Pakistan briefs P-5 about security tensions on LoC, IB

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It cannot fit the Shimla agreement and be considered operative unless it was again specified as such. As @toxic_pus said, you would need a fresh call to the UN by both parties for it to be considered.

The continued validity of the UNSC resolutions was indeed specifically addressed in the Simla Agreement given that the Simla Agreement explicitly endorsed third party mediation, as long as it was mutually agreed upon. The Kashmir dispute was in fact raised in the UN by India, and the UNSC resolutions accepted by both India and Pakistan, the UNSC resolutions therefore fit the Simla Agreement's definition of third party involvement.

Actually Sir, the Simla Agreement supports India's position far more than it does Pakistan's, a fact that is not lost on the world community.

I have explained in detail and with quotes from the Simla Agreement (including an explanation of the language and how it supports my arguments) how the Simla Agreement supports the Pakistani position - by merely repeating your "one liner opinions" you cannot expect me to take you seriously.

 

[Armstrong]

The continued validity of the UNSC resolutions was indeed specifically addressed in the Simla Agreement given that the Simla Agreement explicitly endorsed third party mediation, as long as it was mutually agreed upon. The Kashmir dispute was in fact raised in the UN by India, and the UNSC resolutions accepted by both India and Pakistan, the UNSC resolutions therefore fit the Simla Agreement's definition of third party involvement.


I have explained in detail and with quotes from the Simla Agreement (including an explanation of the language and how it supports my arguments) how the Simla Agreement supports the Pakistani position - by merely repeating your "one liner opinions" you cannot expect me to take you seriously.

I dunno how people arrive at this conclusion that somehow the Simla Agreement makes the Kashmir Dispute purely a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan with the UN having no say in the matter; especially when the UN Charter states to the contrary.

For anyone wants to look at the original source : Charter of the United Nations

@Secur @HRK @Icarus @Xeric

 

[Bang Galore]

The continued validity of the UNSC resolutions was indeed specifically addressed in the Simla Agreement given that the Simla Agreement explicitly endorsed third party mediation, as long as it was mutually agreed upon. The Kashmir dispute was in fact raised in the UN by India, and the UNSC resolutions accepted by both India and Pakistan, the UNSC resolutions therefore fit the Simla Agreement's definition of third party involvement.

That would still require a fresh acceptance by both sides of a mutually acceptable third party. Otherwise the Shimla agreement would have simply specified the UNSC resolution as being the preferred route. Since India had long before 1971 stated that the UNSC resolution was no longer tenable, it would require some special pleading to suggest that India emphasised its acceptance of the UN as an acceptable 3rd party in the Shimla agreement.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That would still require a fresh acceptance by both sides of a mutually acceptable third party.

Nothing in the language of the Simla Agreement or the UNSC Resolutions requires "fresh acceptance" of the existing, mutually accepted UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir - what would require "fresh acceptance" is any proposal to involve third parties to help resolve the disagreements over implementation of the UNSC Resolutions.

Otherwise the Shimla agreement would have simply specified the UNSC resolution as being the preferred route. Since India had long before 1971 stated that the UNSC resolution was no longer tenable, it would require some special pleading to suggest that India emphasised its acceptance of the UN as an acceptable 3rd party in the Shimla agreement.

On the contrary, the Simla Agreement should have specifically stated that the UNSC Resolutions were no longer valid, or specifically defined which existing agreements/treaties (at the time of the SA being signed) were valid/invalid. The IWT between India and Pakistan was also brokered by a third party, so unless the Simla Agreement specifically defined invalid/valid existing agreements between India and Pakistan, arguments that ONLY the existing mutually accepted UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir are invalid are cherry picking and disingenuous.

 

[Bang Galore]

Nothing in the language of the Simla Agreement or the UNSC Resolutions requires "fresh acceptance" of the existing, mutually accepted UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir - what would require "fresh acceptance" is any proposal to involve third parties to help resolve the disagreements over implementation of the UNSC Resolutions.

