these minor irritants, Let's assume PA does actually invade India, surprising the IA. Your Baniya slayers advance into India. What next? The IAF reacts first, is overbearing, establishing air supremacy over Indian Skies. With far superior numbers and quality of aircraft, backed up by a very very dense Air defense grid, PAF would struggle to even generate CAPs over their own forces inside PAK, let alone India.

Then there is the inevitable reaction of the IA, mobilising it's entire might over some 72 hours, ringing in for the first time the 700,000 numbers so famous in PAK

I'm not too bright, but after Longewala, no PA armored unit commander will even step over Indian territory without air cover.

Perhaps you should read up on what Indian water war on Pakistan would result into and then engage with in any argument.

:blaw: :blaw:

kid you are not worth engaging in discussion , so I won't waste time on you.

I can only thank God for that.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

We'll see, once the Indian government stops reneging on her agreement to implement the UNSC resolutions calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir, and actually engages with the Pakistani government on coming up with a mutually acceptable plan on the "HOW" of demilitarization and the plebiscite.

Well then you are staring at a long wait then....maybe for eternity.
And as usual; you avoided the fact that "GoP has consistently reneged on its obligation to fulfill the conditions of the said resolutions, to this day"!!
As for so-called "mutually acceptable plan" even that is not true (but am I even surprised?). It had to be to the satisfaction of the UNSC.
Please note my use of the past tense here.
Events have already overtaken the verbiage that accompanied those confabulations in New York.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

My point is plain and simple that like UN Resolution, Shimla Pact became also outdated as UN Resolution as it has one or another issue.

You are not realizing that no matter what agreement we sign, it will be treated like a piece of (toilet) paper by the other side. The best agreement is now in place - nukes on both sides. That is what guarantees peace, not agreements.

Pakistan made the deft move of engaging in talks with separatists prior to the scheduled talks with India knowing that would infuriate India.

Pardonnez moi, but that was plain trolling.

 

[VCheng]

That would be true if the UNSC only passed a single resolution on the Kashmir dispute - it did not, and UNSC resolutions subsequent to the first few acknowledged the fact that the process of demilitarization had to be a mutually acceptable one, with the details worked out between India and Pakistan, and therefore superseded the initial requirement of requiring Pakistan to unilaterally demilitarize.

Just as the later UN Resolutions SUPERSEDED the previous requirement to demilitarize, the non-binding UN Resolutions themselves were ALL superseded by the Simla Agreement. Or do you want to pick only what you feel should be superseded?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

That would be true if the UNSC only passed a single resolution on the Kashmir dispute - it did not, and UNSC resolutions subsequent to the first few acknowledged the fact that the process of demilitarization had to be a mutually acceptable one, with the details worked out between India and Pakistan, and therefore superseded the initial requirement of requiring Pakistan to unilaterally demilitarize.

You really do not cease to amaze us; while churning out some new "fairy-tales" all the time.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Just as the later UN Resolutions SUPERSEDED the previous requirement to demilitarize, the non-binding UN Resolutions themselves were ALL superseded by the Simla Agreement. Or do you want to pick only what you feel should be superseded?

Nothing in the language of the Simla Agreement "supersedes" the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir, as I clearly established in the thread you linked to earlier. In fact, the language of the Simla Agreement supports the UNSC Resolutions as a "mutually agreed upon means of dispute resolution".

You really do not cease to amaze us; while churning out some new "fairy-tales" all the time.

And you and some others do not cease to amaze me (actually, you don't - its pretty much par for the course with you lot) with your inability to engage in an actual debate and offer rational rebuttals, instead of meaningless one liners.

Well then you are staring at a long wait then....maybe for eternity.
And as usual; you avoided the fact that "GoP has consistently reneged on its obligation to fulfill the conditions of the said resolutions, to this day"!!
As for so-called "mutually acceptable plan" even that is not true (but am I even surprised?). It had to be to the satisfaction of the UNSC.
Please note my use of the past tense here.
Events have already overtaken the verbiage that accompanied those confabulations in New York.

