1971 facts from fiction

[roadrunner]

Both EU and USA think plebicite though a good idea is now irrelavent. Russia will support India and China will keep mum as its also occupying Kashmiri territory. The OIC keeps mum and Saudi's want India to be members of OIC. Gen M is also ready to give up plebicite get the trend ?

EU and the US think plebiscite is a very good idea. Russia is heading towards neutrality on the issue of Kashmir, and well I'm not expecting any support from the Arab countries - but so what? The UN resolutions stand..that is the important thing. If the US considered them irrelevant and the remaining countries also, they would have called for the removal of these resolutions against India, but they don't Why is that do you think?

 

[Always Neutral]

A - RESTORATION OF PEACE AND ORDER


The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavors:

To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State;

To make known to all concerned that the measures indicated in this and the following paragraphs provide full freedom to all subjects of the State, regardless of creed, caste, or party, to express their views and to vote on the question of the accession of the State, and that therefore they should co-operate in the maintenance of peace and order.

The Government of India should:

When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council's Resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order;

Make known that the withdrawal is taking place in stages and announce the completion of each stage;

When the Indian forces shall have been reduced to the minimum strength mentioned in (a) above, arrange in consultation with the Commission for the stationing of the remaining forces to be carried out in accordance with the following principles:
That the presence of troops should not afford any intimidation or appearance of intimidation to the inhabitants of the State;

That as small a number as possible should be retained in forward areas;

That any reserve of troops which may be included in the total strength should be located within their present base area.


The Government of India should agree that until such time as the plebiscite administration referred to below finds it necessary to exercise the powers of direction and supervision over the State forces and policy provided for in paragraph 8, they will be held in areas to be agreed upon with the Plebiscite Administrator.


After the plan referred to in paragraph 2(a) above has been put into operation, personnel recruited locally in each district should so far as possible be utilized for the reestablishment and maintenance of law and order with due regard to protection of minorities, subject to such additional requirements as may be specified by the Plebiscite Administration referred to in paragraph 7.


If these local forces should be found to be inadequate, the Commission, subject to the agreement of both the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, should arrange for the use of such forces of either Dominion as it deems effective for the purpose of pacification.



B - PLEBISCITE


The Government of India should undertake to ensure that the Government of the State invite the major political groups to designate responsible representatives to share equitably and fully in the conduct of the administration at the ministerial level, while the plebiscite is being prepared and carried out.


The Government of India should undertake that there will be established in Jammu and Kashmir a Plebiscite Administration to hold a plebiscite as soon as possible on the question of the accession of the State to India or Pakistan.


The Government of India should undertake that there will be delegated by the State to the Plebiscite Administration such powers as the latter considers necessary for holding a fair and impartial plebiscite including, for that purpose only, the direction and supervision of the State forces and police.


The Government of India should at the request of the Plebiscite Administration, make available from the Indian forces such assistance as the Plebiscite Administration may require for the performance of its functions.



The Government of India should agree that a nominee of the Secretary-General of the United Nations will be appointed to be the Plebiscite Administrator.

The Plebiscite Administrator, acting as an officer of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, should have authority to nominate the assistants and other subordinates and to draft regulations governing the Plebiscite. Such nominees should be formally appointed and such draft regulations should be formally promulgated by the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Government of India should undertake that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir will appoint fully qualified persons nominated by the Plebiscite Administrator to act as special magistrates within the State judicial system to hear cases which in the opinion of the Plebiscite Administrator have a serious bearing on the preparation and the conduct of a free and impartial plebiscite.

The terms of service of the Administrator should form the subject of a separate negotiation between the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Government of India. The Administrator should fix the terms of service for his assistants and subordinates.

The Administrator should have the right to communicate directly, with the Government of the State and with the Commission of the Security Council and, through the Commission, with the Security Council, with the Governments of India and Pakistan and with their representatives with the Commission. It would be his duty to bring to the notice of any or all of the foregoing (as he in his discretion may decide) any circumstances arising which may tend, in his opinion, to interfere with the freedom of the Plebiscite.

The Government of India should undertake to prevent and to give full support to the Administrator and his staff in preventing any threat, coercion or intimidation, bribery or other undue influence on the voters in the plebiscite, and the government of India should publicly announce and should cause the Government of the State to announce this undertaking as an international obligation binding on all public authorities and officials in Jammu and Kashmir.


The Government of India should themselves and through the government of the State declare and make known that all subjects of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, regardless of creed, caste or party, will be safe and free in expressing their views and in voting on the question of the accession of the State and that there will be freedom of the Press, speech and assembly and freedom of travel in the State, including freedom of lawful entry and exit.


The Government of India should use and should ensure that the Government of the State also use their best endeavor to effect the withdrawal from the State of all Indian nationals other than those who are normally resident therein or who on or since l5th August 1947 have entered it for a lawful purpose.