Nothing in it suggested the acceptance of a UN resolution, imagined concurrence is irrelevant.

On the contrary, the Simla Agreement should have specifically stated that the UNSC Resolutions were no longer valid, or specifically defined which existing agreements/treaties (at the time of the SA being signed) were valid/invalid. The IWT between India and Pakistan was also brokered by a third party, so unless the Simla Agreement specifically defined invalid/valid existing agreements between India and Pakistan, arguments that ONLY the existing mutually accepted UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir are invalid are cherry picking and disingenuous.

The very point of restating the relationship requirements suggests no acceptance of any prior positioning. The IWT is a good point, however all that suggests is India could conceivable bring to question that agreement too & render it impotent if it so chooses. However that agreement remains standing because India has not chosen to go down that route. Yet. That would mean that India has allowed it to stand because it, for now, agrees to do so. That agreement does not exist for the UNSC resolution now, nor did it at the time of the Shimla agreement & the only thing disingenuous is an argument that suggests otherwise.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Nothing in it suggested the acceptance of a UN resolution, imagined concurrence is irrelevant.

I have already explained in my previous posts how the Simla Agreement endorsed the continuing validity of the UNSC resolutions. If the intention of the Indira Gandhi government was to invalidate the UNSC Resolutions via the SA, they failed miserably to do so.

The very point of restating the relationship requirements suggests no acceptance of any prior positioning. The IWT is a good point, however all that suggests is India could conceivable bring to question that agreement too & render it impotent if it so chooses. However that agreement remains standing because India has not chosen to go down that route. Yet. That would mean that India has allowed it to stand because it, for now, agrees to do so. That agreement does not exist for the UNSC resolution now, nor did it at the time of the Shimla agreement & the only thing disingenuous is an argument that suggests otherwise.

The Simla Agreement (as I have pointed out in previous posts) restated the relationship requirements in a manner that completely fit the existing agreements between the two States, without explicitly or implicitly invalidating any of the existing agreements between the two States. The SA laid out certain very broad parameters for engagement between the two States, and the IWT and UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir fit those parameters. There is no implicit or explicit mention of a "reset" or "return to scratch" in the Simla Agreement, in the context of the agreements between India and Pakistan that existed at that point in time.

 

[AnnoyingOrange]

I have already explained in my previous posts how the Simla Agreement endorsed the continuing validity of the UNSC resolutions. If the intention of the Indira Gandhi government was to invalidate the UNSC Resolutions via the SA, they failed miserably to do so.

The Simla Agreement (as I have pointed out in previous posts) restated the relationship requirements in a manner that completely fit the existing agreements between the two States, without explicitly or implicitly invalidating any of the existing agreements between the two States. The SA laid out certain very broad parameters for engagement between the two States, and the IWT and UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir fit those parameters. There is no implicit or explicit mention of a "reset" or "return to scratch" in the Simla Agreement, in the context of the agreements between India and Pakistan that existed at that point in time.

Is this what you are taking about:

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the subcontinent so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their people.

In order to achieve this objective, the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan have agreed as follows:

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

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations.

(iii) That the prerequisite for reconciliation, good neighborliness and durable peace between them is a commitment by both the countries to peaceful coexistence respect for each others territorial integrity and sovereignty and noninterference in each others internal affairs, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit. That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedeviled the relations between the two countries for the last 25 years shall be resolved by peaceful means.

(v) That they shall always respect each others national unity, territorial integrity, political independence and sovereign equality.

(vi) That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, they will refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other.

Both governments will take all steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda directed against each other. Both countries will encourage the dissemination of such information as would promote the development of friendly relations between them.

In order progressively to restore and normalize relations between the two countries step by step, it was agreed that:

(i) Steps shall be taken to resume communications, postal, telegraphic, sea, land, including border posts, and air links, including over flights.

