UN backtracks on role of its observers in Kashmir, says limited to LOC

[-xXx-]

Mate ; Have you ever heard of the proverb " Bhains ke aage been bajana "

Azlan is my friend, but with rest, yes, you are perhaps right.

 

[Hellfire]

Can somebody tell these fools that UN removed Jammu Kashmir from list of disputed territories way back in 2010.?

Claiming Srinagar and what not these delusional souls here.

No wonder why they get blasted and shhoed away from all the doors, because they are unaware of their own facts!!

@hellfire

Why have you tagged me??

I absolutely refuse to get in a troll mode right now. Busy till 30 Sep 16.

Whenever they raise Kashmir:

1. Ask them why did they sign the Karachi Agreement in 1948 and recognise International Border in Jammu-Kathua-Sambha. The CFL line starts from MANAWAR (Poonch sector) and thence till Siachen. The territories south of it namely aforementioned trio, are not covered by CFL. The whole of princely state was being disputed by them, but they recognised IB in this area ... so they have recognised the accession

2. Also if they challenge accession Indian Independence Act of 1947. Agree to accession being illegal if Pakistan's legality under the same act is accepted as illegal by them

3. Throw Baluchistan at them. They broke their own assurances to Khan of Kalat over it and then refused the resolution moved by the legislative assembly against merging into Pakistan and simply moved in with their troops after their own commitments were violated unilaterally by them. Source it from net - plenty of data on this from their sources itself.

Enjoy. Request tag fellow Indian members who are not complete a$$ about it to go through above points and be well versed in it.

Am back on my s(t)roll mode. Bye

@-xXx- @Stephen Cohen @NirmalKrish keep ONLY to facts to any question on Kashmir. Use above points as an indicator to rebut and counter any assertions over Kashmir. The accession of kashmir is NOT questionable nor negotiable.

And no rhetoric please. Facts are the best way to infuriate anyone. @Stephen Cohen gets infuriated by me on that basis at times .... lol

Have fun

 

[Dash]

Why have you tagged me??

I absolutely refuse to get in a troll mode right now. Busy till 30 Sep 16.

Whenever they raise Kashmir:

1. Ask them why did they sign the Karachi Agreement in 1948 and recognise International Border in Jammu-Kathua-Sambha. The CFL line starts from MANAWAR (Poonch sector) and thence till Siachen. The territories south of it namely aforementioned trio, are not covered by CFL. The whole of princely state was being disputed by them, but they recognised IB in this area ... so they have recognised the accession

2. Also if they challenge accession Indian Independence Act of 1947. Agree to accession being illegal if Pakistan's legality under the same act is accepted as illegal by them

3. Throw Baluchistan at them. They broke their own assurances to Khan of Kalat over it and then refused the resolution moved by the legislative assembly against merging into Pakistan and simply moved in with their troops after their own commitments were violated unilaterally by them. Source it from net - plenty of data on this from their sources itself.

Enjoy. Request tag fellow Indian members who are not complete a$$ about it to go through above points and be well versed in it.

Am back on my s(t)roll mode. Bye

I didn't tag you to troll brother. I just wanted to highlight that fact and asked your opinion/correction, if any. And btw I'm not a troll. I'm sure u know this.

Carry on strolling..

 

[-xXx-]

I read this exchange with great appreciation!

Can't post on your wall, can you please initiate a PM.

 

[Hellfire]

I didn't tag you to troll brother. I just wanted to highlight that fact and asked your opinion/correction, if any. And btw I'm not a troll. I'm sure u know this.

Carry on strolling..

I know that ... am actually on a troll mode so keeping quite lest I get kicked. Not about you either. I know your postings.

Just request carry on rebutting.

link for Karachi Agreement

http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IN PK_490729_ Karachi Agreement.pdf

 

[Stephen Cohen]

And no rhetoric please. Facts are the best way to infuriate anyone. @Stephen Cohen gets infuriated by me on that basis at times .... lol

Hello Sir ; I dont infuriated by You at all

I get infuriated by the fact that you spend so much time explaining and convincing THEM

There is no point doing so

It is like " Bhains ke aage been bajana "

 

[M. Sarmad]

Read it again. The principle in itself is binding if adopted as a basis.

Now this if was itself non binding under UN resolution, thus we can say the principle of self determination was not even adopted as the recommendation could be rejected anytime by parties involved and can not be enforced. Under UN resolution, self determination was a subset, when whole set was non binding how can a subset be?