The Government of India should ensure that the Government of the State releases all political prisoners and take all possible steps so that:

all citizens of the State who have left it on account of disturbances are invited and are free to return to their homes and to exercise their rights as such citizens;
there is no victimization;
minorities in all parts of the State are accorded adequate protection.

The Commission of the Security Council should at the end of the plebiscite certify to the Council whether the plebiscite has or has not been really free and impartial.


C-GENERAL PROVISIONS


The Governments of India and Pakistan should each be invited to nominate a representative to be attached to the Commission for such assistance as it may require in the performance of its task.


The Commission should establish in Jammu and Kashmir such observers as it may require of any of the proceedings in pursuance of the measures indicated in the foregoing paragraphs.


The Security Council Commission should carry out the tasks assigned to it herein.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


* The Security Council voted on this Resolution on 20-1-1948 with the following result:-


In favor: **Argentina, **Canada. China, France, **Syria, U. K, and U. S. A


Against: None


Abstaining: **Belgium, **Columbia, **Ukrainian S. S. R. . and U. S. S. R.


** Non-permanent Members of the Security Council.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

EU and the US think plebiscite is a very good idea. Russia is heading towards neutrality on the issue of Kashmir, and well I'm not expecting any support from the Arab countries - but so what? The UN resolutions stand..that is the important thing. If the US considered them irrelevant and the remaining countries also, they would have called for the removal of these resolutions against India, but they don't Why is that do you think?

Do you really think that the issues with the UN or with any political body are decided on the morality of the questions?

It served the US purpose (John Foster Dulles to be precise) to support Pakistan over Kashmir. If you feel that the US or EU is going to support Pakistan, you have another guess coming. Morality is not the question. Geopolitics and Geostrategy is! They smell BIG money in India and China. How come the so called Bamboo Curtain and all its 'atrocities' are no longer lead articles in the Readers' Digest? Because it is all about MONEY!

Read the NIC (US CIA summary) 2020.

China is the smoothest operator. It looks to the future. China, currently is a friend of Pakistan. Yet, not in one Indo Pak war did she open up the 'second front', even if she made nice political statements for Pakistan. Remember, stick and stones may break my bones, but words cannot harm me! The day it suits her purpose to handshake with India, she will abandon Pakistan with some moral musing. She is supporting Myanmar these days,because she requires a presence there to monitor the 10 degree channel and the The Strait of Malacca, which is a narrow, 805 km (500 mile) stretch of water between Peninsular Malaysia (West Malaysia) and the Indonesian island of Sumatra. A quarter of all oil shipments carried by sea come through the Strait, in 2003, an estimated 11 million barrels (1,700,000 m&#179 a day, a trade that is expected to expand as oil consumption rises in China.

Let's not day dream and instead understand the geopolitical and geostrategic game plan.

People are calling for boycotting the Olympics which China is organising because she is supporting the Burmese junta which is sorting out the west sponsored anti govt rebellion (Have your say BBC). Humbug. Nothing will happen. Because it means MONEY lost!!!!

The Indian govt is making placating noises since Myanmar oil is an important issue. But to be with the Jones', Sonia Gandhi (the arbiter of Indian destiny) has joined the west so as to confuse as to where India stand.

Politics is a strange and dangerous game.One cannot afford to be naive and gullible.

And the saddest part is that - yours and my opinion does not matter in realpolitik!

 

[Always Neutral]

Dear Road Runner,

I would like to rephrase it again. EU and USA thought that plebicite was a good idea not any more. Please read the latest EU report on Kashmir (which has been discussed) on this forum and has been adopted.

Today even the rulers of India and Pakistan donot wish to change boundaries and most Kashmiris want to be free of both India as well as Pakistan if possible. Sorry but the poll was carried out by both Pakistani and Indian Papers jointly so you cannot call it indocentric.

Lastly I see you have avoided commenting on the Gen M's interview ?

 

[Always Neutral]

Also RR,

Just an after thought. The UK and EU wants to nominate India to security council ignoring Pakistan. While I am not sure about the correctness of this decision it also means they are siding with India all the way. Tony Blair may be the next President of EU in November.

 

[roadrunner]

A - RESTORATION OF PEACE AND ORDER


The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavors:

To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State;

To make known to all concerned that the measures indicated in this and the following paragraphs provide full freedom to all subjects of the State, regardless of creed, caste, or party, to express their views and to vote on the question of the accession of the State, and that therefore they should co-operate in the maintenance of peace and order.

The Government of India should:

When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council's Resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order;

Make known that the withdrawal is taking place in stages and announce the completion of each stage;

When the Indian forces shall have been reduced to the minimum strength mentioned in (a) above, arrange in consultation with the Commission for the stationing of the remaining forces to be carried out in accordance with the following principles:
That the presence of troops should not afford any intimidation or appearance of intimidation to the inhabitants of the State;

That as small a number as possible should be retained in forward areas;

That any reserve of troops which may be included in the total strength should be located within their present base area.


