What's new

UN to help resolve Kashmir when India and Pakistan both ask: Sec. Gen. Ban

goood! this shows the double standards of the world! when EAST PAKISTAN was clearly an internal matter the world let india intervene! and did nothing this time around they just twist words to save india or israel! but the positive side of it all is that this time around the kashmiris are rebelling against india without any "help" from pakistan!

sometimes i think Ahmednidjad of Iran isn't an airhead after all!

Before people compare Kashmir to 1971 they forget in 1971 we had millions of refuges. First get 1 million Kashmir as refuge in Pakistan then talk. Right now all you have is couple thousands for terrorist training coming thats all.
 
.
East pakistan is a different matter altogether. Pakistan has massacred millions of mohajirs (bengalis). This forced lot of refugees into India making the situation critical for India.
India intervened officially and liberated for a cause and in the process trained Mukti Bahni to defend them selves. India clearly stated that it had no intentions for territory or resources in that war. Terrorism in Kashmir is different it was sponsored to make the Kashmir issue burning as long as Pakistan exists in the process making life of kashmiris difficult.
The recent rallies show that they are organized by foreign hand to create unrest in the valley. If Kashmir wanted to be independent then pakistan would have received the support from the local back in 1948. Here you are coming after 2 generations and saying Kashmiris want independence which is laughable :cheers:.
Kashmir and Bangladesh are two different contexts Bangladeshis are denied equal status with pakistanis :cheers:


You are saying that if any state or province is not pleased with the Government of India today, it is just because of some foreign hand and does not have anything to do with what India has been doing in terms of its policies?
This is a tremendous oversimplification my friend.

In Bangladesh it was Pakistan's mismanagement which turned the people bitter, however it was the Indian support which eventually turned the tide militarily.
Still the Indian support would have meant nothing if there was not an existing problem in east Pakistan which was primarily created due to mistakes made by Pakistan.

Kashmiris like any other people are upset because of some valid reason, they cannot be all content if they are out in the streets in numbers.
The recent civil unrest stems from a problem deeper than just Pakistan trying to stir up trouble and aversion to this fact will result in more trouble.
It has certainly not been a matter of a militant attack here and there which you can casually attribute to non entities in terms of public representation.
So do not dismiss it so readily and do not consider it a laughable matter, for it is indeed a mass public unrest which is not dissimilar to what happened in Bangladesh decades ago.
The current situation suggest that Kashmiris in India may not be getting what they want and are indeed frustrated over something.

Today most Pakistanis regret what happened in Bangladesh and recognize that despite the Indian support which was indeed extensive, the primary cause was not India but Pakistan itself which led to the civil war and eventual fallout.

India is unable to see beyond Pakistan in Kashmir just as Pakistan was rather focusing on Indian support in Bangladesh instead of addressing the cause of unrest.
Will you even attempt to find out that maybe Kashmiris are not just doing it at the behest of Pakistan but are genuinely upset over some things which perhaps need the immediate attention of the government of India and not just the might of military/paramilitary forces?
 
.
Oh my... why would India ask for UN to resolve the issue in Kashmir? That would only be their loss!
 
.
Before people compare Kashmir to 1971 they forget in 1971 we had millions of refuges. First get 1 million Kashmir as refuge in Pakistan then talk. Right now all you have is couple thousands for terrorist training coming thats all.

Uhh... right... probably because Kashmiris don't want to leave their land and give up- they want their land WITH their freedom.
 
.
Uhh... right... probably because Kashmiris don't want to leave their land and give up- they want their land WITH their freedom.

Because for people who are not protesting there is no problem.
 
.
The Foundations of UN and CIA were both masterminded by President Truman, a 32 degree free mason and zionist... just goes on to speak about the honest credibility of the institution.

Look at its endless list of failed agendas, the little success it has had as a peace promotion body has minuscule efects on world peace, the real and serious issues, it ignores very convieniently. Prominent geo-strategists have gone to state and note that the Kashmir and Palestine issue is the ROOT CAUSE of conflicts all around the world. Yet UN and its esteemed % permanent Members deliberately refuse to give them heed.

The UN is just a tool of the imperialists (and their dogs) to subjugate the rest of the world for their ulterior motives.

