‘Constitutional’ reforms finalised: GB likely to have place in Senate, NA shortly

WAJsal said:

Good news, should give the same rights to AJK. @unleashed

Ok man, how long should i wait before we forget Kashmir forever? You are overthinking it, GB is only getting seats in NA and senate. No major constitutional changes, read the news before posting.

It will have no affect. Instead the state of Pakistan should change the constitution and make the whole Jammu and Kashmir as a part of Pakistan. Look at the Indian constitution.


Classic case of posting before reading the news.

Click to expand...

Getting seats in NA and senate means GB becomes part of Pakistan. It can be only done through changing the constitution. It will have deep effect on the whole dispute. That is why rulers after ruler of Pakistan since last 70 years including military rulers shied away from giving GB seats in NA and senate

ito said:

That is why rulers after ruler of Pakistan since last 70 years including military rulers shied away from giving GB seats in NA and senate

Click to expand...

That is because the area had little significance, with CPEC the area needs to be given more attention and the demands of the locals. It is unfortunate to see that the government isn't making the whole of Jammu and Kashmir a part of Pakistan. The rest is just filling up the gaps. It will have little impact on the Kashmir issue, instead it will surely hurt egos. When it does have impact do tag me or remember me.

Deadpool said:

There is nothing that @WAJsal can add or subtract from this. Things are the way they are from an international legal standpoint regardless of whether the people of GB overwhelmingly approve of this move or not.

There will be long term consequences of this action. Positive in my opinion for everyone but those who want perpetual conflict.

Click to expand...

read the first part of my post.

Deadpool said:

The UN mandated condition of plebicite is complete withdrawal of Pakistani military from the region, and having Indian forces maintain "minimum required" force .

If Pakistan conducts a plebicite without the above met conditions, it would be considered Pakistan going against the UN plebicite.

Not that I don't agree with what Pakistan should do. But be aware of the consequences of the Pakistani action. It would set the strongest precedent possible for GoI to conduct an internal plebicite and/or divide J&K into separate states and hive off the other areas like Jammu and Leh/Laddakh just like Pakistan is doing to GB...thereby altering the political union and the resultant laws.

And I am all for it. Personally, I think lets just move on from this.

Click to expand...

Indeed. The UN resolution issue is dead either way. Why should the people of GB have to suffer lack of rights, especially when they have proven their loyalty to Pakistan on so many occasions. As far as the wider Kashmir issue is concerned, the "right of self-determination" enshrined in the UN charter can still be used from a Pakistani pov to argue for Kashmiri self determination. This is not a more or less successful route than the resolution route being undertaken at the moment. However it does ensure that the people of GB as per their wishes will be able to enjoy full democratic rights such as participating in national elections, and sending their elected representatives to argue for their rights in the national parliament.

WAJsal said:

That is because the area had little significance, with CPEC the area needs to be given more attention and the demands of the locals. It is unfortunate to see that the government isn't making the whole of Jammu and Kashmir a part of Pakistan. The rest is just filling up the gaps. It will have little impact on the Kashmir issue, instead it will surely hurt egos. When it does have impact do tag me or remember me.

Click to expand...

I can read and I did read the article about what is going to happen. Giving separate status to GB in your Parliament is not insignificant from a legal pov. What seems trivial to you carries resonance when it comes to law and sets a strong precedent for us. Jammu and Leh/Laddakh have been demanding separation from J&K for a long time.

Kambojaric said:

Indeed. The UN resolution issue is dead either way. Why should the people of GB have to suffer lack of rights, especially when they have proven their loyalty to Pakistan on so many occasions. As far as the wider Kashmir issue is concerned, the "right of self-determination" enshrined in the UN charter can still be used from a Pakistani pov to argue for Kashmiri self determination. This is not a more or less successful route than the resolution route being undertaken at the moment. However it does ensure that the people of GB as per their wishes will be able to enjoy full democratic rights such as participating in national elections, and sending their elected representatives to argue for their rights in the national parliament.

Click to expand...

Yes, UN resolutions are dead. But it was still a point that Pakistan used to berate India. It was the only point that Pakistan had because possession of territory otherwise was already with India.

Pakistan by going forward with this will weaken its biggest arguing factor in UN (which yielded no results but was still the biggest issue raised). It would be quite easy for Indian diplomats to argue back if Pakistan goes ahead with this move.

