Asaduddin Owaisi tells Pakistan to stop meddling in Kashmir

[Joe Shearer]

Bus kar, bhai, itna drama ka koi zaroorat nahin, ab to padte padte samajhte samajhte sar dukhne lag gaya.

​

কি করবো টা কি এই খোকাদের নিয়ে! প্রথমে আবোল তাবোল বকে , তারপর বকা খেলে গাল দ্যায়, আরো জোর বকা খেলে কাঁদতে বসে! প্রত্যেকটি কথা মেপে মেপে বলতে হচ্ছে।

 

[Great Janjua]

Aakar Phoon Teh Fitte Mou

 

[M. Sarmad]

This is precisely what I meant about writing one's own narrative. Hari Singh acceded to India while still in Kashmir. For your ready reference, he signed the document in Srinagar; he shifted from Srinagar to Jammu; one was the summer capital, the other was the winter capital. Both were essential parts of Jammu & Kashmir; that was the name of the princely state, too. It was not Kashmir.

As for Kashmir always being part of India, the princely state consisted of several components, conquered, acquired and bought by the Dogras at different times. Is it your contention that every single portion of the agglomeration was not Indian?

Think about it.

. There is no proof whatsoever that Hari Singh even signed any 'Instrument of Accession' with India as no such document has ever been presented to Pakistan, or to the UN. The debate as to where that document was (or wasn't) signed is pointless.

. What actually matters is that Hari Singh had no authority to sign such an agreement as he had lost control over his territory already and he was on the run. And if you 'insist' that he was the rightful ruler of Kashmir at the time of the signing of that alleged document, even then he had no legal right to accede his state to India as he had already signed a 'Stand Still Agreement' with Pakistan which he could not revoke unilaterally on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations of Pakistani aggression. In the presence of the Standstill Agreement, no other ‘accord’ as to the status of Jammu and Kashmir (including Accession Treaty) could be made at all under international law.

. And most importantly, the so-called "Instrument of Accession" has become irrelevant as the alleged accession has been placed before the UN Security Council for arranging a ratification or otherwise by the people of the State under the auspices of the United Nations. Therefore, the arrangement caused through the accession of 26 October 1947 has been taken over by the interests of 195 countries of the UN​

You guys don't have a legal case in Kashmir, Joe.
You need to think about it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

. There is no proof whatsoever that Hari Singh even signed any 'Instrument of Accession' with India as no such document has ever been presented to Pakistan, or to the UN. The debate as to where that document was (or wasn't) signed is pointless.​

The document exists. More than that, its receipt was officially acknowledged by Mountbatten in his reply. Unless it is your case that Mountbatten was colluding with the corrupt Indian leadership and was complicit in forgery.

. What actually matters is that Hari Singh had no authority to sign such an agreement as he had lost control over his territory already and he was on the run. And if you 'insist' that he was the rightful ruler of Kashmir at the time of the signing of that alleged document, even then he had no legal right to accede his state to India as he had already signed a 'Stand Still Agreement' with Pakistan which he could not revoke unilaterally on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations of Pakistani aggression. In the presence of the Standstill Agreement, no other ‘accord’ as to the status of Jammu and Kashmir (including Accession Treaty) could be made at all under international law.

1. He was still ruler of the state to the extent that it was not occupied by use of illegal force. Your argument would imply that all it takes to assume sovereignty is to annex the territory by use of illegal force, by unprovoked aggression.
2. The Stand Still Agreement was merely that, and in fact, since you bring it up, it was Pakistan who breached it. Surely a Stand Still Agreement does not carry with it the right to attack the other party?
3. The Stand Still Agreement was not a formal treaty, it was a provisional agreement, and it nowhere carried any stipulation that either party was not free to seek diplomatic alternatives. There was no bar, no restriction; it was not an exclusive contract.

. And most importantly, the alleged Accession has become irrelevant as it has been placed before the UN Security Council for arranging a ratification or otherwise by the people of the State under the auspices of the United Nations. Therefore, the arrangement caused through the accession of 26 October 1947 has been taken over by the interests of 195 countries of the UN

By formal treaty, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan agreed that all outstanding matters between it and the Union of India would be resolved bilaterally. Where does the UN stand after that, in the absence of any further authorisation other than a recommendation?​

You guys don't have a legal case in Kashmir, Joe.
You need to think about it.