(ii) Appropriate steps shall be taken to promote travel facilities for the nationals of the other country.

(iii) Trade and cooperation in economic and other agreed fields will be resumed as far as possible.

(iv) Exchange in the fields of science and culture will be promoted.

In this connection delegations from the two countries will meet from time to time to work out the necessary details.

In order to initiate the process of the establishment of durable peace, both the governments agree that:

(i) Indian and Pakistani forces shall be withdrawn to their side of the international border.

(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.

(iii) The withdrawals shall commence upon entry into force of this agreement and shall be completed within a period of 30 days thereof.

This agreement will be subject to ratification by both countries in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, and will come into force with effect from the date on which the instruments of ratification are exchanged.

Both governments agree that their respective heads will meet again at a mutually convenient time in the future and that in the meanwhile the representatives of the two sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for the establishment of durable peace and normalization of relations, including the questions of repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and the resumption of diplomatic relations.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto President Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Indira Gandhi Prime Minister India Simla, the 2 July 1972

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Is this what you are taking about:

Yes - read my previous posts on this thread to understand my argument please.

 

[Bang Galore]

I have already explained in my previous posts how the Simla Agreement endorsed the continuing validity of the UNSC resolutions. If the intention of the Indira Gandhi government was to invalidate the UNSC Resolutions via the SA, they failed miserably to do so.

The Simla Agreement (as I have pointed out in previous posts) restated the relationship requirements in a manner that completely fit the existing agreements between the two States, without explicitly or implicitly invalidating any of the existing agreements between the two States. The SA laid out certain very broad parameters for engagement between the two States, and the IWT and UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir fit those parameters. There is no implicit or explicit mention of a "reset" or "return to scratch" in the Simla Agreement, in the context of the agreements between India and Pakistan that existed at that point in time.

Your position, which echoes the Position of the GoP has no takers in India . The SA agreement's "very broad parameters" for engagement allows for only a mutually agreed 3rd party if so chosen. India has not agreed to any 3rd party on the Kashmir issue post the SA & that remains its position. The IWT, on the other hand, has not been contested by India thus far thereby allowing its continuation. There is no acceptable 3rd party now & until that changes, India's position of keeping the matter bilateral will stand.

This is simply now becoming a restating of our respective positions in every post. I believe the positions of both are very clear. My last post on this issue.

 

[VCheng]

I have explained in detail and with quotes from the Simla Agreement (including an explanation of the language and how it supports my arguments) how the Simla Agreement supports the Pakistani position - by merely repeating your "one liner opinions" you cannot expect me to take you seriously.

And Sir, as I have explained to you, it is not me you need to take seriously, but the UN and P-5 and there your arguments and other similarly manufactured contortions have fallen totally flat thus far. That alone should tell you something but only if you are able to see that.

Besides there is nothing wrong with one-liners if they are true and straightforward, just like the clauses of the Simla Agreement.

 

[Asian.Century]

EVIDENCE!!!

UN observers visit working boundary in Pakistan




(Express Tribune): A team of UN Military Observers Group in India and Pakistan visited on Monday and Tuesday the villages which have been badly hit by Indian firing in Charwah, Chaprar and Pukhlian sectors on the working boundary near Sialkot.

“Team of UN observers met the villagers, witnessed and gathered firsthand account of damage caused to human lives and property due to recent Indian hostility on the working boundary,” an ISPR press release stated.

More than 12 people have been killed and 64 others injured in Indian firing along the LoC and working boundary over the past two weeks. Unprovoked Indian firing has triggered an exodus of people from the villages near the LoC and Working Boundary.

“Indians have committed 24 ceasefire violations on working boundary and 26 on Line of Control since October 1and have been targeting civil population living in villages all along the working boundary,” the press release read.

“Day to day living of civillian population all along working is badly affected. People have almost fled their homes and taken refuge in nearest safe places,” it added.

