The Kashmir Dispute—the FAULTLINES : By Dr M K Teng

[Tameem]

That is only Pakistan's view of this issue, yes.

Given the disagreement between India and Pakistan about UNMOGIP’s mandate and functions, the Secretary-General’s position has been that UNMOGIP can only be terminated by a decision of the Security Council. In the absence of such a decision, UNMOGIP has been maintained with those same arrangements since then.
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unmogip/mandate.shtml

 

[Joe Shearer]

@hellfire

The Instrument of Accession

Indian position: Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, on 26 October 1947 executed the Instrument of Accession under the provisions of the Indian Independence Act 1947 and acceded his state to the Dominion of India. India claims that the accession is unconditional and final.


Pakistan's position: Pakistan rejected this accession as this accession was predicated on fraud and violence. Pakistan claimed that the Maharaja had no authority to sign the Instrument of Accession as he had lost the confidence of his people. Moreover, regarding the signing of the Instrument of Accession, its timing, terms and conditions, the timing of the landing of Indian troops, and even the very existence of such a document are controversial.


The UN position: The UN holds that while the accession of Kashmir to India may not be invalid, it's incomplete. Many Security Council members held that Lord Mountbatten’s letter regarding accession (which stated that the question of State’s accession should be settled by the reference to the people) was an integral part of the terms of accession.

The Security Council passed Resolutions that established self-determination as the governing principal for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute. It explicitly and by implications, rejected India's claim that Kashmir was legally Indian territory.

It is also pertinent to mention that the UN through its resolutions 91 (March 1951) and 122 (January 1957) also repudiated Indian stance that the issue of accession of Kashmir had been resolved by the constituent assembly of Kashmir. These resolutions reiterated that the question of accession could not be resolved by any means other than enunciated in the UN resolutions on the subject.

The UN Resolutions are still valid.


@hellfire ... Please tell us what is it that You want to discuss here ? Pakistani Position, Indian Position or the position that actually matters (i.e The UN Position) ?




Sir, The UN resolutions on Kashmir are still valid, even though India has made many efforts to declare them
‘dead’, particularly after the signing of the Simla Agreement.


This Indian claim has been refuted by various UN representatives who, on several occasions, have clarified that, only a bilateral agreement, which solves the problem, would legally supersede the numerous existing UN resolutions on that dispute. Also, in the absence of any fundamental change in the circumstances, the UN resolutions can become invalid only when the UN Security Council declares them null and void.


In April 1990, the UN Representative, Francis Guiliani, clarified: ‘a bilateral agreement, which solved the problem, would supersede the resolution aimed at solving the issue. However, as long as the problem remained, the resolutions would remain in effect regardless of when they were adopted

Please have the goodness to quote the wording of the Shimla Pact, not your interpretation, the precise wording, as it exists, and as the then Prime Minister of Pakistan signed it and bound himself and his country to it, and explain how it does not extinguish the UN Resolutions.

Good, If Shimla agreement solves everything on Kashmir, what exactly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Military_Observer still doing In Pakistan and India controlled Kashmir?

Waiting, as you yourself have quoted, for an Indo-Pakistani agreement on its functions. Considering the Shimla Pact, Pakistan's refusal to acknowledge that the role of UNMOGIP is now over is foot-dragging; India's failure to include that minor detail in the Shimla Pact as an ancillary clause was carelessness and poor drafting, and failure to remember Pakistan's historical propensity to seek even minute apertures to return to its original position ignoring all that had transpired in between.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Please have the goodness to quote the wording of the Shimla Pact, not your interpretation, the precise wording, as it exists, and as the then Prime Minister of Pakistan signed it and bound himself and his country to it, and explain how it does not extinguish the UN Resolutions.

Sir, As per Article 103 of the UN Charter, member States obligations under the Charter take precedence over obligations under a bilateral agreement.


The Simla Agreement did not alter the status of Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory, and it does not preclude raising of Kashmir issue at the United Nations:



Pakistan's position:

The Simla Agreement does not preclude raising of Kashmir issue at the United Nations:


1) Para 1 (i) specifically provides that the UN Charter “shall govern” relations between the parties.