Much stronger than any other claim, Chief.

Good try, but no cigar.

Better luck next time.

 

[M. Sarmad]

The document exists. More than that, its receipt was officially acknowledged by Mountbatten in his reply. Unless it is your case that Mountbatten was colluding with the corrupt Indian leadership and was complicit in forgery.​

​

Its receipt was officially acknowledged by Mountbatten in the capacity of Governor General of Bharat/India (not British India). And as India itself was/is a party to the dispute, that 'acknowledgment' carries no legal weight.

Again, there is no proof whatsoever that such a document ever existed. International law clearly states that every treaty entered into by a member of the United Nations must be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations. "The Instrument of Accession" was neither presented to the United Nations nor to Pakistan. Hence India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.

​

1. He was still ruler of the state to the extent that it was not occupied by use of illegal force. Your argument would imply that all it takes to assume sovereignty is to annex the territory by use of illegal force, by unprovoked aggression.

No, my point is a legal one. As per international law, No one can transfer more rights than he possesses. And as the Maharaja was never able to establish his sovereignty in Gilgit-Baltistan, and had already lost his sovereignty over Kashmir valley, he could not transfer (the non-existent) sovereignty to India

2. The Stand Still Agreement was merely that, and in fact, since you bring it up, it was Pakistan who breached it. Surely a Stand Still Agreement does not carry with it the right to attack the other party?

Maharaja alleged that Pakistan breached the agreement ... "unsubstantiated allegations" as I stated earlier

Standstill Agreement on Kashmir was offered to Pakistan by Maharaja Hari Singh himself, of his own accord; Pakistan accepted that and it is now an international document.

A similar offer was made to India but India didn't sign such an agreement. So, over Jammu and Kashmir, only two parties – Pakistan and Kashmir were left. In the presence of the Standstill Agreement, no other ‘accord’ as to the status of Jammu and Kashmir (including Accession Treaty) could be made at all under international law.

Even the Maharaja in his letter to Governor General of India had to give an "explanation" ... He alleged that Pakistan had violated the agreement and he had no choice left but to accede the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India ... But as the UN rejected the Indian claim and didn't declare Pakistan an aggressor state, these allegations remain unsubstantiated. And until and unless these allegations are proven in any international court, Maharaja's accusations and "explanation" carriy no legal weight ....

​

Much stronger than any other claim, Chief.

Good try, but no cigar.

Better luck next time.

That's the inconvenient truth, sir

Had you guys had a legal case in Kashmir, even a weak one, Kashmir wouldn't be on the agenda of the UN Security Council as an unresolved International dispute, even today

By formal treaty, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan agreed that all outstanding matters between it and the Union of India would be resolved bilaterally. Where does the UN stand after that, in the absence of any further authorisation other than a recommendation?​

The Simla Agreement does not (and cannot) supersede UN Resolutions. Also, it does not preclude raising of Kashmir issue at the United Nations:


1) Para 1 (i) specifically provides that the UN Charter “shall govern” relations between the parties.

2) Para 1 (ii) providing for the settlement of differences by peaceful means, does not exclude resort to the means of pacific settlement of disputes and differences provided in the UN Charter.

3) The UN Security Council remains seized of the Kashmir issue which remains on the Council’s agenda.

4) Articles 34 and 35 of the UN Charter specifically empower the Security Council to investigate any dispute independently or at the request of a Member State. These provisions cannot be made subservient to any bilateral agreement.

5) According to Article 103 of UN Charter, member States obligations under the Charter take precedence over obligations under a bilateral agreement.

6) Presence of United Nations Military Observes Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) at the Line of Control in Kashmir is clear evidence of UN’s involvement in the Kashmir issue.

 

[Joe Shearer]

​

Its receipt was officially acknowledged by Mountbatten in the capacity of Governor General of Bharat/India (not British India). And as India itself was/is a party to the dispute, that 'acknowledgment' carries no legal weight.

