Governments mandate (authority) in dealing with Pakistan over Kashmir

[Yusuf]

As days go by and all the sweet talks increase, I am more and more worried of a sell out by the government. Pakis are past masters in talking and taking it all away at the table.

My question is, can the government of the day unilaterally take decisions on Kashmir and any resolution on it?

If yes can someone approach the supreme court or do something which makes it mandatory for the government to get 2/3rd votes in Parlaiment to ratify any accord without which any resolution is not possible. This clause will kill any resolution on Kashmir which is how it should be.

 

[agentperry]

well your concerns are valid but the mandate being followed by present govt is that- forget kashmir lets trade.
they want better economic ties with pakistan. so that the chinese involvement in south asia which is solely dependent on the sourin ties between India and pakistan can be reduced. the highly radicalized majority population of paksitan stop seeing India as threat to their survival so that we dont see millions of jihadis trying to foment trouble in Indian kashmir and other Indian cities, India gets a better place in afghanistan and role of fanatic army of pakistan in the policy making of pakistan gets reduced. the latter case helps in reducing the voice of army in pakistani politics and we finally get what we dreamt of- a stable pakistan with a govt to talk to and sort out differences.

moreover if i recall a comment by an Indian army officer made way back in 1948 that solution of kashmir(military) lies in west punjab and not in kashmir itself

 

[ejazr]

Any changes to the territorial borders of India requires a consitutional amendment, and that includes Kashmir.

Without a 2/3 majority GoI can't do anything.

 

[Yusuf]

How was the government close to "solving" Kashmir till something went wrong (rather right)?

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

As days go by and all the sweet talks increase, I am more and more worried of a sell out by the government. Pakis are past masters in talking and taking it all away at the table.

My question is, can the government of the day unilaterally take decisions on Kashmir and any resolution on it?

If yes can someone approach the supreme court or do something which makes it mandatory for the government to get 2/3rd votes in Parlaiment to ratify any accord without which any resolution is not possible. This clause will kill any resolution on Kashmir which is how it should be.

given the amount of scams unearthed in UPAs tenure and inability of Govt to address concerns of country men is the reason why some people are questioning UPA's mandate. their logic also appears genuine.

but there is a healthy practice of Govt keeping opposition leaders informed of all major policy decisions with regard to foreign policy and strategic interests. this policy has been followed right from days of Rajeev Gandhi. the leader of opposition is duly informed of all the developments and important decisions. the practice has continued with PVN Rao, ABV and MMS doing the same. i dont theink Govt can take such a big risk and unilaterally take such a big decision. the very future of party will be at stake if the people percieve that national interests have not been looked after in any deal especially kashmir which is so close to our Heart.

 

[sukhish]

GoI is not doing any territorial adjustments. forget about it period.

 

[ejazr]

How was the government close to "solving" Kashmir till something went wrong (rather right)?

The idea is about LoC being made IB formula. And this has been going on for a while now. Even Vajpayee under the NDA worked on a similar formula.

However, at present Kashmir has been frozen, so don't expect any movement on Kashmir for the next 15-20 years. Only some CBMs like cross LoC travel and trade