According to some writers the Pakistani state is willing to enter into bilateral talks to resolve all issues. Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd Edition) says: “A later statute takes away the effect of a prior one. But the later statute must either expressly repeal or be manifestly repugnant to, the earlier one.” Surely, the Simla accord does not repeal UN resolutions and Kashmiris’ right to self-determination.
What can Islamabad do when India is unwilling to talk? What about the UN’s plebiscite resolutions, and self-determination and human-rights conventions? Pakistan’s former foreign secretary Abdul Basit points out in an article: “the Jammu and Kashmir dispute would not end with the restoration of Articles 370 and 35A. India has been deftly using the bogey of bilateral dialogue to inveigle us into weakening our principled position on Kashmir.” Basit thinks our diplomacy is flop. He says: “It is time to avoid bombastic and pleonastic statements. …from lack of clarity to hyperbolic and inconsistent statements, the government does not seem to have any substantive and long-term plan of action beyond creating optics mostly for domestic consumption.” He warns that denying adequate organisational wherewithal to Kashmir diplomacy and then hoping for tangible results is nothing but quixotic.
India’s permanent representative at the UN in a similar vein cautioned our prime minister “theatrics don’t work at UNGA”. He says: “Our reliance on telephone and letter diplomacy is another reflection of our seriousness of purpose.” If we are happy and content with the informal consultations and term them as “historic” why should the world oblige us? We could not even file a human rights violation resolution before UNHRC by Sept 19.