Sir, you forget that the Instrument of Accession was not an international treaty, but a legal agreement between the sovereign prince who ruled Kashmir, and the Dominion of India, and that at the time of its signing, the UN was not a party.

Again, there is no proof whatsoever that such a document ever existed. International law clearly states that every treaty entered into by a member of the United Nations must be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations. "The Instrument of Accession" was neither presented to the United Nations nor to Pakistan. Hence India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.

There were 544 other Instruments of Accession signed with the Dominion of India, and 16 more with the Dominion of Pakistan. Do we take it that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not exist, as it did not register its Instruments of Accession with the UN?

​

No, my point is a legal one. As per international law, No one can transfer more rights than he possesses. And as the Maharaja was never able to establish his sovereignty in Gilgit-Baltistan, and had already lost his sovereignty over Kashmir valley, he could not transfer (the non-existent) sovereignty to India

When did he lose his sovereignty over the Valley of Kashmir? And since when does illegal possession constitute a transfer of sovereignty?

Maharaja alleged that Pakistan breached the agreement ... "unsubstantiated allegations" as I stated earlier

The dates, good Sir. When was Azad Kashmir announced, and where? And did that not constitute a sufficient breach?

Standstill Agreement on Kashmir was offered to Pakistan by Maharaja Hari Singh himself, of his own accord; Pakistan accepted that and it is now an international document.

It was only a provisional agreement, and one, incidentally, that Pakistan did not register with the UN.

A similar offer was made to India but India didn't sign such an agreement. So, over Jammu and Kashmir, only two parties – Pakistan and Kashmir were left. In the presence of the Standstill Agreement, no other ‘accord’ as to the status of Jammu and Kashmir (including Accession Treaty) could be made at all under international law.

Oh, Sir, you protest too much. The Stand Still Agreement was in no way a permanent document, only a temporary arrangement to allow one agreeing party to continue without interruption of its vital services. Can you point to any clause within it that prevented either party from terminating it and entering into other, permanent arrangements?

There was no Accession Treaty; that is a mistake that you have repeatedly tried to sell us. There was an Instrument of Accession, and the reality is that it was intended for the sole purpose of accession to one or the other of the two Dominions.

Even the Maharaja in his letter to Governor General of India had to give an "explanation" ... He alleged that Pakistan had violated the agreement and he had no choice left but to accede the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India ... But as the UN rejected the Indian claim and didn't declare Pakistan an aggressor state, these allegations remain unsubstantiated. And until and unless these allegations are proven in any international court, Maharaja's accusations and "explanation" carriy no legal weight ....

Dear Sir, even in disagreeing with you, one must respect your fighting spirit.

The 'allegation' that Pakistan violated the agreement is easily proved, and stands proved, by the declaration of independence of Azad Kashmir on a date prior to the signature of the Instrument of Accession.

Secondly, the UN never, ever rejected the aggression; it merely moved past this inconvenience to the easier goal of a plebiscite.

Lastly, these stand proven by the records that you yourselves have, of the establishment of a breakaway state constituting part of the prince's domains, and that was put in cold stark terms in that excellent article by @saiyan0321.

That's the inconvenient truth, sir

Had you guys had a legal case in Kashmir, even a weak one, Kashmir wouldn't be on the agenda of the UN Security Council as an unresolved International dispute, even today

If we 'guys' had a weak case, the independent, sovereign Islamic Republic of Pakistan need not have entered into a formal treaty recognising that the case was of a bilateral nature. You have yourself extinguished any dubious rights you might have had.

​

Its receipt was officially acknowledged by Mountbatten in the capacity of Governor General of Bharat/India (not British India). And as India itself was/is a party to the dispute, that 'acknowledgment' carries no legal weight.

Again, there is no proof whatsoever that such a document ever existed. International law clearly states that every treaty entered into by a member of the United Nations must be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations. "The Instrument of Accession" was neither presented to the United Nations nor to Pakistan. Hence India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.