The Government of India should agree that until such time as the plebiscite administration referred to below finds it necessary to exercise the powers of direction and supervision over the State forces and policy provided for in paragraph 8, they will be held in areas to be agreed upon with the Plebiscite Administrator.


After the plan referred to in paragraph 2(a) above has been put into operation, personnel recruited locally in each district should so far as possible be utilized for the reestablishment and maintenance of law and order with due regard to protection of minorities, subject to such additional requirements as may be specified by the Plebiscite Administration referred to in paragraph 7.


If these local forces should be found to be inadequate, the Commission, subject to the agreement of both the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, should arrange for the use of such forces of either Dominion as it deems effective for the purpose of pacification.



B - PLEBISCITE


The Government of India should undertake to ensure that the Government of the State invite the major political groups to designate responsible representatives to share equitably and fully in the conduct of the administration at the ministerial level, while the plebiscite is being prepared and carried out.


The Government of India should undertake that there will be established in Jammu and Kashmir a Plebiscite Administration to hold a plebiscite as soon as possible on the question of the accession of the State to India or Pakistan.


The Government of India should undertake that there will be delegated by the State to the Plebiscite Administration such powers as the latter considers necessary for holding a fair and impartial plebiscite including, for that purpose only, the direction and supervision of the State forces and police.


The Government of India should at the request of the Plebiscite Administration, make available from the Indian forces such assistance as the Plebiscite Administration may require for the performance of its functions.



The Government of India should agree that a nominee of the Secretary-General of the United Nations will be appointed to be the Plebiscite Administrator.

The Plebiscite Administrator, acting as an officer of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, should have authority to nominate the assistants and other subordinates and to draft regulations governing the Plebiscite. Such nominees should be formally appointed and such draft regulations should be formally promulgated by the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Government of India should undertake that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir will appoint fully qualified persons nominated by the Plebiscite Administrator to act as special magistrates within the State judicial system to hear cases which in the opinion of the Plebiscite Administrator have a serious bearing on the preparation and the conduct of a free and impartial plebiscite.

The terms of service of the Administrator should form the subject of a separate negotiation between the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Government of India. The Administrator should fix the terms of service for his assistants and subordinates.

The Administrator should have the right to communicate directly, with the Government of the State and with the Commission of the Security Council and, through the Commission, with the Security Council, with the Governments of India and Pakistan and with their representatives with the Commission. It would be his duty to bring to the notice of any or all of the foregoing (as he in his discretion may decide) any circumstances arising which may tend, in his opinion, to interfere with the freedom of the Plebiscite.

The Government of India should undertake to prevent and to give full support to the Administrator and his staff in preventing any threat, coercion or intimidation, bribery or other undue influence on the voters in the plebiscite, and the government of India should publicly announce and should cause the Government of the State to announce this undertaking as an international obligation binding on all public authorities and officials in Jammu and Kashmir.


The Government of India should themselves and through the government of the State declare and make known that all subjects of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, regardless of creed, caste or party, will be safe and free in expressing their views and in voting on the question of the accession of the State and that there will be freedom of the Press, speech and assembly and freedom of travel in the State, including freedom of lawful entry and exit.


The Government of India should use and should ensure that the Government of the State also use their best endeavor to effect the withdrawal from the State of all Indian nationals other than those who are normally resident therein or who on or since l5th August 1947 have entered it for a lawful purpose.


The Government of India should ensure that the Government of the State releases all political prisoners and take all possible steps so that:

all citizens of the State who have left it on account of disturbances are invited and are free to return to their homes and to exercise their rights as such citizens;
there is no victimization;
minorities in all parts of the State are accorded adequate protection.

The Commission of the Security Council should at the end of the plebiscite certify to the Council whether the plebiscite has or has not been really free and impartial.


C-GENERAL PROVISIONS


The Governments of India and Pakistan should each be invited to nominate a representative to be attached to the Commission for such assistance as it may require in the performance of its task.


The Commission should establish in Jammu and Kashmir such observers as it may require of any of the proceedings in pursuance of the measures indicated in the foregoing paragraphs.


The Security Council Commission should carry out the tasks assigned to it herein.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


* The Security Council voted on this Resolution on 20-1-1948 with the following result:-


In favor: **Argentina, **Canada. China, France, **Syria, U. K, and U. S. A


Against: None


Abstaining: **Belgium, **Columbia, **Ukrainian S. S. R. . and U. S. S. R.


** Non-permanent Members of the Security Council.

Here's the important bit from what you quoted

"The Government of India should undertake that there will be established in Jammu and Kashmir a Plebiscite Administration to hold a plebiscite as soon as possible on the question of the accession of the State to India or Pakistan."

