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

[VCheng]

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".

Tis a pity indeed that the rest of the world simply does not see what you think you have "clearly established" in your own mind. I think it is called a delusion if that happens.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

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".


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.

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.

No; dude, you can out-amaze any of us here, with your circular, baseless and unsubstantiated arguments which have little relationship to facts.....................and an ever increasing humongous CEP!!!!!

Do also read post#71 by @toxic_pus to clear all the cobwebs troubling your logic. Pleas also note that those Resolutions are under Section VI. Now do check; what are the implications of that........

Otherwise; do wake me up when the UN moves to mediate and/or enforce the clauses of those ancient resolutions.......

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Tis a pity indeed that the rest of the world simply does not see what you think you have "clearly established" in your own mind. I think it is called a delusion if that happens.

Since you don't really have a poll showing "what 7+ billion population of the rest of the world" believes on this issue, a simple attempt at a factual and rational rebuttal of my arguments made on the aforementioned thread will suffice for now, but you continue to refuse to do that, since you have no rebuttal, and hide behind these inane one liners.

Which resolutions did that?

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

No point in covering the same ground again and again - read through the posts on this thread and pick up where we left off on that thread, if you like:
The Kashmir Resolutions - Explanations

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

Nothing in the language of Simla invalidates existing commitments by either State either, whether it be the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir or the IWT.

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

Sure, but the law, unless it specifically states as much, does not invalidate existing commitments or laws either, which is why commitments entered into by India and Pakistan prior to the Simla Agreement, such as the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir and the IWT, are not invalidated by the Simla Agreement.

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.

It doesn't matter, since the Simla Agreement does not invalidate any commitments/agreements entered into prior to the Simla Agreement, whether prior agreements fit the Simla Agreement or not is irrelevant.

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

Please provide the relevant reference from his work that supports the contention that the Simla Agreement invalidates any/all commitments/agreements entered into by India and Pakistan prior to the Simla Agreement.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No; dude, you can out-amaze any of us here, with your circular, baseless and unsubstantiated arguments which have little relationship to facts.....................and an ever increasing humongous CEP!!!!!

Do also read post#71 by @toxic_pus to clear all the cobwebs troubling your logic. Pleas also note that those Resolutions are under Section VI. Now do check; what are the implications of that........

Otherwise; do wake me up when the UN moves to mediate and/or enforce the clauses of those ancient resolutions.......

Post #71 has been responded to - please try and handle your own arguments yourself instead of running around crying for help from other Indians, which brings up the point I made earlier - do you actually have a rebuttal to the arguments I made or are you VCheng going to continue with these inane trolling one liners?

 

[VCheng]

Since you don't really have a poll showing "what 7+ billion population of the rest of the world" believes on this issue, a simple attempt at a factual and rational rebuttal of my arguments made on the aforementioned thread will suffice for now, but you continue to refuse to do that, since you have no rebuttal, and hide behind these inane one liners.

What the UN Sec-Gen has said is clearly enough. There will no mediation on the Kashmir issue unless both countries agree, which is to say that previous UN Resolutions are superseded by the Simla Agreement. I do not need to rebut what has already been destroyed.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What the UN Sec-Gen has said is clearly enough. There will no mediation on the Kashmir issue unless both countries agree, which is to say that previous UN Resolutions are superseded by the Simla Agreement. I do not need to rebut what has already been destroyed.

The latest comment of the UNSG were in the context of the clashes between India and Pakistan on the LoC/IB. His offer to mediate if asked supports the Pakistani position that the Simla Agreement does not preclude third party involvement, and his comments have no bearing on the UNSC Resolutions calling for a plebiscite since the subject of his comments were the recent LoC clashes, and not the UNSC Resolutions calling for a plebiscite.

 

[VCheng]

The latest comment of the UNSG were in the context of the clashes between India and Pakistan on the LoC/IB. His offer to mediate if asked supports the Pakistani position that the Simla Agreement does not preclude third party involvement, and his comments have no bearing on the UNSC Resolutions calling for a plebiscite since the subject of his comments were the recent LoC clashes, and not the UNSC Resolutions calling for a plebiscite.

Yes, right. Now what is next?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, right. Now what is next?

I take it that the above means you accept the fact that the Simla Agreement does not invalidate prior agreements/commitments such as the IWT and UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir, and that the UNSG's recent comments had no bearing on the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir calling for a plebiscite to resolve the dispute.

 

[VCheng]

I take it that the above means you accept the fact that the Simla Agreement does not invalidate prior agreements/commitments such as the IWT and UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir, and that the UNSG's recent comments had no bearing on the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir calling for a plebiscite to resolve the dispute.

What I think does not matter. What matters is what the UN does next. What do you think it might be?

 

[Bobby]

Modi always dictate his term......

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What I think does not matter. What matters is what the UN does next. What do you think it might be?

The UN has done what it can, the SC has passed resolutions on Kashmir. What is needed is for India to stop reneging on her commitment to the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir and engage with Pakistan in developing a plan of demilitarization and the subsequent holding of a plebiscite, that is acceptable to the UNSC and both States.

 

[VCheng]

The UN has done what it can, the SC has passed resolutions on Kashmir. What is needed is for India to stop reneging on her commitment to the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir and engage with Pakistan in developing a plan of demilitarization and the subsequent holding of a plebiscite, that is acceptable to the UNSC and both States.

So I take it that nothing will happen?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So I take it that nothing will happen?

Ask the Indians whether they intend to act as a responsible member of the international community and work with Pakistan to implement their commitment to allow a plebiscite in J&K per the UNSC Resolutions.

 

[VCheng]

Ask the Indians whether they intend to act as a responsible member of the international community and work with Pakistan to implement their commitment to allow a plebiscite in J&K per the UNSC Resolutions.

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

 

[toxic_pus]

No point in covering the same ground again and again - read through the posts on this thread and pick up where we left off on that thread, if you like:
The Kashmir Resolutions - Explanations

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

Nothing in the language of Simla invalidates existing commitments by either State either, whether it be the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir or the IWT.

Sure, but the law, unless it specifically states as much, does not invalidate existing commitments or laws either, which is why commitments entered into by India and Pakistan prior to the Simla Agreement, such as the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir and the IWT, are not invalidated by the Simla Agreement.

It doesn't matter, since the Simla Agreement does not invalidate any commitments/agreements entered into prior to the Simla Agreement, whether prior agreements fit the Simla Agreement or not is irrelevant.

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

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

Please provide the relevant reference from his work that supports the contention that the Simla Agreement invalidates any/all commitments/agreements entered into by India and Pakistan prior to the Simla Agreement.

Reference was to interpretation of statutes, not Simla Agreement.