What's new

Operation Asifa: 45 Indian soldiers killed by Kashmiri resistance in Pulwama.

70 years, people are dying. that down the road is ... still down the road.

Alteast put the facts correctly which almost everyone here know. The militancy in Kashmir began in tandem with the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, 1989 to be precise. Till then there was no major issues, let alone terrorism for long 40 years in J&K.

And we have enough patience and resources to wait for that very down the road, for us the Status Quo is more than enough.
 
Modi needed this to ramp up his ego and votes, expect plenty of mouth
farts from BJP.
 
Lets wait for surgi kal strike part 2.0


Referendum is the only option.[emoji94] [emoji725]

85536a4672b05c4f81f3be5124cc3a333035f6af-tc-img-preview.jpg
 
Alteast put the facts correctly which almost everyone here know. The militancy in Kashmir began in tandem with the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, 1989 to be precise.
1948 war in which is what is now peaceful Kashmir separated was fought in Democratic Republic of Congo?
 
mounting pressure on modi.modi will do something before election.he needs more votes.cabinet committee tomorrow.pakistan should focus on the border.paf should remain alert.they were killing kashmiri youth brutally.now they payback.irgc threatened us today now this attack.keep focus on both india pakistan and iran pakistan border.
 
No UNSC Resolution is "Non Enforceable"...
Moreover, the UN Resolutions on Kashmir are 'Binding' on all parties involved

Sorry to say, you are completely wrong here.

Since the Resolution 47, passed under Chapter VI of the UN charter, was not binding or enforceable, unlike those passed under Chapter VII. The resolutions passed under Chapter-VI is more like guidelines rather than any specific order that someone have to oblige. Now please understand it loud and clear from the following source from UN itself, especially Article 38 which covers all others Articles 33 through 37 in Chapter-VI

Chapter-VI

Article-38: Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 33 to 37, the Security Council may, if all the parties to any dispute so request, make recommendations to the parties with a view to a pacific settlement of the dispute.

If you still have doubts, go consult any legal expert in International law for more clarification.
 
How? As I said, IED and VBIED expertise is available across multiple conflict zones. They don't need to train in Pakistan or obtain material in Pakistan if they are using commonly available materials such as fertilizer from India.

India has very strict control measures for fertilizers that can be used in explosives.
Again, it is much more sensible to doubt pakistan that is a haven for bombings than India which nigh never has vbied attacks like this.

This is not a normal attack, the level of intelligence you would need(accumulated and real time) would have to include big players and in all probability complicated tech. You would need the exact timing of the approaching soldiers and then placement of that large quantity of explosives and you expect people to believe that teenagers and 20 year olds executed that? Yeah right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry to say, you are completely wrong here.

Since the Resolution 47, passed under Chapter VI of the UN charter, was not binding or enforceable, unlike those passed under Chapter VII. The resolutions passed under Chapter-VI is more like guidelines rather than any specific order that someone have to oblige. Now please understand it loud and clear from the following source from UN itself, especially Article 38 which covers all others Articles 33 through 37 in Chapter-VI

Chapter-VI

Article-38: Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 33 to 37, the Security Council may, if all the parties to any dispute so request, make recommendations to the parties with a view to a pacific settlement of the dispute.

If you still have doubts, go consult any legal expert in International law for more clarification.

Let me educate you, my ignorant Indian friend:

The UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir are neither "Unenforceable" nor "Non-binding" ...


1) UN maintains that "NO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CAN BE DESCRIBED AS UNENFORCEABLE."


2) There always has been a general inability of the Permanent Five to agree upon imaginative and expansive applications of Chapter VI ... In Somalia, the Security Council deployed the UN's first operation, UNOSOM I, in mid-1992 to separate warring combatants and help delivery of humanitarian relief ....

UNOSOM I entered and operated without invoking Chapter VII

Further Reading: http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/6/1/1305.pdf



3) India approached UN under Chapter VI of the UN charter , BUT the decision taken by UN reflected that its resolutions were not based exclusively on this chapter .... The resolutions , apart from chapter VI , are based upon other chapters , including chapter VII

The fact that there does not exist any provision for the deputing of UN peace keeping mission under chapter VI makes it obvious that UN resolutions were not exclusively based on chapter VI .... The interim measures which included cease fire and deputation of United Nations Military Observer Group were based on Article 40 of chapter VII ...