 

[roadrunner]

Do you really think that the issues with the UN or with any political body are decided on the morality of the questions?

It served the US purpose (John Foster Dulles to be precise) to support Pakistan over Kashmir. If you feel that the US or EU is going to support Pakistan, you have another guess coming. Morality is not the question. Geopolitics and Geostrategy is! They smell BIG money in India and China. How come the so called Bamboo Curtain and all its 'atrocities' are no longer lead articles in the Readers' Digest? Because it is all about MONEY!

Read the NIC (US CIA summary) 2020.

China is the smoothest operator. It looks to the future. China, currently is a friend of Pakistan. Yet, not in one Indo Pak war did she open up the 'second front', even if she made nice political statements for Pakistan. Remember, stick and stones may break my bones, but words cannot harm me! The day it suits her purpose to handshake with India, she will abandon Pakistan with some moral musing. She is supporting Myanmar these days,because she requires a presence there to monitor the 10 degree channel and the The Strait of Malacca, which is a narrow, 805 km (500 mile) stretch of water between Peninsular Malaysia (West Malaysia) and the Indonesian island of Sumatra. A quarter of all oil shipments carried by sea come through the Strait, in 2003, an estimated 11 million barrels (1,700,000 m³) a day, a trade that is expected to expand as oil consumption rises in China.

Let's not day dream and instead understand the geopolitical and geostrategic game plan.

People are calling for boycotting the Olympics which China is organising because she is supporting the Burmese junta which is sorting out the west sponsored anti govt rebellion (Have your say BBC). Humbug. Nothing will happen. Because it means MONEY lost!!!!

The Indian govt is making placating noises since Myanmar oil is an important issue. But to be with the Jones', Sonia Gandhi (the arbiter of Indian destiny) has joined the west so as to confuse as to where India stand.

Politics is a strange and dangerous game.One cannot afford to be naive and gullible.

And the saddest part is that - yours and my opinion does not matter in realpolitik!

Most of it I could agree with. Though China would not make a second front in an Indo-Pak war, and I would not expect them to do so. Wouldnt do them much good.

 

[roadrunner]

Dear Road Runner,

I would like to rephrase it again. EU and USA thought that plebicite was a good idea not any more. Please read the latest EU report on Kashmir (which has been discussed) on this forum and has been adopted.

The UN has not adopted any such resolution you talk about. Instead of telling me to search for something I don't know of, quote it here.

Today even the rulers of India and Pakistan donot wish to change boundaries and most Kashmiris want to be free of both India as well as Pakistan if possible. Sorry but the poll was carried out by both Pakistani and Indian Papers jointly so you cannot call it indocentric.

Lol. Pakistani and Indian papers are never neutral. Polls are very easy to fix. You won't get a proper poll unless you sample all areas of Kashmir rather than only the Indian run ones (which have the fear of intimdation). If you're so sure they would vote India over Pakistan, run the plebiscite.

I agree they would not want to join Pakistan. In fact I don't want them to. I'd rather they get their own Kashmir. But the Northern Areas will remain with Pakistan. There are no rights on this other than for Pakistan.

Lastly I see you have avoided commenting on the Gen M's interview ?

Again, not sure what you're on about here. Quote it.

 

[bhangra12345]

But the Northern Areas will remain with Pakistan. There are no rights on this other than for Pakistan.

May I know why? and what legal rights does Pakistan have over the northern areas (and gilgit - depends on what you are defining as northern areas)?

 

[roadrunner]

May I know why? and what legal rights does Pakistan have over the northern areas (and gilgit - depends on what you are defining as northern areas)?

For a start your own politicians and the heir to Kashmir has even admitted the Northern Areas are not a part of Kashmir or India. The Maharajah bought Kashmir till Ladakh from the British (that legally can be justified as the boundaries of Kashmir), then the Northern Areas were forcibly annexed by him into Kashmir, though there had been no prior history of the Northern Areas being part of Kashmir - its history has always been with Pakistan, not with the Kashmir Valley.

 

[bhangra12345]

For a start your own politicians and the heir to Kashmir has even admitted the Northern Areas are not a part of Kashmir or India. The Maharajah bought Kashmir till Ladakh from the British (that legally can be justified as the boundaries of Kashmir), then the Northern Areas were forcibly annexed by him into Kashmir, though there had been no prior history of the Northern Areas being part of Kashmir - its history has always been with Pakistan, not with the Kashmir Valley.

Which politicians? which politician has said that? When did Karan Singh(heir to the Kashmir king) say that? and by the way when was Pakistan there before 1947? Which kingdom are you referring to- the sikh kingdom for which the kashmir was a vassal or what? Which kingdom are you referring to as Pakistan- in your quote?