Let me put it in blunt terms - Pakistan is weakening its biggest arguing points in international fora (which have not and are not likely to yield results in any case) and trading it for improving the lives and empowering its people (GB as well as others).

My personal view: - Pakistan is reading the reality and moving away from rhetoric that has till date not produced a single gain for Pakistan on the ground(not talkrooms) to actually doing something for its people and making their lives significantly better.

The only people really upset about it would be
1. those who don't suffer personally and are more than happy to keep the people of GB as second grade citizens of Pakistan for the 'hope of taking Kashmir' or
2. Those who profit from this current condition by amassing power or money using rhetoric and politics.

ito said:

Forget Phantom 2, once Pakistan do anything to legalize Pakistan rule over GB, very well you can forget Kashmir for ever.

Click to expand...

WAJsal said:

It will have no affect. Instead the state of Pakistan should change the constitution and make the whole Jammu and Kashmir as a part of Pakistan. Look at the Indian constitution.

Click to expand...

This is the actual way of bringing relief to masses and they can always keep a clause in constitution that whenever UN wud conduct plebiscite in Kashmir then we would be the first to say yes. This way everyone will be having their peace of mind.

What about merging FATA with Khyber Pakhtunkwa ? That issue is nearly 70 years long due !

Kambojaric said:

Indeed. The UN resolution issue is dead either way. Why should the people of GB have to suffer lack of rights, especially when they have proven their loyalty to Pakistan on so many occasions. As far as the wider Kashmir issue is concerned, the "right of self-determination" enshrined in the UN charter can still be used from a Pakistani pov to argue for Kashmiri self determination.

Click to expand...

The dispute has never been formally about self-determination - that word features in none of the representations sent by Pakistan (or even India) to the UN in the late 40s - and as I posted earlier - it would not be in Pakistan's self-interest either to pursue such a cause of action.

A territorial dispute is a legal dispute and there are ways to solve it - political(good), military (bad). It is a private dispute and limited in its scope, sets no precedents and not principle or ideology based.

Self-determination however is a wild-card that can theoretically be used by any foreign country to stir trouble or unrest (with or without sponsorship). It also sets an unhealthy precedent. It is too grandoise and unworkable as a sustained basis for foreign policy - and no great or small power has ever made much of it beyond lip service.

i perceive Pakistani politicians mixing up the two causes of action - no doubt 'self-determination' is more emotional - but then they should be prepared to have that yardstick applied to their country also.

schoolboy said:

The dispute has never been formally about self-determination - that word features in none of the representations sent by Pakistan (or even India) to the UN in the late 40s - and as I posted earlier - it would not be in Pakistan's self-interest either to pursue such a cause of action.

A territorial dispute is a legal dispute and there are ways to solve it - political(good), military (bad). It is a private dispute and limited in its scope, sets no precedents and not principle or ideology based.

Self-determination however is a wild-card that can theoretically be used by any foreign country to stir trouble or unrest (with or without sponsorship). It also sets an unhealthy precedent. It is too grandoise and unworkable as a sustained basis for foreign policy - and no great or small power has ever made much of it beyond lip service.

i perceive Pakistani politicians mixing up the two causes of action - no doubt 'self-determination' is more emotional - but then they should be prepared to have that yardstick applied to their country also.

Click to expand...

That unhealthy precedent has already been set in motion by Modi through his comments on Balochistan, an internal Pakistani-Iranian matter(http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...ings-up-Balochistan-again/article14572650.ece)

Therefore this game has already begun from the Indian side, and it takes two to clap, so its Pakistans turn to return the favor and emphasize Punjab, Assam etc right to secede from India and the human rights abuses India is conducting there. These regions like Balochistan are not disputed but since India has started this game, Pakistan should join as well. The right for self determination is enshrined in the UN charter and has been the basis of independence for numerous modern nations ranging from Slovenia and Croatia to East Timor.

As far as the UN resolutions are concerned, from a Pakistani pov they are inherently biased in India's favor given the demand for Pakistan to move out all of its soldiers first, and only then is India demanded to do the same. That in itself explains why the LOC has basically remained static for more than half a century, because every time Pakistan has demanded the plebiscite India has in turn demanded Pakistan remove its troops and the matter dies down there. Hoping that something tangible will happen now hence is pointless, especially as the rights of our citizens are being infringed upon in GB in order to keep the issue alive through the resolution route. Better that the Pakistani foreign office makes a change and the government in turn provides full rights to the people of GB. However the major impediment is the Azad Kashmir government (whom some people think are Pakistani puppets) which has threatened strikes and protests if GB is given provincial status.

