Modi sulking over Pakistan internationalizing Kashmir Dispute

[VCheng]

the lack of support for pak position on UN resolutions from US, West and even China should give enough indications on this matter

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

 

[Nitin Goyal]

because it does the desired effect

firing across the working boundary and LoC wont subdue the Kashmir issue it has the exact opposite effect
it is being discussed in the international media and even gave Gen Rahil Sharif the chance to bring this up with the USA , blaming India very correctly, that its hostilities along the border are affecting Pakistan's operation in North Waziristan which was much demanded by the Americans.

General reminded the Americans what he told them already that Indians would stir up trouble along the LoC while it was busy fighting the terrorists.

so, what you have achieved ? any country has uttered the word that you always wish to hear ? in between we have a report from pentagon which embarrassed Pakistan. Gen rahil I can't believe that US hit the pakistan with drone when he was in US. I would love to see his face when he got the news.

 

[ali_raza]

india have been achenemy of pakistan since beggining.there is no surprise in these things as we all know whats the motive behind allthese things.there are some things that are reallities that u cant change whatever u do.i m not a racist or any thing.but i have lived with indians in gcc.muslims apart but hindoos allways have a problem with oakistan i dont know whats there real motive they just keep some bias in there hearts.btw off topic but before one month there is my friend who gave a buisness proposal to a india(hindu) he is also one of my friend. he asked his father about that proposal.his father relied (if u throw that money in gutter he wont stop him but not with a pakistani)

 

[haviZsultan]

Pakistan must negotiate with India by a position of strength not weakness.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

in between we have a report from pentagon which embarrassed Pakistan. Gen rahil I can't believe that US hit the pakistan with drone when he was in US. I would love to see his face when he got the news.

haha
you cant believe?
you better do that son because we actually request these drone strikes. Americans snatched latif Ullah Mehsood from your Northern Alliance proxy helping us to pinpoint Hakim ullah mehsood and droned him.

 

[Nitin Goyal]

haha
you cant believe?
you better do that son because we actually request these drone strikes. Americans snatched latif Ullah Mehsood from your Northern Alliance proxy helping us to pinpoint Hakim ullah mehsood and droned him.

how shameful.

 

[Storm Force]

I can 100% gurantee anybody India Pakistani or American that fifty years from today when all if us are long gone from this earth and forum.that Kashmir will Stil be Indian.

There is nothing Pakistan can do and nobody will be able to help you in a futile war of words diplomatic lobbying artillery fire terror attacks the Indians just won't givr one inch of their territorry be it saichen the valley or the rivers.

 

[Storm Force]

Accept the status quo and Indian position in this new century or destroy your country and your futures fighting a industrial and military power multiple times your size

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

this is your interpretation. india disagrees with your interpretation. according to india, shimla agreement override UN resolutions and UN has no role to play in bilateral issue between india and pak

Please quote the section of the Simla Agreement that explicitly overrides the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir, because I can quote the explicit language in the Simla Agreement that reiterates the commitment of both States to the UN Charter, the same Charter under which the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir were passed and which both States accepted and agreed to implement.

(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.

Please also keep in mind that the Indus Water Treaty was also a commitment entered into between India and Pakistan, mediated by third parties, prior to the Simla Agreement, and yet we hear nothing about India protesting that the Simla Agreement invalidates the IWT, further exposing the Indian "interpretation" as nothing more than a distortion.

 

[VCheng]

Pakistan must negotiate with India by a position of strength not weakness.

So first Pakistan must create said strength, right? Where is that going to come from?

 

[ito]

Please quote the section of the Simla Agreement that explicitly overrides the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir, because I can quote the explicit language in the Simla Agreement that reiterates the commitment of both States to the UN Charter, the same Charter under which the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir were passed and which both States accepted and agreed to implement.

(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.

Please also keep in mind that the Indus Water Treaty was also a commitment entered into between India and Pakistan, mediated by third parties, prior to the Simla Agreement, and yet we hear nothing about India protesting that the Simla Agreement invalidates the IWT, further exposing the Indian "interpretation" as nothing more than a distortion.

UN Charter is not specific to India and Pak, all relations between all countries are governed by UN Charter, and UN Charter do recognize that countries can enter into bilateral agreements. No where in UN charter you can find that bilateral agreements will be superseded by UN charter. In fact UN charter provides a framework and encourages bilateral agreement between two countries, because UN Charter are generic while bilateral agreements are specific between the two countries and to the issues.

 

[rockstarIN]

One reply. ...shimla agreement. Go talk and cry wherever. ..

 

[karan.1970]

You are conflating the meaning of "binding" with "commitment" - The UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir are no more "binding" than the IWT or the Simla Agreement is. As UN member States who accepted UN mediation in the Kashmir Dispute, both India and Pakistan are committed to implementing the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir, just as the 2 States made commitments under the IWT and the bilateral Simla Agreement.

Not at all. These are 2 different aspects of the same issue. First of all, the original resolution required Pakistan's unilateral withdrawal from J&K prior to the plebiscite. That never happened. All subsequent resolutions and proposals on this issue were rejected by India and hence there is no commitment from India towards plebiscite except in the original condition of unilateral withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the territory which was under the princely state of J&K on 15th Aug 1947. Hence there is no commitment from India towards fulfilling any modified resolution on Kashmir .

Secondly, all these resolutions are non binding in nature and hence are not considered enforceable by UNSC. More so to build pressure than to implement .

The difference between IWT and these resolutions is that the IWT is a bilateral treaty with India and Pakistan as signatories and is legally binding on the 2 countries.

On the other hand, the UN resolutions on Kashmir are not legally binding ..

And Pakistan does in fact respect the UNSC Resolutions on HS and JuD, as I have explained to you and other Indians in the past. Pakistan is obliging with the limited requirements placed upon Pakistan, and if India or any other country disagrees, they can raise the issue in the UNSC.

How can you claim that when JuD, a declared terrorist organization is not even banned in Pakistan and is routinely allocated funds by provincial govts under the guise of development activities. But anyway, its the same old story of good terrorist and bad terrorist and can be debated till cows come home.

In the same vain, India is in fact respecting the original resolution on Kashmir and its Pakistan which has scuttled it by not sticking to the original resolution and withdrawing its forces from its illegally occupied territory. If Pakistan disagrees, they can raise the issue in UNSC and ask it to intervene...

Oh Wait... you have already been doing that for last 6 decades

 

[The Unnamed]

And Pakistan has responded back in kind, without engaging in the immature chest thumping and hate-mongering of Modi (we shut their mouth etc.), so what's your point?

More like, Pakistan has gone crying to anybody who pretended to care about it like a dehati aurat.



And nobody gave a sh!t...

 

[Indian Patriot]

The pity is that insisting on such false interpretations only serves to demean those who would deny the legitimacy of the Simla Agreement, and that does not serve Pakistan well at all.

Like Pakistani intentions are noble. Who created the insurgency in Kashmir? Who created the Taliban as a reserve against India?

Don't act all high and mighty when it is second nature of Pakistan to use unfair tactics. You just found a leader in India who is willing to pay back Pakistan in the same coin.