The agreement with British in 1935 was an lease agreement which was annuled in 1947 and in the lease agreement, it was clearly stated that it was only a lease and the sovereign rights rest with the king of kashmir. -

On March 26, 1935, Maharaja Hari Singh agreed to lease the Gilgit Agency to the British for a period of sixty years. Article 1 of the Lease Agreement of Gilgit read:

The Viceroy and Governor-General of India may at any time after the ratification of this agreement assume the civil and military administration of so much of the Wazarat or Gilgit province (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said territory’) of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as lies beyond the right bank of the river Indus, but notwithstanding anything in this agreement the said territory shall continue to be included within the dominion of His Highness the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir.7

According to the Lease Deed, consequently, Gilgit and its adjoining territories, the region "beyond the right bank of the river Indus" was very much part of the State of J&K during the Maharaja’s rule.
.
.
.


Consequently, following the collapse of British paramountcy in 1947, the entire Gilgit agency was restored to the then Dogra King, Hari Singh, and he deputed Brigadier Ghansara Singh as Governor of these areas.

Gilgit-Baltistan The Laws of Occupation- Ajai Sahni* & Saji Cherian

I will agree to disagree with you on opinions and will accept them as such, but facts are different from opinions.


well by the way, this is the official position of india on those areas

- The Official Website of Jammu & Kashmir Government, India

 

[roadrunner]

Which politicians? which politician has said that? When did Karan Singh(heir to the Kashmir king) say that?

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Good enough? Funnily enough, even Nehru agreed with it

The views of Karan Singh, Hari Singh's son, are no less revealing. Shortly before he was sworn in as Governor of Jammu and Kashmir on February 26, 1981, B.K Nehru met various people. "The only real briefing that I got was from Tiger (Karan Singh) who put the State of Jammu and Kashmir in correct perspective for me. He explained that the State was a wholly artificial creation, its five separate regions joined together by the historical accident that Raja Gulab Singh had conquered all the territories over which his father Maharaja Hari Singh was ruling at the time of independence and partition. Those five different entities had nothing in common with each other. The hill area of Gilgit, Baltistan and Skardu and the Punjabi speaking areas of Muzaffarabad etc., were already in the hands of Pakistan. In the State, there were three clear divisions - Jammu, which was Hindu, Kashmir, which was Sunni Muslim and Ladakh, one part of which was Buddhist and the other Shia Muslim. Because of the lack of commonality between these three divisions, the sooner they were separated the better it would be for the future. My own knowledge of Kashmir was next to nil except for what I had been forced to learn about it during my ambassadorship in Washington."

and by the way when was Pakistan there before 1947?

Let's not play the old Indian game of Pakistan has no history please. You know very well what I mean. When I refer to Pakistan before 1947, I refer to the history of the areas within the borders of modern day Pakistan. By your logic India also has no history, since there was no country known as India prior to recent times either.

Which kingdom are you referring to- the sikh kingdom for which the kashmir was a vassal or what? Which kingdom are you referring to as Pakistan- in your quote?

Kashmir was never a Sikh kingdom. It's always been a Muslim majority area.

The agreement with British in 1935 was an lease agreement which was annuled in 1947 and in the lease agreement, it was clearly stated that it was only a lease and the sovereign rights rest with the king of kashmir. -


Gilgit-Baltistan The Laws of Occupation- Ajai Sahni* & Saji Cherian

Thanks for that link. I never knew such an agreement existed, and only reinforces my view that the Northern Areas were in no way a part of Kashmir historically. The culture, the language, the people of the Northern Areas share with the people of Kohistan etc. I'm really talking about the history of the area, but since you're so interested in ignoring this big part of the Northern Areas, there's some points to note

• At the very least you must agree that Hunza and Nagar from the Northern Areas were never a part of Kashmir, but independent states even at the time of independence. Your lease does not even mention these areas.
• Do you accept the existence of the 1846 Treaty of Lahore and Amritsar? "The British Government transfers and makes over for ever in independent possession to Maharajah Gulab Singh and the heirs male of his body all the hilly or mountainous country with its dependencies situated to the eastward of the River Indus and the westward of the River Ravi including Chamba and excluding Lahul, being part of the territories ceded to the British Government by the Lahore State according to the provisions of Article IV of the Treaty of Lahore, dated 9th March, 1846" Kashmir: Legal Documents

On the second point, how do you justify the Maharajah violently colonizing a part of Northern Areas (the leased area), by force, and then handing it over for lease to colonialists of the country? Can you not see the error in this? It is like me throwing you out your house, then occupying your house, and then making a deal with the local mafia of the area giving them ownership of your house. Does that sound legal to you? I can just about agree about Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, Azad Kashmir and Jammu being geographically a part of Kashmir. But I can't agree to the Northern Areas mainly on the historical ties of the people, that has never been with the people of jammu, Ladakh or the main parts of Kashmir. It was just forcibly occupied for a time period that was so insignificant it's not worth mentioning.

Don't you think you're being a bit biased in showing me one document that says Northern Areas and Kashmir were to be ruled as one, and then ignoring another document calling for plebiscite of the entire area? Once again, Northern Areas have nothing to do with Kashmir historically. They are a part of the people of current Pakistan and always were.

 

[bhangra12345]

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Good enough? Funnily enough, even Nehru agreed with it

The views of Karan Singh, Hari Singh's son, are no less revealing. Shortly before he was sworn in as Governor of Jammu and Kashmir on February 26, 1981, B.K Nehru met various people. "The only real briefing that I got was from Tiger (Karan Singh) who put the State of Jammu and Kashmir in correct perspective for me. He explained that the State was a wholly artificial creation, its five separate regions joined together by the historical accident that Raja Gulab Singh had conquered all the territories over which his father Maharaja Hari Singh was ruling at the time of independence and partition. Those five different entities had nothing in common with each other. The hill area of Gilgit, Baltistan and Skardu and the Punjabi speaking areas of Muzaffarabad etc., were already in the hands of Pakistan. In the State, there were three clear divisions - Jammu, which was Hindu, Kashmir, which was Sunni Muslim and Ladakh, one part of which was Buddhist and the other Shia Muslim. Because of the lack of commonality between these three divisions, the sooner they were separated the better it would be for the future. My own knowledge of Kashmir was next to nil except for what I had been forced to learn about it during my ambassadorship in Washington."

from where did you get the above phrase? it was not there in the dailytimes link. and also if you can get me the exact quotes by karan singh, I would appreciate it- you very well know how spin doctors of India and Pakistan work to twist the words.

and also by the way, Karan Singh as of 1948, the moment his father signed the instrument of accession became a common citizen of India and as such has only that much value.

Let's not play the old Indian game of Pakistan has no history please. You know very well what I mean. When I refer to Pakistan before 1947, I refer to the history of the areas within the borders of modern day Pakistan. By your logic India also has no history, since there was no country known as India prior to recent times either.

That is the reason I asked you what specific KINGDOM are you referring to?

Kashmir was never a Sikh kingdom. It's always been a Muslim majority area.

Never said it was a non-muslim area, just said, kashmir was a vassal state to the sikh dynasty, different issues.

from wikipedia
the Afghan Durranis, who ruled Kashmir from 1752 until 1820.[1] That year, the Sikhs under Ranjit Singh, annexed Kashmir, and held it until 1846,

Kashmir region - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you interested in history, the dogra rule upto 1948, was started in 1846 with the defeat of sikhs and the british never actually held Kashmir, from 1820- it was not under the muslim, but under sikh and hindu rule.

I dont know how you are saying Kashmir was part of pakistan always?- that was the reason exactly what kingdom are you referring to.

Thanks for that link. I never knew such an agreement existed, and only reinforces my view that the Northern Areas were in no way a part of Kashmir historically. The culture, the language, the people of the Northern Areas share with the people of Kohistan etc. I'm really talking about the history of the area, but since you're so interested in ignoring this big part of the Northern Areas, there's some points to note

A 12 year lease(1935-47),i.e. rent changes the picture?

• At the very least you must agree that Hunza and Nagar from the Northern Areas were never a part of Kashmir, but independent states even at the time of independence. Your lease does not even mention these areas.

• 
  Dont know the specifics of these two areas, but in general, my thumb rule is- if that area comes under the sovereignity of the king of Kashmir, then it is included in the instrument of accession.
  
  

  [*] Do you accept the existence of the 1846 Treaty of Lahore and Amritsar? "The British Government transfers and makes over for ever in independent possession to Maharajah Gulab Singh and the heirs male of his body all the hilly or mountainous country with its dependencies situated to the eastward of the River Indus and the westward of the River Ravi including Chamba and excluding Lahul, being part of the territories ceded to the British Government by the Lahore State according to the provisions of Article IV of the Treaty of Lahore, dated 9th March, 1846" Kashmir: Legal Documents

if you start questioning all the treaties made by the british, you will be in serious trouble, dont forget the durand line treaty is also one such made by the british.

and by the way, buying a land from another king for complete sovereignity was an accepted norm in those ages, why- half of america is bought either from french, mexico or canada.

On the second point, how do you justify the Maharajah violently colonizing a part of Northern Areas (the leased area), by force, and then handing it over for lease to colonialists of the country? Can you not see the error in this? It is like me throwing you out your house, then occupying your house, and then making a deal with the local mafia of the area giving them ownership of your house. Does that sound legal to you? I can just about agree about Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, Azad Kashmir and Jammu being geographically a part of Kashmir. But I can't agree to the Northern Areas mainly on the historical ties of the people, that has never been with the people of jammu, Ladakh or the main parts of Kashmir. It was just forcibly occupied for a time period that was so insignificant it's not worth mentioning.

Do you agree with the jalianwalabagh masacre? Do you agree with killing 3 million bengalis for the world war 2 effort? is that legal? Does that sound legal to you?
It was legal at that point of time where the legality meant having the sword in your hand. Should I start questioning Aurangazeb's atrocities or go to some B.C. to call Alexander's atrocities? You might indulge in these pointless exercises, not me.

In short, it was legal, today it is not legal.

Don't you think you're being a bit biased in showing me one document that says Northern Areas and Kashmir were to be ruled as one, and then ignoring another document calling for plebiscite of the entire area?

Dont you see that there is a immensely different relationship between the two documents.
If you dont, I wont be losing my sleep over it.

In case you didnt realize, the first step of the second document has to be taken by pakistan, which fortunately/unfortunately it never took- You want the second step to be done by us first, sorry not going to happen. First do what you are asked by the document and then ask us to do what was supposed to be done by us. Till then, sorry Pakistan has no moral authority to even ask.

Once again, Northern Areas have nothing to do with Kashmir historically. They are a part of the people of current Pakistan and always were.

If you want to speak emotionally/ give your views, Please give them- I will at the max ask for clarifications, as to what exactly you mean by that. If you want something, say that you want that to happen, but do not modify the facts according to your wants.

I want aishwarya to be my girl friend, but I sure am not going to say, aishwarya is my girl friend - I am only correcting the second part.

 

[roadrunner]

from where did you get the above phrase? it was not there in the dailytimes link. and also if you can get me the exact quotes by karan singh, I would appreciate it- you very well know how spin doctors of India and Pakistan work to twist the words.

I didnt say it was in that link. It's some other link, quite a creditable one..not difficult to find.
The exact quote, why don't you write in, or ask the editors of Naqqara? Or just contact him? I'm just giving you the link from a newspaper who reference another paper.

and also by the way, Karan Singh as of 1948, the moment his father signed the instrument of accession became a common citizen of India and as such has only that much value.

Well, it's not so important, but you're wrong here. Karan Singh was appointed as Regent of J&K in 1949

In 1949, he was appointed as the regent of Jammu and Kashmir state after his father stepped down as the king, following the state's accession to India. He served successively as regent, Sardar-i-Riyasat and governor of the state of Jammu and Kashmir from 1965-1967. He was then, successively, Union Minister for Tourism and Civil Aviation from 1967-1973, Minister of Health and Family Planning from 1973-1977 and Minister of Education and Culture in 1979-1980. In 1990-1991, he served as Indian Ambassador to the US. From 1967-1980, and in 1990, Karan Singh served as an MP in the Lok Sabha; since 1996, he has been an MP in the Rajya Sabha. He served as Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University, Jammu and Kashmir University, and Jawaharlal Nehru University. He is an active member of several boards, organizations, and foundations, including the Author's Guild of India, the ICCR, the Auroville Foundation, the Indian Board of Wildlife, and several others. He is an author whose books include: "Towards A New India"(1974), "One Man's World" (1986), "Essays on Hinduism" (1987),"Autobiography" (1989), and "Brief Sojourn" (1991). He received the Padma Vibhushan in 2005.

That is the reason I asked you what specific KINGDOM are you referring to?

Look, Kashmir was a princely state. It was predominantly Muslim. Under the instrument of Partition the whole of Kashmir (and this is a legal question since the boundaries of Kashmir were as defined by the Lahore and Amritsar Treaty, and this was followed by forced colonization of the area) was a state, as was Hunza and Nagar etc. I'm referring to princely states. If you call them kingdoms......

Never said it was a non-muslim area, just said, kashmir was a vassal state to the sikh dynasty, different issues.

Yes, Kashmir was. It was bought by a Sikh from the British for a sum of money, but the only part that was bought excluded the Northern Areas. One could argue that these people never wanted to be ruled by the Dogra Army, but there's no question of the Northern Areas being forcibly colonized by the Sikh ruler.

Kashmir region - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you interested in history, the dogra rule upto 1948, was started in 1846 with the defeat of sikhs and the british never actually held Kashmir, from 1820- it was not under the muslim, but under sikh and hindu rule.

So?

I dont know how you are saying Kashmir was part of pakistan always?- that was the reason exactly what kingdom are you referring to.

A 12 year lease(1935-47),i.e. rent changes the picture?

These are the points in summary.
Kashmir's original boundary throughout the 1800's was only Jammu, Ladakh and the Kashmir Valley (and Azad Kashmir probably). The Northern Areas were never a part of Kashmir at any point in prior history. The people share a culture in common with the people of Kohistan and other non Kashmiri areas. They are not even linguistically the same people as Kashmiris. Only at the end of the Dogra rule was there a forced annexation of the Northern Areas, now my question to you is was this forced annexation legal? Let me illustrate this to you (and try and understand it this time). Let us take two countries, X and Y, and a third country, Z. Country X invades Y, and takes over it by force. Is this right and legal? Yes or no? That is exactly what happened with the Northern Areas and the Dogra Army of the Sikh. Now let's say country Z comes in and does a deal to lease out country Y from X. How do you justify this lease as lawful, when country Y was forcibly annexed by Z? . Answers on a postcard, but i won't wait for them, since i doubt you will answer the parts in bold.

Dont know the specifics of these two areas, but in general, my thumb rule is- if that area comes under the sovereignity of the king of Kashmir, then it is included in the instrument of accession.

This again is a legal argument. You have to argue your case that it is fair to lump the people of the Northern Areas with the people of Kashmir. I do not see how you can do this. The Instrument of Partition is one thing (the Indian government does not seem to be following it, or even willing to implement the UN resolutions surrounding it), but let's say they were to be implemented as things stood in 1947, I wouldn't be against this, since the whole of Kashmir would only have the choice of India or Pakistan. Guess which they will choose, being a Muslim majority state. And if you don't believe so, I dare the plebiscite to be implemented. The people of Kashmir do not share much in common with India or Indians.

if you start questioning all the treaties made by the british, you will be in serious trouble, dont forget the durand line treaty is also one such made by the british.

I'm actually not questioning the treaties of the British. I'm saying that what is the boundary of Kashmir. I've shown that legally, there was a Lahore and Amritsar accord which stated that the Northern Areas were not a part of Kashmir. Now following this, there was a violent (compare the British who owned Kashmir and sold it to the Maharajah) annexation against the wishes of the people of the Northern Areas. Read my above argument of why I don't think you can say this is legal..is violent annexation acceptable?

The Durand Line is a different set of circumstances. The Pashtuns had voted for the creation of Pakistan and there was no violent revolution against the idea of Pakistan by them..no colonization in other words. It's just a line on a map anyway.

and by the way, buying a land from another king for complete sovereignity was an accepted norm in those ages, why- half of america is bought either from french, mexico or canada.

That is a thing of the past. Not of the present. If you want to implement plebiscite now (and we all do surely ), then you have to agree this is not the way to do things today. you need to ask was the forced annexation of the Northern Areas legal? I don't think it was. Was Kashmir legally bought, perhaps, imo..but not the Northern Areas.

Do you agree with the jalianwalabagh masacre? Do you agree with killing 3 million bengalis for the world war 2 effort? is that legal? Does that sound legal to you?

The killing of 3 million Bengalis? Where did you get that from? If you're referring to 1971, then please update yourself, and use some common sense. The Bengalis had voted in the 1946 elections for the Muslim League under the manifesto of creating Pakistan out of India. What is wrong with that? It sounds pretty democratic even by today's standards. Bengal was not even going to be a part of Pakistan initially (Balochistan, NWFP, and Sindh were the original formation of Pakistan).

I'm not sure of the first massacre, will have a look into it.

It was legal at that point of time where the legality meant having the sword in your hand. Should I start questioning Aurangazeb's atrocities or go to some B.C. to call Alexander's atrocities? You might indulge in these pointless exercises, not me.

And this is where you're wrong. It might have been legal to have done whatever in that time, but it is not legal in this time. It is this time when we want to make a judgement about whether the Northern Areas belong to Kashmir, and they do not simply. I've given the reasons why, and you keep living in the past. We're not in 1947, use modern thinking to reason whether Northern Areas are a part of Kashmir legally. You need to justify forced colonization for a short time period in order to do it. I don't see how you can.

In short, it was legal, today it is not legal.

RIGHT! And it is today that we want to carry out the plebiscite. So Kashmir in this plebiscite should not include the Northern Areas!

Dont you see that there is a immensely different relationship between the two documents.
If you dont, I wont be losing my sleep over it.

In case you didnt realize, the first step of the second document has to be taken by pakistan, which fortunately/unfortunately it never took- You want the second step to be done by us first, sorry not going to happen. First do what you are asked by the document and then ask us to do what was supposed to be done by us. Till then, sorry Pakistan has no moral authority to even ask.

i've been through this before many times. Demilitarization was progressing in the fifties well, in line with the UNCIP resolutions. In fact it got to the point whereby India had to demilitarize down to 18,000 troops, and Pakistan down to 6,000. Pakistan accepted, India did not. It's all in the resolutions. If you want, I will prove it to you with a bit of work. But you might as well trust the word of the UNCIP chief representative at the time :

In the end, I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled.33
SJIR: The Fate of Kashmir : International Law or Lawlessness?

If you want to speak emotionally/ give your views, Please give them- I will at the max ask for clarifications, as to what exactly you mean by that. If you want something, say that you want that to happen, but do not modify the facts according to your wants.

I want aishwarya to be my girl friend, but I sure am not going to say, aishwarya is my girl friend - I am only correcting the second part.

Lol. Aishwarya is another thing to discuss. Especially those fake eyes, fake nose, skin lightened photoshopped images