Besides chapter VI and VII , UN resolutions are based on other chapters also(i.e Article 1 , Chapter I (2) and Article 55 , Chapter IX) ...

^^ And this is not my personal opinion. That is Rosalyn Higgins' opinion on 'Kashmir Resolutions and under which chapter they were passed' .. Source: 'Higgins, Rosalyn. United Nations Peace Keeping 1946-67: Documents and Commentary. London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1970. (349-51)

(Rosalyn Higgins is an expert on International Law; a Doctor of Juridical Science. She has served as a Judge in the International Court of Justice for fourteen years (and was elected President in 2006). Her competence has been recognised by many academic institutions, having received at least thirteen honorary doctorates)




4) While a recommendation under Chapter VI by itself "may not" be binding, this is not the case in the Kashmir dispute. Here, the parties have consented to be bound by the resolutions of 13 August and 5 January. (13 M. WHITEMAN, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 360 (1968).



5) The UNSC Resolutions endorsed a binding agreement between India and Pakistan reached through the mediation of UNCIP, that a plebiscite would be held, under agreed and specified conditions. A letter dated December 23, 1948, from India's Secretary-General of the Ministry of External Affairs to the Representative of UNCIP, stated that the Indian Prime Minister's acceptance of the 5 January resolution was conditioned on Pakistan's acceptance of the resolution. By this letter, India consented to be bound by the resolution of 5 January and, through this, the resolution of 13 August as well. (Aide Memoire No. 1, Letter Dated 23 December 1948 From the Secretary General of the Ministry of External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations of the Government of India to Mr. Alfredo Lozano, Representative of UNCIP at 23, U.N. Doc. S/1196 (1949)




6) Self-Determination as a Binding Rule of International Law

Four instances may inform the principle of self-determination with a legal dimension.

(i) The principle of self-determination is binding upon the parties, whether they have adopted it as the basis or as a criterion for the settlement of a particular issue or dispute. In the peace treaties after World War I, and in the cases of Kashmir (after 1948), the Saar Territory (1955), and Algeria’s struggle for independence, the principle of self-determination was chosen as a basis for negotiation, and in the Agreement on Ending War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam (1973) the parties expressly recognized the South Vietnamese people’s right to self-determination.


http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873





7) The binding nature of these UN resolutions (as acknowledged by Indian officials)



Finally some quotes from Indian officials on Kashmir exemplifying their commitment to plebiscite rather than forced accession as history has found them do :-

We adhere strictly to our pledge of plebiscite in Kashmir; a pledge made to the people because they believe in democratic government; We don't regard Kashmir as a commodity to be trafficked in -Krishna Menon (Press statement in London, reported in the Statesman, New Delhi, 2nd August, 1951)

The Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible -Letter from Govt. of India to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, 11th September, 1951

I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken.
-Krishna Menon (Statement at UN Security Council, 24th January, 1957)

The resolutions of January 17, 1948 and the resolutions of the UNICP, the assurances given, these are all resolutions which carry a greater weight; that is because we have accepted them, we are parties to them, whether we like them or not. -Krishna Menon, (Statement at UN Security Council, 20th February, 1957)

These documents (UNCIP reports) and declarations and the resolutions of the Security Council are decisions; they are resolutions, there has been some resolving of a question of one character or another, there has been a meeting of minds on this question where we have committed ourselves to it. -Krishna Menon, (Statement at the Security Council, 9th October, 1957)


India believes that sovereignty rests in the people and should return to them. -Krishna Menon, (The Statesman, Delhi, 19th January, 1962)





Therefore, India is bound by word and deed to leave the future of Kashmir to the will of its people.
 
1948 war in which is what is now peaceful Kashmir separated was fought in Democratic Republic of Congo?

And everyone know that the regular forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo fought in disguise as local Kashmiris for that. And the irony is, the entire world except the DRC know the fact.
 
By the way, I would like to thank our Indian members participating in this thread on keeping their engagement extremely civil and rational for the most part, despite some provocations from some Pakistani members, in what must obviously be a very emotionally trying moment.
 
This will help Modi get re-elected , Hindu right wing groups have done this kind of thing before recall 2006 Malegaon bombings done by Abhinav Bharat
 

Back
Top Bottom