Obviosly, India will never ever invite UN to settle the Kashmir dispute. On close observation, Israeli and Indian tyranny is of exact measures, so much so that its hardly an endevour to note that both are orchestrating on the sam tune by the same master. (As i always say India doesnt have a mind of its own, just borowed tactics)

India sends sabatours across the afghan and baluchistan border and plays the 'gee i don't know nothing' game, thats fine, does its own little Mumbai and samjhota express firworks, absolutely great, uses ketchup to look all pseduo heroic, awsome... BUT IN WHAT MIND DO THESE INDIANS THINK THAT THEY WILL SNATCH KASHMIR OFF FROM PAKISTAN BY KILLING INNOCENTS AND DENYING IT IN THE PROCESS??!!?? not in a 100 years! not in a 1000! You go on adopt all those cowardly methods and tag stone pelting teenagers are terrorists... theworld recognises them as Freedom Fighters, AND WE SUPPORT THEM with our sentiments, blood, money, weapons and everything imaginable. go do ur whinning, and howling, soon its going to be payday. Just let the 'goras' exit afghanistan, then we'll have 'BBQ indian chicken tikka masala':pakistan:
 
.
Typical of UN hypocrisy because Kashmir has got no oil...but if is comes to separate energy and mineral rich South Sudan or East Timor from mainlands then UN is always there to act prompt and efficiently as well unilaterally. UN is a puppet modern European imperialism.

And you guys still harp over the plebiscite under the 'auspices' of this same 'hypocritical' UN?:undecided:
 
.
You are saying that if any state or province is not pleased with the Government of India today, it is just because of some foreign hand and does not have anything to do with what India has been doing in terms of its policies?
This is a tremendous oversimplification my friend.

In Bangladesh it was Pakistan's mismanagement which turned the people bitter, however it was the Indian support which eventually turned the tide militarily.
Still the Indian support would have meant nothing if there was not an existing problem in east Pakistan which was primarily created due to mistakes made by Pakistan.

Kashmiris like any other people are upset because of some valid reason, they cannot be all content if they are out in the streets in numbers.
The recent civil unrest stems from a problem deeper than just Pakistan trying to stir up trouble and aversion to this fact will result in more trouble.
It has certainly not been a matter of a militant attack here and there which you can casually attribute to non entities in terms of public representation.
So do not dismiss it so readily and do not consider it a laughable matter, for it is indeed a mass public unrest which is not dissimilar to what happened in Bangladesh decades ago.
The current situation suggest that Kashmiris in India may not be getting what they want and are indeed frustrated over something.

Today most Pakistanis regret what happened in Bangladesh and recognize that despite the Indian support which was indeed extensive, the primary cause was not India but Pakistan itself which led to the civil war and eventual fallout.

India is unable to see beyond Pakistan in Kashmir just as Pakistan was rather focusing on Indian support in Bangladesh instead of addressing the cause of unrest.
Will you even attempt to find out that maybe Kashmiris are not just doing it at the behest of Pakistan but are genuinely upset over some things which perhaps need the immediate attention of the government of India and not just the might of military/paramilitary forces?

Nice post buddy GOI is indeed in right direction :cheers:
 
.
Oh my... why would India ask for UN to resolve the issue in Kashmir? That would only be their loss!

No one knows this better than UN secretary general, thats why such comment. :)

So now its clear that the two main possible parties US and UN are out and no one else are not capable of doing anything. If Pakistan wants to settle the issue, they should accept LOC as border, so is India. Both sides will compromise. Its better for us to settle the dispute.
 
.
You are saying that if any state or province is not pleased with the Government of India today, it is just because of some foreign hand and does not have anything to do with what India has been doing in terms of its policies?
This is a tremendous oversimplification my friend.

In Bangladesh it was Pakistan's mismanagement which turned the people bitter, however it was the Indian support which eventually turned the tide militarily.
Still the Indian support would have meant nothing if there was not an existing problem in east Pakistan which was primarily created due to mistakes made by Pakistan.

Kashmiris like any other people are upset because of some valid reason, they cannot be all content if they are out in the streets in numbers.
The recent civil unrest stems from a problem deeper than just Pakistan trying to stir up trouble and aversion to this fact will result in more trouble.
It has certainly not been a matter of a militant attack here and there which you can casually attribute to non entities in terms of public representation.
So do not dismiss it so readily and do not consider it a laughable matter, for it is indeed a mass public unrest which is not dissimilar to what happened in Bangladesh decades ago.
The current situation suggest that Kashmiris in India may not be getting what they want and are indeed frustrated over something.

Today most Pakistanis regret what happened in Bangladesh and recognize that despite the Indian support which was indeed extensive, the primary cause was not India but Pakistan itself which led to the civil war and eventual fallout.