2) Para 1 (ii) providing for settlement of differences by peaceful means, does not exclude resort to the means of pacific settlement of disputes and differences provided in the UN Charter.

3) The UN Security Council remains seized of the Kashmir issue which remains on the Council’s agenda.

4) Articles 34 and 35 of the UN Charter specifically empower the Security Council to investigate any dispute independently or at the request of a member State. These provisions cannot be made subservient to any bilateral agreement.

5) According to Article 103 of UN Charter, member States obligations under the Charter take precedence over obligations under a bilateral agreement.

6) Presence of United Nations Military Observes Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) at the Line of Control in Kashmir is a clear evidence of UN’s involvement in the Kashmir issue.




But what is more important (and what actually matters) is the fact that The UN refuses to accept the Indian position. Almost 44 years since the signing of the Simla Agreement between India and Pakistan but the UN refuses to terminate UNMOGIP ..

 

[Joe Shearer]

You are only going towards dead ends, i have already made my point clear on this subject in last few post. Please go through them.
Secondly, if you still insist on continuing this dead end i will be more happy to lead you to the dead end(debate will lead to no result).
And please reply point by point, quote point by point. You have missed my last two posts, try to counter point by point, you have skipped 95% of my post. Not cool man.

Ahh, joe....Bloody hell, i am just too good. Expecting this, anyway wait for my post, i'll make it when you reply to my questions.[/QUOTE]

You are indeed, and I am proud of you. If the others sparring with you knew more about you, they would be thunderstruck. I am really keen to live a few years more, I hope, a decade or so, to see what you do with yourself. Somewhere down the line, you should get to meet YLH, one of the sharpest brains in Pakistan, and an expert at Ayesha Jalal's level on Jinnah. How I wish I could be there when you two first meet! as I sincerely hope you will.

Let me not be mendacious, however; your grip on the history of developments in GB is superb. Your view of the legal framework and the constitutional position needs you to delve deeper into the subject. I have no doubt that when you have done so, you will come out with a brilliant exposition of that aspect as well, most probably with good, well-argued support for the Pakistani position.

To be honest, @hellfire has the advantage of you there at the moment, although I doubt that anybody else on the forum has your thorough knowledge of the history.

That is a personal view. I hope that it is untainted with jingoism of any variety

 

[VCheng]

What is it that you deny ? Presence of UNMOGIP in India and Pakistan ? or the fact that the Kashmir dispute still remains on the agenda of the SC ?

I have no issues with whatever you say Sir. I merely pointed out that there is no official UN record of that quote attributed to a UN representative in a Pakistani newspaper report from 1990. That is all.

Please have the goodness to quote the wording of the Shimla Pact, not your interpretation, the precise wording, as it exists, and as the then Prime Minister of Pakistan signed it and bound himself and his country to it, and explain how it does not extinguish the UN Resolutions.



Waiting, as you yourself have quoted, for an Indo-Pakistani agreement on its functions. Considering the Shimla Pact, Pakistan's refusal to acknowledge that the role of UNMOGIP is now over is foot-dragging; India's failure to include that minor detail in the Shimla Pact as an ancillary clause was carelessness and poor drafting, and failure to remember Pakistan's historical propensity to seek even minute apertures to return to its original position ignoring all that had transpired in between.

The UN Sec-Gen is on record very clearly Sir, regardless of what either side claims, as to the UN position on this matter.

 

[Tameem]

Waiting, as you yourself have quoted, for an Indo-Pakistani agreement on its functions.

role of UNMOGIP is now over; India's failure to include that minor detail in the Shimla Pact as an ancillary clause was carelessness and poor drafting.

In just two sentence, you forgets comprehension.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir, As per Article 103 of the UN Charter, member States obligations under the Charter take precedence over obligations under a bilateral agreement.


The Simla Agreement did not alter the status of Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory, and it does not preclude raising of Kashmir issue at the United Nations:



Pakistan's position:

The Simla Agreement does not preclude raising of Kashmir issue at the United Nations:


1) Para 1 (i) specifically provides that the UN Charter “shall govern” relations between the parties.