​

No, my point is a legal one. As per international law, No one can transfer more rights than he possesses. And as the Maharaja was never able to establish his sovereignty in Gilgit-Baltistan, and had already lost his sovereignty over Kashmir valley, he could not transfer (the non-existent) sovereignty to India




Maharaja alleged that Pakistan breached the agreement ... "unsubstantiated allegations" as I stated earlier

Standstill Agreement on Kashmir was offered to Pakistan by Maharaja Hari Singh himself, of his own accord; Pakistan accepted that and it is now an international document.

A similar offer was made to India but India didn't sign such an agreement. So, over Jammu and Kashmir, only two parties – Pakistan and Kashmir were left. In the presence of the Standstill Agreement, no other ‘accord’ as to the status of Jammu and Kashmir (including Accession Treaty) could be made at all under international law.

Even the Maharaja in his letter to Governor General of India had to give an "explanation" ... He alleged that Pakistan had violated the agreement and he had no choice left but to accede the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India ... But as the UN rejected the Indian claim and didn't declare Pakistan an aggressor state, these allegations remain unsubstantiated. And until and unless these allegations are proven in any international court, Maharaja's accusations and "explanation" carriy no legal weight ....



That's the inconvenient truth, sir

Had you guys had a legal case in Kashmir, even a weak one, Kashmir wouldn't be on the agenda of the UN Security Council as an unresolved International dispute, even today

The Simla Agreement does not (and cannot) supersede UN Resolutions. Also, it does not preclude raising of Kashmir issue at the United Nations:


1) Para 1 (i) specifically provides that the UN Charter “shall govern” relations between the parties.

2) Para 1 (ii) providing for the settlement of differences by peaceful means, does not exclude resort to the means of pacific settlement of disputes and differences provided in the UN Charter.

3) The UN Security Council remains seized of the Kashmir issue which remains on the Council’s agenda.

4) Articles 34 and 35 of the UN Charter specifically empower the Security Council to investigate any dispute independently or at the request of a Member State. These provisions cannot be made subservient to any bilateral agreement.

5) According to Article 103 of UN Charter, member States obligations under the Charter take precedence over obligations under a bilateral agreement.

6) Presence of United Nations Military Observes Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) at the Line of Control in Kashmir is clear evidence of UN’s involvement in the Kashmir issue.

Sir, One must acknowledge your continued loyal and dogged defence, in the face of all odds.

• Points #1 and 2 are covered by the nature of the settlement of differences bilaterally, a significant difference. No doubt by inadvertent oversight your reproduction of the relevant clauses has been rendered in a faulty manner by that unreliable electro-mechanical contraption, the PC, and its partner in crime, the printer. Herewith, to help you along, the complete wording
  Both countries will "settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations
  
• Even a fresh dispute would require either party to override its obligations unilaterally in breach of the treaty, and submit its case to the UN. Pakistan has not annulled the Simla treaty, and its provisions therefore stand.
• The UN has in fact removed the Kashmir dispute from its agenda for practical purposes.
• As far as the right of the UN to investigate was concerned, the investigation was undertaken and a recommendation was issued, NOT a binding resolution. The implications are clear.
• The UN has issued no obligatory resolution. Nothing in the bilateral relations that are now the only legal basis for interaction has violated any obligatory resolution.
• UNMOGIP was withdrawn from the Indian side, as you probably already know. Its retention on the Pakistan side is at the wish of Pakistan, and that state is responsible for reconciling this with its treaty obligations, not India.

I hope that these have been clarified to your satisfaction.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Sir, you forget that the Instrument of Accession was not an international treaty, but a legal agreement between the sovereign prince who ruled Kashmir, and the Dominion of India, and that at the time of its signing, the UN was not a party.



There were 544 other Instruments of Accession signed with the Dominion of India, and 16 more with the Dominion of Pakistan. Do we take it that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not exist, as it did not register its Instruments of Accession with the UN?

​

Sir, you forget that Accession of Kashmir was different than accession of any of those 544 states as no other accession was taken to the UN by any of the Parties involved (with the exception of Hyderabad Deccan).

And let me remind you that India itself took the matter to the UN, accepted the UN Resolutions, and agreed that the final accession of Kashmir to India or Pakistan would be decided in accordance with the will of people of Kashmir in a referendum held under UN auspices.