India is unable to see beyond Pakistan in Kashmir just as Pakistan was rather focusing on Indian support in Bangladesh instead of addressing the cause of unrest.
Will you even attempt to find out that maybe Kashmiris are not just doing it at the behest of Pakistan but are genuinely upset over some things which perhaps need the immediate attention of the government of India and not just the might of military/paramilitary forces?
Hi,
u r right in many ways.But Pakistan should by now get that the world geopolitical scenario has changed so much.Its not 71 anymore.Now if a bomb get blast(or even its planned) all over the world knows it.
More over unlike 71, now India's stature grown up so much and almost all the big powers will be supporting India.As you can see UN will not dare to interfere in Kashmir making Delhi angry.India is getting more powerful in all aspects. So its better for Pakistan to think logically and stop making himself the wrong guy in front of whole world and get a meaningful result for both parties.
 
.
Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth. But since you need someone to hold your pinky and lead your way, let me explain where the 'snub' is.

'Q: Mr. Secretary-General, since June of this year, in occupied Kashmir, there is a movement going on which is independent, completely independent of any outside influences and so forth, and 110 people have died in that movement. And there are United Nations resolutions on Kashmir which exist at this time. What is it that you can do to bring about some sort of understanding and agreement between the Indian Government and the Pakistani Government, because the resolution is about a plebiscite between India and Pakistan to ease the pain of the Kashmiris who are dying, every day – children, women?



SG: First of all, I regret the latest loss of life. I have been calling for an immediate end to violence and urge calm and restraint by all concerned. That is the position of the United Nations at this time.
'​

The highlighted part is an acknowledgment that the current situation is not a unilaterally created situation of GoI. But thats not the 'snub'. Read on.

'Q: The second part of the question has not been answered. There is a framework for a settlement of the Kashmir dispute, based on the UN resolutions, as my colleague has said; and in view of the current crisis between nuclear-armed Pakistan and India, and there are tensions, don’t you think it’s time for you to step in and offer good offices to settle this question?



SG: First of all, India and Pakistan, they are neighbouring countries, important nations in that region - peace and security would have important implications. As far as this role of good offices is concerned, the United Nations normally takes that initiative when requested by both parties concerned
.'​
Here is the snub.

1. India says that the Kashmir issue should be solved bilaterally. But Pakistan wants involvement of third party, UN or US, which we refer to as 'internationalizing' the issue. UN makes it clear that it is indeed bilateral issue.

2. India says UN resolutions are dead as dodo. Pakistan refuses to accept, at least officially. UN now makes it clear that the resolutions are indeed dead as dodo.

3. India says no plebiscite. Pakistan wants it. UN now makes it clear that Kashmir is no longer within the ambit of UN.

In other words, India's stand on Kashmir vis a vis UN is validated. In fact Simla Agreement got validated. Thats the 'snub'.

PS: I haven't laughed this hard in a long long time. That was one ginormous middle finger to Pakistan.

You havent improved a bit, did you?

Anywaz, i am not exactly impressed by t\your self-created 'snubs'.

"All concerned" would automatically imply that there is 'someone else' involved in the behind the present situation in Kashmir other than the stoners, the aggressors and the peace lover (who indeed are at the verge of taking stones in their hands).

This is so lame! It's called self-pleasing, carry on!

Pakistan may like an outside power (the likes of the US or the UN) to intervene because of the obvious stubbornness, stupidity and blatant refusal of UN resolutions and outright human right violations, but the UN do have the right to keep shut. Ofcourse, i would count UN out of this quarrel the day it would take back its resolution over the issue and declares Kashmir issue (only) india's internal affair, until then you can carry on jumping like a monkey, as usual.

BTW, would your highness mind quoting a few more unbiased links calling SG's statements a snub to Pakistan? May be newspapers with hindustan tag or websites that end with a 'dot in' domain consider this as a snub. But guess what, that's fine!!! :)
 
.
"All concerned" would automatically imply that there is 'someone else' involved in the behind the present situation in Kashmir other than the stoners, the aggressors and the peace lover (who indeed are at the verge of taking stones in their hands).
Duh!!!

Pakistan may like an outside power (the likes of the US or the UN) to intervene because of the obvious stubbornness, stupidity and blatant refusal of UN resolutions and outright human right violations, but the UN do have the right to keep shut.
Nope. They don’t have the ‘right’ to keep shut in case of Chapter VII resolutions. They are legally obligated to act. While in case of Chapter VI resolutions they have a legal obligation to ‘keep shut’. Kashmir is under Chapter VI. It has always been under Chapter VI.