2) Para 1 (ii) providing for settlement of differences by peaceful means, does not exclude resort to the means of pacific settlement of disputes and differences provided in the UN Charter.

3) The UN Security Council remains seized of the Kashmir issue which remains on the Council’s agenda.

4) Articles 34 and 35 of the UN Charter specifically empower the Security Council to investigate any dispute independently or at the request of a member State. These provisions cannot be made subservient to any bilateral agreement.

5) According to Article 103 of UN Charter, member States obligations under the Charter take precedence over obligations under a bilateral agreement.

6) Presence of United Nations Military Observes Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) at the Line of Control in Kashmir is a clear evidence of UN’s involvement in the Kashmir issue.




But what is more important (and what actually matters) is the fact The UN refuses to accept the Indian position. Almost 44 years since the signing of the Simla Agreement between India and Pakistan but the UN refuses to terminate UNMOGIP ..

For your ready reminder, I repeat my request to remind you of the wording:

Please have the goodness to quote the wording of the Shimla Pact, not your interpretation, the precise wording, as it exists, and as the then Prime Minister of Pakistan signed it and bound himself and his country to it,

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/the-kash...es-by-dr-m-k-teng.440732/page-4#ixzz4HbuQXu2I

I will not let you down and ignore this post, but after you have complied, and if you comply, with my request.

I have no issues with whatever you say Sir. I merely pointed out that there is no official UN record of that quote attributed to a UN representative in a Pakistani newspaper report from 1990. That is all.



The UN Sec-Gen is on record very clearly Sir, regardless of what either side claims, as to the UN position on this matter.

On the contrary, the UN spokespersons have gone on record clearing their stand. This is fairly recent. If you wish, and I hope you won't, I can dig out the entire sorry exchange - where a UN official of Pakistani citizenship made an unclear and tendentious reference to the matter, and was flatly contradicted the following day.

In just two sentence, you forgets comprehension.

I forgets nothing, neithers grammars nor comprehension. Read it carefully. I have pointed out that there is a gap between the theoretical position and the practical one.

I do respect those who have a sound grounding for their arguments. Not anyone and everyone who jumps up and down and seeks to cut an impressive figure. I have little time to spare for such.

 

[VCheng]

On the contrary, the UN spokespersons have gone on record clearing their stand. This is fairly recent. If you wish, and I hope you won't, I can dig out the entire sorry exchange - where a UN official of Pakistani citizenship made an unclear and tendentious reference to the matter, and was flatly contradicted the following day.

Sir, I have clearly posted the correct positions many times here on PDF, to no avail. Now I have given up. India's legal position is strong over all Kashmir matters, without a doubt.

(PS: You should read my posts above again, including the quote for which I asked for a verifiable reference.)

 

[M. Sarmad]

Sir, I have clearly posted the correct positions many times here on PDF, to no avail. Now I have given up. India's legal position is strong over all Kashmir matters, without a doubt.

I have seen you repeat/parrot the Indian official propaganda only (here and elsewhere) trying to pass it off as "correct" position.

Your statement "India's legal position is strong over all Kashmir matters, without a doubt" only shows that you are as ignorant on International Law as you are on Kashmir issue.

For your ready reminder, I repeat my request to remind you of the wording:

Please have the goodness to quote the wording of the Shimla Pact, not your interpretation, the precise wording, as it exists, and as the then Prime Minister of Pakistan signed it and bound himself and his country to it,

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/the-kashmir-dispute—the-faultlines-by-dr-m-k-teng.440732/page-4#ixzz4HbuQXu2I

I will not let you down and ignore this post, but after you have complied, and if you comply, with my request.



.

Sir, You have been unable to convince the international community, and the UN does not accept the Indian Position (or the Indian interpretation of Simla Agreement). Do you really think Pakistanis will accept it ??

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir, I have clearly posted the correct positions many times here on PDF, to no avail. Now I have given up. India's legal position is strong over all Kashmir matters, without a doubt.