Kambojaric said:

That unhealthy precedent has already been set in motion by Modi through his comments on Balochistan, an internal Pakistani-Iranian matter(http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...ings-up-Balochistan-again/article14572650.ece)

Click to expand...

Modi has certainly said it but Pakistani leaders have been harping on the 'human rights' and 'self-determination' plank for many years now - certainly long before Modi. (Bhutto made plenty of those in tthe 90s - here's one http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/25/world/kashmiris-in-pakistan-press-self-rule.html). I don't agree with Modi in bringing this up vis-a-vis Balochistan but I do agree that Pakistani leaders should understand how irritating it is when other countries wax eloquent on self-determination.

As I said before Pakistan should claim Kashmir on the basis of a territorial claim - but it's foolish to invoke human rights and self-determination.

schoolboy said:

As I said before Pakistan should claim Kashmir on the basis of a territorial claim - but it's foolish to invoke human rights and self-determination.

Click to expand...

Why when native people living in these lands overwhelmingly support Pakistan and are persecuted for that very reason? I don't think giving due rights to people of G-B in parliament, NFC, senate will suddenly mean LoC is IB. It has little to do with referendum in near future.

save_ghenda said:

Why when native people living in these lands overwhelmingly support Pakistan and are persecuted for that very reason? I don't think giving due rights to people of G-B in parliament, NFC, senate will suddenly mean LoC is IB. It has little to do with referendum in near future.

Click to expand...

Sarkar u aren't getting the point. The dispute regarding the land btw India & Pakistan includes GB, Pak Kashmir and India's J&K as a single entity. Many movements by political class and locals have went on regarding separating Jammu and Laddakh from the valley and make them separate states/UTs bcz people there are overwhelmingly Pro-India but GOI refrained from it bcz due to the intl dispute it doesn't want to bifurcate the land. The very fact that you want to make separate provisions for GB (which is part of the disputed land) makes it easier for India to do same for Laddakh and Jammu and eventually plays well in India's favor.

agamdilawari said:

Sarkar u aren't getting the point. The dispute regarding the land btw India & Pakistan includes GB, Pak Kashmir and India's J&K as a single entity. Many movements by political class and locals have went on regarding separating Jammu and Laddakh from the valley and make them separate states/UTs bcz people there are overwhelmingly Pro-India but GOI refrained from it bcz due to the intl dispute it doesn't want to bifurcate the land. The very fact that you want to make separate provisions for GB (which is part of the disputed land) makes it easier for India to do same for Laddakh and Jammu and eventually plays well in India's favor.

Click to expand...

Bro tbh I don't know much about politics of Indian Kashmir. But G-B is already governed separatly from AJK. They have their own parliament etc For 70 years they have been asking to have representation in senate and national parliament and now looks like they will get it.

We all know if in near future refferendum is held then only muslim majority valley will decide to be part of Pakistan. While Jammu and Laddhak will vote to remain with India.

Provinces and federal units of Pakistan. Gilgit is part of dispute but not Azad Kashmir.

agamdilawari said:

The very fact that you want to make separate provisions for GB (which is part of the disputed land) makes it easier for India to do same for Laddakh and Jammu and eventually plays well in India's favor.

Click to expand...

Yawn, wake me up when India does anything at all.
And people please read the news, GB is not getting a provincial status. Read before posting.

save_ghenda said:

Bro tbh I don't know much about politics of Indian Kashmir. But G-B is already governed separatly from AJK. They have their own parliament etc For 70 years they have been asking to have representation in senate and national parliament and now looks like they will get it.

We all know if in near future refferendum is held then only muslim majority valley will decide to be part of Pakistan. While Jammu and Laddhak will vote to remain with India.

Provinces and federal units of Pakistan. Gilgit is part of dispute but not Azad Kashmir.

Click to expand...

Kyon time zaya kar raha hai?

Youre from GB. Whats your opinion?

WAJsal said:

Yawn, wake me up when India does anything at all.
And people please read the news, GB is not getting a provincial status. Read before posting.

Kyon time zaya kar raha hai?

Click to expand...