Self determination would have been binding if adopted in a binding agreement such as Simla or under chapter VII of UN just like case of East Timur.

But what are we discussing here, what document are you quoting?

I have given you Kofi Annan, Ban Ki Moon statements - the UN stalwarts, still somehow you are peddling the same arguments based on encyclopedia entries?

Yes, it says the Principle is binding if adopted as a basis (of negotiation) .... And then it quotes the example of Kashmir (also Saar territory and Algeria) where the principle of self-determination was chosen as a basis for negotiation, thus making the principle (of self-determination) binding. Hope you get it now.


Ban Ki Moon or Kofi Annan didn't say that the Principle of self determination is non-binding. Or that the UN resolutions on Kashmir are unenforceable... The UN does not accept the Indian claim on Kashmir as (legally) valid.

 

[Hellfire]

Hello Sir ; I dont infuriated by You at all

I get infuriated by the fact that you spend so much time explaining and convincing THEM

There is no point doing so

It is like " Bhains ke aage been bajana "

LOL.

Why are you here? To learn from others, understand their POV and accept their assertions, give a counter narrative and disagree

Aksai Chin and Arunachal were not under us .. now will you accept a Chinese member claiming them?

Same thing exists here. The historical background overwhelmingly supports their POV if you look at it dispassionately as a citizen of a nation which was founded on a two nation principle of two people - not two religions.

Its an ideological battle, I have told you that a number of times, for them as a reason for their nation, for us as a rejection of the two nation theory. J&K is the tragedy of that battle. Don't loose it out of ignorance and of posting illogically.

What Jinnah and on indian side indians did namely moving forces into Baluchistan, kicking the Red Shirts under frontier gandhi in NWFP and junagad and hyderabad for India is called nation building. I respect them, without reservation, for building respective nations ... and you have to respect them for the action - howsoever abominable or deplorable you personally may feel they were, they did it for a nation.

So relax, get your facts in line, learn.

Always understand that no government of india has ever compromised indian position in kashmir. don't get carried away like you did the other day. you are not aware of lot of things.

cheers. relax and move

 

[-xXx-]

Yes, it says the Principle is binding if adopted as a basis (of negotiation) ....

Not basis of negotiation but as criteria of settlement. There is a difference.

And then it quotes the example of Kashmir (also Saar territory and Algeria) where the principle of self-determination was chosen as a basis for negotiation, thus making the principle (of self-determination) binding. Hope you get it now.

And you very intelligently ommit one of the heading under which it is mentioned. The correct headline is

(a) Right to Self-Determination: Instances

This sections tells about instance where right to self determination was used to negotiate in 3 instances and used as recognize right in one. There is a reason why all 4 cases were not clubbed. No where it mention that its binding on India to grant right of self determination to kashmir.. I am not even discussing the credential of this paper worth discussing.

The right is only binding under bilateral treaties or resolution under chapter VII. Or they are acquired because of-
1- Colonial rule
2- Lack of self governance for long
3- Grave genocide and human rights violations.

None of the condition set well for kashmiris to acquire this right, and UN resolution under chapter VI are non binding and thus right of self determination can not be imposed on India which was recommended under resolutions.

Ban Ki Moon or Kofi Annan didn't say that the Principle of self determination is non-binding. Or that the UN resolutions on Kashmir are unenforceable... The UN does not accept the Indian claim on Kashmir as (legally) valid.

Both have categorically said the whole resolution is non binding, how come a subset be binding?

You are un-necessarily stretching upon something which can not be proven. Don't defeat the common sense.

Heck, dont know why I am even giving you chances on un authorized encyclopedia entries written by someone as some paper, but still....

 

[M. Sarmad]

Not basis of negotiation but as criteria of settlement. There is a difference.



And you very intelligently ommit one of the heading under which it is mentioned. The correct headline is

(a) Right to Self-Determination: Instances

This sections tells about instance where right to self determination was used to negotiate in 3 instances and used as recognize right in one. There is a reason why all 4 cases were not clubbed. No where it mention that its binding on India to grant right of self determination to kashmir.. I am not even discussing the credential of this paper worth discussing.

.

Bro, I didn't omit anything ... I posted the link .......

And it's plain and Simple English :

(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.

The Principle is binding in both cases. I don't know what you are on about.

Both have categorically said the whole resolution is non binding, how come a subset be binding? .

Source Please.