The tense should be present - whether you want to argue mutually agreed upon or "to the satisfaction of the UNSC", the fact remains that UNSC Resolutions subsequent to the initial resolutions moved away from the "conditions" of a demilitarization by Pakistan first, and since India continues to renege on her commitment to the UNSC resolutions, which brings up the point of whether ANY commitment India makes should be trusted or not, progress on fulfilling the conditions leading to a plebiscite according to the UNSC resolutions cannot begin.

The onus here is on India to act as a responsible member of the international community, and abide by her commitment to the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir.

 

[toxic_pus]

That would be true if the UNSC only passed a single resolution on the Kashmir dispute - it did not, and UNSC resolutions subsequent to the first few acknowledged the fact that the process of demilitarization had to be a mutually acceptable one, with the details worked out between India and Pakistan, and therefore superseded the initial requirement of requiring Pakistan to unilaterally demilitarize.

Which resolutions did that?

And don't refer to past debates. Just produce direct reference here.

Just a FYI, India had accepted only two resolutions. Under Section VI even accepted resolutions are not enforceable, imagine what is the status of unaccepted resolutions.

The UN has already mediated the Kashmir Dispute via the existing UNSC resolutions on Kashmir that India and Pakistan both accepted, and which are completely in line with the Simla Agreement, as I established in the thread you linked to, arguments to which you have so far offered no rebuttal.

Simla Agreement is not ex-post facto agreement, meaning that it doesn't apply retrospectively.

Every law, unless specifically stated, is presumed to be prospective:
lex prospicit non respicit (law looks forward not back).

So the argument that agreements at UN in late 40s fulfill the criteria of 'mutual agreement' required in an agreement passed two decades later, is absurd.

Refer Sir Peter Benson Maxwell's 'On Interpretation of Statutes'.

 

[dravidianhero]

I disagree. For Kashmir to be resolved, Pakistan needs to behave like an independent state with self-defined vital national interests. I don't mind global isolation. In fact, I welcome it. From the moment Musharraf got Pakistan involved with the U.S did we see a sudden rise in internal security problems. Not only that, but Pakistan lost its hand in Afghanistan and it gradually found itself giving way on Kashmir and the Indus Water Treaty.

It's time Pakistan adopt a hawkish mentality built upon guaranteeing its independence in both territorial and political terms. Despite the country's immense contribution to the U.S War on Terror, it has only been repaid in mistrust and drone strikes by America. Enough. The U.S can be on its own in Afghanistan, we have had enough.

Seal the Western border, leave the U.S and whoever's left in that quagmire to deal with the rest. Seal the border to the north, ensure that China's internal security is guaranteed from our end. As for India, tighten up the eastern front.

As for our foreign relations. There is no doubt backing away from America will result in a 'reset' in Pakistan's relations with a number of country. That's the cost of piggybacking on bigger powers. We will need to invest in building our own political, economic and military relationships with others. For that to happen, we will need an internal cleansing. I say we remove ourselves of the deadweight in PPP, PML, MQM, JI, etc, etc. You fail once, you never be given responsibility again.

Thank god,your rulers still have some sense in their brains.Your country is being run by US funds and anything which goes against their interests will make your country another somalia.People like you can take refuge in western countries but what about millions of poor people?

 

[dravidianhero]

Pakistan is a country being run by feudals and bigots.They are only concerned about their interests and egos.These people are least bothered about the plight of their poor.The irony is even their poor are brainwashed;for decades they were distracted by ideas that Islam and Kashmir are life breath of their country.The masses never came together and demanded the rulers(army) of what they want.Islam and Kashmir have become priorities instead of food,shelter,health,education and sanitation. As long as Pakistan misplaces its priorities so long it will continue to be in the hell in which it now is.

 

[Maravan]

The best India can do is, maintain the status quo for a decade, meantime take steps to build the economy much stronger like china. Once we become economically stronger, most of the western horns will be silenced automatically.

Modi is doing well I believe, this is the first time, over an india pakistan skirmish the horns are blowing in favor of india everywhere except pakistan.

 

[Badbadman]

There is no solution to this issue, no Indian govt can afford to accept LOC as permanent border.
Actually we don't want any solution to it yet.