Although the agreement does not mention the words “the right to self-determination”, these are implied in subsection I of Part One of the Agreement, which provides that “the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern relations between the two countries”. When the Charter of the United Nations is consulted, it turns out that Articles 1 and 2 outline the objectives and principles. Article 1 of the UN Charter speaks of “the equal rights and self-determination of peoples”, and Article 2 of the UN Charter speaks of “the prohibition of the threat or use of force in international relations”. This subsection thus has a strong influence on the Kashmir issue, particularly with regard to the issues of the right to self-determination of Kashmiris and the territorial integrity of Kashmir. The Lahore Declaration was a bilateral agreement and governance treaty between India and Pakistan. The contract was signed on 21 February 1999 at a historic summit in Lahore and ratified the same year by the parliaments of both countries. The declaration was signed by Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif. While the disadvantage of the Simla agreement is that no timetable has been set for the final settlement of the Kashmir issue, the advantage of the agreement is that no signatory party prohibits the return of the Kashmir issue to the United Nations. Despite the expiration of 44 years, the Cashmere part of the De Simla agreement gave nothing to the Kashmiris, who were not even signatories to the agreement.
Nor was the 1971 war fought in the name of the Kashmir affair. The agreement was ratified the same year by the parliaments of both nations. At this point, two points can be considered important. First, if the objective part of the agreement states that the two signatory governments are determined to “put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have so far affected their relations”, this does not mean the negation of the Kashmiri`s right to self-determination. Second, if the objective part of the agreement states that the two signatory countries must “work to promote a friendly and harmonious relationship in order to establish peace in the subcontinent”, this does not mean that they are doing so to the detriment of the right to self-determination of the Kashmiris. In short, despite the measures taken by the two signatory states, the right of the Kashmiris to self-determination is intact, untouchable and irrefutable. While the deadline for the settlement of the Kashmir issue is not set by the Simla Agreement, it is also not written that the final settlement of Kashmir can be suspended indefinitely. In this way, the right of the Kashmiris to self-determination was made conditional on the absence of a time clause in the agreement. Kachmiris may require the time clause to enforce his right to self-determination.. . .