The observation team also visited the Combined Military Hospital Siaklot and met civilians who are injured due to ‘unprovoked’ firing by the Indians.

Pakistan on October 9 lodged a strong protest with the UNMOGIP over the recent border clashes and asked the UN team to visit the working boundary and LoC .

Pakistan upholding the UN resolution utilizes the office of UNMOGIP to investigate such incidents or violations by either of the nuclear-armed neighbours.

“It is also relevant to highlight that Pakistan offers full access to UNMOGIP observers to investigate and bring the facts in front of the world, however Indians have always been reluctant and deny access to UNMOGIP observers on their side,” ISPR asserted.

Earlier today, senior Pakistani and Indian military officials made contact after days of intense cross-border firing in the disputed region of Kashmir heightened tensions.

Pakistan’s military said it had voiced concern at continued Indian firing across the disputed frontier.

Clashes occur regularly along the Line of Control, as well as along the working boundary. However, the latest shelling which began over a week ago, has been unusual in its intensity and frequency.

Read more: Terminal X

How wonderful !!

 

[HRK]

I dunno how people arrive at this conclusion that somehow the Simla Agreement makes the Kashmir Dispute purely a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan with the UN having no say in the matter; especially when the UN Charter states to the contrary.

For anyone wants to look at the original source : Charter of the United Nations

@Secur @HRK @Icarus @Xeric

Is just Indian interpretation and some people (so called Pakistanis) who refused to get educated support it.

 

[VCheng]

I dunno how people arrive at this conclusion that somehow the Simla Agreement makes the Kashmir Dispute purely a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan with the UN having no say in the matter; especially when the UN Charter states to the contrary.

Then please tell the Sec-Gen UN that he is wrong:

View attachment 132739

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And Sir, as I have explained to you, it is not me you need to take seriously, but the UN and P-5 and there your arguments and other similarly manufactured contortions have fallen totally flat thus far. That alone should tell you something but only if you are able to see that.

You have yet to explain how the arguments are "manufactured contortions" - the only "manufactured contortions" so far on this thread are your debunked one liners.

Besides there is nothing wrong with one-liners if they are true and straightforward, just like the clauses of the Simla Agreement.

The clauses of the Simla Agreement are straightforward, and you have yet to offer a rational rebuttal.

Then please tell the Sec-Gen UN that he is wrong:

View attachment 132739

He isn't wrong, and his comments support the Pakistani position on the Simla Agreement and the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir, as explained in previous posts to which you have no response except to post the same debunked one liners and images.

Your position, which echoes the Position of the GoP has no takers in India .

Whether the Indians agree with the Pakistani position or not does not change the fact that the Pakistani position is supported under international law, a clear example of which is the fact that the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir remain on the books and UNMOGIP remains deployed.

The SA agreement's "very broad parameters" for engagement allows for only a mutually agreed 3rd party if so chosen. India has not agreed to any 3rd party on the Kashmir issue post the SA & that remains its position.

I am not disagreeing with the position that any decision on third party involvement post Simla needs to be "mutually agreed upon", however, the UNSC Resolutions were "mutually agreed upon" prior to the Simla Agreement, as was the IWT, and there is absolutely nothing in the Simla Agreement that nullifies prior agreements/arrangements between India and Pakistan, arrived at bilaterally or brokered by third parties.

The IWT, on the other hand, has not been contested by India thus far thereby allowing its continuation. There is no acceptable 3rd party now & until that changes, India's position of keeping the matter bilateral will stand.

India, or Pakistan, can contest any agreement (entered into post or pre-Simla) they want - this is not exclusive to the IWT or UNSC Resolutions, but that does not change the fact that the Simla Agreement does not invalidate any of the agreements entered into prior to the Simla Agreement.

 

[VCheng]

He isn't wrong, and his comments support the Pakistani position on the Simla Agreement and the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir

Well, if what he says in the quote above supports Pakistan, then indeed I have no problem at all. All izz well!