Heck, dont know why I am even giving you chances on un authorized encyclopedia entries written by someone as some paper, but still....

So You mean to say that The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (MPEPIL) is an unauthorized encyclopedia ?

 

[-xXx-]

Bro, I didn't omit anything ... I posted the link .......

And it's plain and Simple English :

(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.

The Principle is binding in both cases. I don't know what you are on about.

India has not adopted it as a basis in any binding agreement. Dont you get sick of repeating the same thing again and again?

Source Please.

Given you both last night, please go through them.

 

[eddie01]

Indian media. Making 1 billion plus humans fools since 1947

are you one of them ??? it seems you have full coverage of whats going on inside indian media...

 

[M. Sarmad]

India has not adopted it as a basis in any binding agreement. Dont you get sick of repeating the same thing again and again?

How its is binding? Because this paper said so? On what basis? Quote the law and not this encyclopedia paper.



Given you both last night, please go through them.

Aray Bhai, kiya ho gaya hai aj ?? It's plain and Simple English .... India did adopt this principle (of self-determination) as a basis for negotiation (in Kashmir Dispute) and that's what makes this principle binding on India (and Pakistan) under International Law.

And International Law doesn't work the way you think it works. Therefore the confusion/misunderstanding



And Can you please post those links/sources here so we can evaluate/discuss the credibility/authenticity of those reports published in the Indian newspapers ?

 

[SrNair]

I dont understand how Pakistan can call it a UN Issue after it had signed the Simla Accord. Aren't Pakistanis backtracking on their own agreements?

That is why the most of the nations wont take them seriously .
They wont even value their own words.

 

[-xXx-]

Aray Bhai, kiya ho gaya hai aj ?? It's plain and Simple English .... India did adopt this principle (of self-determination) as a basis for negotiation (in Kashmir Dispute) and that's what makes this principle binding on India (and Pakistan) under International Law.

And International Law doesn't work the way you think it works. Therefore the confusion/misunderstanding

There is no confusion but its you who are trying to build something out of thin air.

1- UN resolutions comes under Chapter 6 which are non binding by definition.
2- Self determination was proposed under a non binding resolution and that too was conditional on many pre requisites being completed first, which were never attained.
3- India has/had full legal right of not going ahead with any resolution, and no one including UN and pakistan can do $hit about it.

And Can you please post those links/sources here so we can evaluate/discuss the credibility/authenticity of those reports published in the Indian newspapers ?

When asked about why UN is not enforcing its resolution, Kofi Annan said-

Secretary General said "You are comparing apples and oranges" When it comes to implementation of resolutions, I think we have to be clear here. The UN has two types of resolutions -- enforcement resolutions under Chapter VII and other resolutions. The resolution you are referring to here comes under Chapter VI, which require cooperation of both parties to get implemented. the two parties discussing these issues and finding a peaceful way is the route I recommend.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has said the UN will not disengage itself from Kashmir problem. According to the UN Charter any resolutions approved under chapter VI , it is the duty of UN Member States to persuade both the parties for a dialogue. On record the UN and its member States are no doubt fully complying with the UN Charter and persuading both Pakistan and India for bilateral dialogue.

http://www.contactpakistan.com/PakEmbassy/latestnews/news235.htm
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010312/main1.htm

As stated clearly, the best UN can do for articles under chapter VI is just persuade the members to follow and can not bind them to follow. Here even that question doesn't arise when the very first step was not fulfilled of UN resolution, which gives all the moral right to India for disengage from implementation of any resolution voluntarily.

Now coming to latest from Ban Ki Moon -

UNITED NATIONS: Expressing sorrow over the recent outbreak of violence in Jammu and Kashmir, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has underscored the need for Pakistan and India to resolve the “longstanding” issue, saying his good offices are available if both sides agree to his mediation. -
See more at: http://awaztoday.pk/News_Ban-Ki-moo...5970_Political-News.aspx#sthash.7XFnmOyr.dpuf

Ban categorically said that his office is available only if both parties agree to its mediation, if UN resolutions are binding on India and pakistan, why UN have to wait for invitation and do not take cognizance of matter and act?

The fact is, you have lost everything and no one listens or peddle your line anymore.

Yu can try and twist each and every line and present a convoluted logic, but the situation on ground is Pak is crying from deepest of its throat, UN is silent and waiting for Indian approval to intermediate.

So much of binding here we can witness.

I have covered almost all which should have been, let the reader be judge. Good Night.