(PS: You should read my posts above again, including the quote for which I asked for a verifiable reference.)

You mistook me. I was supporting your contention, but pleading ill-health to cover my failure to give references.

 

[VCheng]

You mistook me. I was supporting your contention, but pleading ill-health to cover my failure to give references.

I wish you the best of health Sir. I only support the truth, no matter what. To a fault.

I have seen you repeating/parroting Indian official propaganda only (here and elsewhere) and passing it off as "correct" position.

Your statement "India's legal position is strong over all Kashmir matters, without a doubt" only shows that you are as ignorant on International Law as you are on Kashmir issue.




Sir, You have been unable to convince the international community, and the UN does not accept the Indian Position (or the Indian interpretation oof Simla Agreement). Do you really think Pakistanis will accept it ??

All primary sources agree with my assessment as stated above, and elsewhere, previously, on PDF. Pakistan's stance over Kashmir is not supported by the governing law and sources. Like it or not, that is the blunt truth.

Edit: I am done with this thread, so please carry on without me.

 

[M. Sarmad]

All primary sources agree with my assessment as stated above, and elsewhere, previously, on PDF. Pakistan's stance over Kashmir is not supported by the governing law and sources. Like it or not, that is the blunt truth.

All primary sources agree with your assessment ?? Can you please name those primary sources ... ?

The blunt truth ?? We should accept it as "the truth" Just Because a wannabe Indian says so ?



Edit:

.

Edit: I am done with this thread, so please carry on without me.

So, now you are running away ?? You didn't tell us about your primary sources, mate ... You aren't as smart as you think you are.

 

[Tameem]

I forgets nothing, neithers grammars nor comprehension. Read it carefully. I have pointed out that there is a gap between the theoretical position and the practical one.

Saying UNMOGIP waiting Indo Pak Agreement in one sentence and right in the second concluding it was already there just a poor drafting at Indian side.....Its a total contradiction. I know you never accept it, so just leaves it to readers.

I do respect those who have a sound grounding for their arguments. Not anyone and everyone who jumps up and down and seeks to cut an impressive figure. I have little time to spare for such.

I beg you pardon sir, it was you who come at my way in post 64...remember? and i request you to pls refrain noticing me again, i dont want to becomes your next prey and pls refrain to apply your usual SOP upon me (Confronting, Provoking, Reporting, Baning). Stay Blessed!!

Sir, You have been unable to convince the international community, and the UN does not accept the Indian Position (or the Indian interpretation of Simla Agreement). Do you really think Pakistanis will accept it ??

Indian position is exactly what the believes in their conscious and sub-conscious always i.e.,
"Hathi kay paon main sab ka Paon"
When we Indians are 1.25 Billion then who the hell are you to contradicts us....its just as simple as that.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Saying UNMOGIP waiting Indo Pak Agreement in one sentence and right in the second concluding it was already there just a poor drafting at Indian side.....Its a total contradiction. I know you never accept it, so just leaves it to readers.




I beg you pardon sir, it was you who come at my way in post 64...remember? and i request you to pls refrain noticing me again, i dont want to becomes your next prey and pls refrain to apply your usual SOP upon me (Confronting, Provoking, Reporting, Baning). Stay Blessed!!



Indian position is exactly what the believes in their conscious and sub-conscious always i.e.,
"Hathi kay paon main sab ka Paon"
When we Indians are 1.25 Billion then who the hell are you to contradicts us....its just as simple as that.

Interesting to learn what my SOP is. Here I was thinking it was Rexona.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Read UNMOGIP and it's mandate. Then stop posting crap like this (the bold portion) here. Or you will be dealt as a troll, with no quarters given.

Am sick of people like you spewing hatred and jingoism everywhere.



Noted for my future reference!!

It isn't, but they wouldn't recognise either Imperial Leather or Molton Brown, and in any case, I can't afford either of those any more. Now I use something from Khadi Bhandar which really freaks me out. I have been having two or three baths a day, just to use that SOP.