But I must say the snub has worked. Suddenly you have wised upto to fact that UN has a ‘right’ to ‘keep shut’. Hopefully now the likes of you would ‘keep shut’ on matters relating to UN vis-à-vis Kashmir.
Ofcourse, i would count UN out of this quarrel the day it would take back its resolution over the issue and declares Kashmir issue (only) india's internal affair, until then you can carry on jumping like a monkey, as usual.
UN has already counted itself out of the Kashmir issue in every practical way possible. That makes the resolutions redundant (if Shimla Agreement already didn’t). That also makes the issue exclusively bilateral. Give it some time. I am sure the import will finally seep into your cranium.

BTW, would your highness mind quoting a few more unbiased links calling SG's statements a snub to Pakistan? May be newspapers with hindustan tag or websites that end with a 'dot in' domain consider this as a snub. But guess what, that's fine!!!
What does it matter if nobody actually utters the word ‘snub’. If someone else has to explain you that you have been snubbed, when you have been snubbed, it probably is not a good symptom.

I understand that denial is the greatest stress reliever.
 
.
Kashmir is an International issue. But the problem is, Pakistan did not play their card well. So even when factual human right abuses takes place in Kashmir, (wide spared) it gets brushed aside. Most Kashmires don't want to stay with India. But India has managed to sweep this under carpet. Credit to their patience and foreign policy strategy

Sad, it is true
 
.
Duh!!!


Nope. They don’t have the ‘right’ to keep shut in case of Chapter VII resolutions. They are legally obligated to act. While in case of Chapter VI resolutions they have a legal obligation to ‘keep shut’. Kashmir is under Chapter VI. It has always been under Chapter VI.

But I must say the snub has worked. Suddenly you have wised upto to fact that UN has a ‘right’ to ‘keep shut’. Hopefully now the likes of you would ‘keep shut’ on matters relating to UN vis-à-vis Kashmir.
A stupid once, a stupid for ever.

Quote a single post out of my 4K plus posts where i had wished/asked for the UN to 'intervene' and enforce its resolution over Kashmir. The only concern i have is india's stubbornness, the resolution binding or non-binding is altogether a different issue for me, so please cut the crap of chapters. We all know these but then you dont find us yapping the same shyt over and over again. Perhaps that's the only you indians are taught it your schools.

BTW, my reply was in connection to your monkey-dance over the so claimed snub, so the 'keep shut' scenario came up; you, instead found it a way to 'impress' us with your 'vast' knowledge of Chapter VIs and VIIs :tdown:

FAIL!

As i said, there's no limit to where simpletons can go.

UN has already counted itself out of the Kashmir issue in every practical way possible.

So?

May be i missed something here, may be my 'wits' are not as guud as yours.

'Counted itself out' would have been the case if today the UN rolls back its resolution over Kashmir, but that's not the case. i actually thought that boneheads of 21st century were atleast better than the mediocre of yesteryears, but guess what, i was wrong!

It were the your likes who 'enlightened' us (a 1000 times as if your likes were the only ones who knew about it) that the UN resolution is non-binding, so the question arises why the heck would UN 'count itself out' from somewhere it has never been to at the first place?

Listen, thickhead, the issue that concerns us is; india's 'obligatories' to which it formed a party itself once by agreeing to a plebiscite; not the UN backing out or 'snubbing' us or for that matter the UN forcing india to act upon the resolution. Think, lunkhead, think!

That makes the resolutions redundant (if Shimla Agreement already didn’t). That also makes the issue exclusively bilateral. Give it some time. I am sure the import will finally seep into your cranium.
As i have been saying over the weeks that you are in the habit of assuming things in ones place and also you actually think that they said that.

Quoting your repeatative yaps - the UN resolutions are non-binding, the Chapter VI Bee Ess etc etc and you still think the inaction by the UN would make the resolution redundant....

Gosh! you are doltish then ever before these days!!!


What does it matter if nobody actually utters the word ‘snub’. If someone else has to explain you that you have been snubbed, when you have been snubbed, it probably is not a good symptom.

Yeah right!

BTW, i am still waiting for a link other than that has a hindu inside that quotes this news as a 'snub'.

Atleast say so if you cant find one, we soldiers are die-heart believers of integrity!
I understand that denial is the greatest stress reliever.

Never knew this what that works for you, thanks for the update though!
 
Last edited:
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom