Asaduddin Owaisi tells Pakistan to stop meddling in Kashmir

[Joe Shearer]

You are contradicting yourself, sir
'Indian refusal', as you yourself have acknowledged, was the reason behind the exclusion of India

The difference, Sir, is that while you assumed that it gave Pakistan an exclusionary interest, my interpretation is that it is an agreement that allows for any additions or deletions for the future. It did not, from my reading, prevent any additional arrangements, and it certainly did not serve as an exclusive right to Pakistan to negotiate the future of the state.

No, Sir
The legally binding Standstill Agreement was not just "a Commercial Arrangement"

Legally binding? Binding to what? What did it bind, Sir?

Sir, Patiala was India, and by extension, Patiala State forces were Indian State forces

No, Sir, not until command was handed over.

Understood, and I am waiting for it. I was merely suggesting that once the foundation is laid down, we might consider concentrating on what is visible through the windscreen rather than the rear-view mirror.

Oh, absolutely.

What I am leading up to is that we have a situation with fixed attitudes on two sides. We need to probe those, and explore their functionality, and ways to render them flexible and even remove them if needed; otherwise we will go into the future stuck each in our own way in the past.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Contiguity?

While 'Congruity' may be a weak argument, it is, nonetheless, the very argument used by the Indian representative
to the U.N. to justify its economic blockade and military occupation of Junagadh. Pakistan used the same argument as all Roads/Rail heads to Kashmir led from Pakistan.

India accused Pakistan of violating the Standstill Agreement by stopping the train service to put pressure on Maharaja to accede his State to Pakistan.

Pakistan 'reminded' India of the Economic blockade of Junagadh, India denied blockade and blamed the 'chaos' for the supply stoppage. Pakistan too denied economic blockade and blamed 'transportation break down' in Punjab for the delay in services.

etc etc

The difference, Sir, is that while you assumed that it gave Pakistan an exclusionary interest, my interpretation is that it is an agreement that allows for any additions or deletions for the future. It did not, from my reading, prevent any additional arrangements, and it certainly did not serve as an exclusive right to Pakistan to negotiate the future of the state.



Legally binding? Binding to what? What did it bind, Sir?

.

I am not 'assuming' anything, sir. I am just stating plain facts.

Maharaja was invited by the Governor General of Pakistan through an official telegram dated Oct 20, 1947, to send his Prime Minister to Karachi to discuss the developments in a friendly way and carry out an impartial inquiry into the alleged aggression. No answer was received to this telegram.

Kashmir’s action cannot be based on the alleged actions of Pathans who infiltrated into Kashmir as they are not reported to have done so till October 22nd and correspondence with State ceased on October 20th. Pakistan state did all that could be done (short of the use of troops) to prevent the Pashtun tribesmen from going to Kashmir. In these circumstances, Government of Pakistan refused to recognize accession of Kashmir to Indian Union achieved as it had been predicated on fraud and violence.

 

[VCheng]

Oh, absolutely.

What I am leading up to is that we have a situation with fixed attitudes on two sides. We need to probe those, and explore their functionality, and ways to render them flexible and even remove them if needed; otherwise we will go into the future stuck each in our own way in the past.

Sounds like a plan! I am all for it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Let me answer this point by point, not for the sake of contradicting them, but for clarifying some of the issues.

While 'Congruity' may be a weak argument, it is, nonetheless, the very argument used by the Indian representative
to the U.N. to justify its economic blockade and military occupation of Junagadh. Pakistan used the same argument as all Roads/Rail heads to Kashmir led from Pakistan.

The difference is that there was no contiguity between Junagadh and Pakistan, other than marine services.

There was contiguity between Kashmir and India.

India accused Pakistan of violating the Standstill Agreement by stopping the train service to put pressure on Maharaja to accede his State to Pakistan.

That had, if I might remind ourselves, no legal impact on the issue.

Pakistan 'reminded' India of the Economic blockade of Junagadh, India denied blockade and blamed the 'chaos' for the supply stoppage. Pakistan too denied economic blockade and blamed 'transportation break down' in Punjab for the delay in services.

etc etc

And that, too, had no effect on the legal impact on the issue.

 

[M. Sarmad]

No, Sir, not until command was handed over.

Sir, even Prem Shankar Jha says that Patiala Troops may have been sent without the knowledge or consent of Indian Government. "May Have Been"

Let me answer this point by point, not for the sake of contradicting them, but for clarifying some of the issues.



The difference is that there was no contiguity between Junagadh and Pakistan, other than marine services.

There was contiguity between Kashmir and India.



That had, if I might remind ourselves, no legal impact on the issue.



And that, too, had no effect on the legal impact on the issue.

I was just talking about the arguments, accusations, and counter-accusations put forward by the Indian and Pakistani diplomats in the UNSC, sir


Columbian representative, Carlos P. Romulo, speaking in the Security Council in 1957 summed it up quite well:

"I do not think that the Council is called upon to make any finding whether there has been aggression or by whom it was committed. The charge and counter-charge ceased to be relevant the minute both sides agreed to the resolution of UNCIP of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949."

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir, even Prem Shankar Jha says that Patiala Troops may have been sent without the knowledge or consent of Indian Government. "May Have Been"

?

Yes, I already mentioned that the princes were in touch. How does this prejudice the actions of the Dominion of India, and how does this resemble the actions of the Dominion of Pakistan, where a serving officer was deputed to lead irregular forces?

I was just talking about the arguments, accusations, and counter-accusations put forward by the Indian and Pakistani diplomats in the UNSC, sir

Very interesting, Sir, as usual, you have the skill of adding to the colours by depicting the detailed events. It makes for a most readable account.

Columbian representative, Carlos P. Romulo, speaking in the Security Council in 1957 summed it up quite well:

"I do not think that the Council is called upon to make any finding whether there has been aggression or by whom it was committed. The charge and counter-charge ceased to be relevant the minute both sides agreed to the resolution of UNCIP of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949."

I must thank you profoundly, Sir, I was not aware that you agreed with my interpretation.

 

[M. Sarmad]

?

Yes, I already mentioned that the princes were in touch. How does this prejudice the actions of the Dominion of India, and how does this resemble the actions of the Dominion of Pakistan, where a serving officer was deputed to lead irregular forces?

No serving officers were deputed to lead irregular forces by Pakistan. It's just an unsubstantiated allegation.

But no one can deny the fact that Indian Patiala Forces were already present in J&K long before the tribal invasion.
And we have no reason to believe that they were there without the knowledge and consent of the Indian government.

 

[Joe Shearer]

No serving officers were deputed to lead irregular forces by Pakistan. It's just an unsubstantiated allegation.

Sir, it is an allegation supported both by a Major General of the Pakistan Army and the close relation of Shaukat Hayat Khan. What substantiation were you looking for? a copy of the memo from the Commander-in-Chief? He had already refused to intervene. A handwritten confession by the Pakistani PM? Something must be given for the two accounts.

But no one can deny the fact that Indian Patiala Forces were already present in J&K long before the tribal invasion.
And we have no reason to believe that they were there without the knowledge and consent of the Indian government.

Nor is there any reason to believe that they were there with the knowledge or the consent of the Indian Government. If they had known, why would they go through the trouble of flying out troops? They could just have deployed these nebulous forces?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Sir, it is an allegation supported both by a Major General of the Pakistan Army and the close relation of Shaukat Hayat Khan. What substantiation were you looking for? a copy of the memo from the Commander-in-Chief? He had already refused to intervene. A handwritten confession by the Pakistani PM? Something must be given for the two accounts.

That major General of Pak Army had spent 12 years in Jail for his involvement in anti-state activities before he decided to take up pen. He held personal grudges against those he wrote about. His autobiography/narrative has no credibility. He has tried to take the credit for almost everything. Something unworthy of a soldier.

Nor is there any reason to believe that they were there with the knowledge or the consent of the Indian Government. If they had known, why would they go through the trouble of flying out troops? They could just have deployed these nebulous forces?

There is every reason to believe that those Indian Patiala Forces were there with the consent of the Indian government until and unless there is strong evidence to suggest that it was not the case. But there is absolutely no evidence for it other than what a few Indian authors have 'speculated' or what the Indian official line is, which obviously cannot be accepted.

Those nebolous forces were already deployed but there were not enough of them to invade and capture the entire State, that's why more troops were air lifted to Srinagar on Oct 27th.

 

[Hellfire]

I see... Thanks for your opinion..

Wait. What happened with the moderators now :p :p :p :p

Apparently I insulted a troll without naming or quoting him and a warning issued @Nilgiri

The member in question has called Joe Shearer a troll!! To that, I replied to @Nilgiri who tagged me, saying that the Joe Shearer being called a troll is not a surprise seeing that the IQ of the member is competing with Mariana Trench!

Am I wrong in saying that anyone calling Joe Shearer a troll has an IQ competing with Mariana Trench?

And I am labeled a rapist by a Pakistani member, report the post multiple time and - no action, that is 'adding to the discourse'!

What matters is that India didn't accept Maharaja's proposal to sign a Standstill Agreement with his state. 'Reasons' and 'Intent' do not matter. As per the Standstill Agreement, Pakistan alone (to the exclusion of India) was to continue those services which had been carried out for Kashmir under the British.

I will respond in an apt forum sir.

 

[saiyan0321]

Am I wrong in saying that anyone calling Joe Shearer a troll has an IQ competing with Mariana Trench?

No you are not.

Joe is the last person in this entire forum that is a troll. Never ever saw him trolling. Never.

 

[Hellfire]

No you are not.

Anyways, will read the suggested work you have mentioned earlier. More safer.

See you around in more conducive climes, where we can keep arguing without insulting the general public (funny they get insulted when we all vehemently, nay, violently disagree .... )

 

[M. Sarmad]

I must thank you profoundly, Sir, I was not aware that you agreed with my interpretation.

Sir, we have always maintained that charges and counter-charges ceased to be relevant the minute both sides agreed to the resolution of UNCIP of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949.

But as India has been trying to backtrack, we have to remind you that the Instrument of Accession was never accepted by Pakistan and that it had no legal value...

And this brings us back to square one; charges and counter-charges

I will respond in an apt forum sir.

 

[Hellfire]

Poor HakHik. He's lapsing out of neo-palaeo-Turkish quite often nowadays.

reminds me of our old friend viper.

 

[Nilgiri]

Poor HakHik. He's lapsing out of neo-palaeo-Turkish quite often nowadays.

Tokhme jan (the antidote that you mentioned a while back) has been following him like a hound too lol:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/has-...-the-war-in-afghanistan.598250/#post-11120284

I'm almost starting to feel sorry, but then I remember the BD forum stuff and the thought goes away.

More broadly, there seems to be lot more casualties on the forum, doc was literally here for a few hours it seems before getting banned again..lol.

Makes for a nice change from when I was getting banned, and the forum kept going as is w.r.t 99.9%. Now I am here in long extended tenure and others dropping like flies around me (esp some hardened CPC trolls). Funny that....but I kinda do welcome it. Standards need to keep improving.

@Mage @Tanveer666 @Atlas @Al-Ansar