Indian admission into the state of J&K was provisionally accepted by the UN; to create conditions necessary for conducting of a free and fair plebiscite under UN auspices. Now, if India wants to backtrack (something it has been trying to do for last seventy years) from its commitments, and claim that the Accession is already complete (something it has been trying unsuccessfully since the 1950's), it will have to produce the Original Instrument of Accession to even initiate a legal case. That whether or not the ICJ will even accept such a case for hearing, of course, is a different thing.

When did he lose his sovereignty over the Valley of Kashmir? And since when does illegal possession constitute a transfer of sovereignty?​

Freedom is never "illegal" ... the people of the valley overthrew the despotic Raja...

 

[Kaniska]

Sir, you forget that Accession of Kashmir was different than accession of any those 544 states as no other accession was taken to the UN by any of the Parties involved (with the exception of Hyderabad Deccan).

And let me remind you that India itself took the matter to the UN, accepted the UN Resolutions, and agreed that the final accession of Kashmir to India or Pakistan would be decided in accordance with the will of people of Kashmir in a referendum held under UN auspices.

Indian admission into the state of J&K was provisionally accepted by the UN; to create conditions necessary for conducting of a free and fair plebiscite under UN auspices. Now, if India wants to backtrack (something it has been trying to do for last seventy years) from its commitments, and claim that the Accession is already complete (something it has been trying unsuccessfully since the 1950's), it will have to produce the Original Instrument of Accession to even initiate a legal case. That whether or not the ICJ will even accept such a case for hearing, of course, is a different thing.

On a side note...It is enjoyable to read yours and Joes argument in such a civil way..

 

[M. Sarmad]

Oh, Sir, you protest too much. The Stand Still Agreement was in no way a permanent document, only a temporary arrangement to allow one agreeing party to continue without interruption of its vital services. Can you point to any clause within it that prevented either party from terminating it and entering into other, permanent arrangements?

The fact that at the time of the signing of the alleged Instrument of Accession, the Stand Still Agreement was a valid treaty renders the former treaty "illegal" under the International Law.. do you get it now, sir?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir, you forget that Accession of Kashmir was different than accession of any those 544 states as no other accession was taken to the UN by any of the Parties involved (with the exception of Hyderabad Deccan).

Doesn't that prove the point? These were not 544 (+17) independent international treaties, merely acknowledgement of the handing over of sovereignty by these states to one or the other Dominion.

And let me remind you that India itself took the matter to the UN, accepted the UN Resolutions, and agreed that the final accession of Kashmir to India or Pakistan would be decided in accordance with the will of people of Kashmir in a referendum held under UN auspices.

Of course you are right, as in many cases you are.

India took the matter to the UN not to register the Instrument of Accession, but to protest the Pakistani aggression (incidentally, that has been established by the numerous accounts by Pakistani participants). India accepted the recommendation, on the terms set out by the UN.

After the wilful violation of those terms, what further validity remains in the recommendation?

Indian admission into the state of J&K was provisionally accepted by the UN; to create conditions necessary for conducting of a free and fair plebiscite under UN auspices. Now, if India wants to backtrack (something it has been trying to do for last seventy years) from its commitments, and claim that the Accession is already complete (something it has been trying unsuccessfully since the 1950's), it will have to produce the Original Instrument of Accession to even initiate a legal case. That whether or not the ICJ will even accept such a case for hearing, of course, is a different thing.

No, Sir, it was not India's admission into the state of J&K, it was India's existing military presence in the state. There was no requirement to withdraw anything else.

India's commitment was to a resolution with its attendant terms; when the terms stand violated, in what way is India responsible for the frustration of the rest of the resolution?

For your information, it is a canard that the Instrument of Accession is not available. This went around like wildfire lit entirely by speculation, and is not a fact.

If this was such a strong case, Pakistan would surely have taken steps to go to the ICJ in the past 70 years. It is a little late to suggest that this could have been done. The fact is, it was not done. That speaks for itself.

The existing disarray of the Pakistani constitutional interface with its illegally occupied territories is another damaging element of the matter. If Azad Kashmir is a part of Pakistan, where does it say so in the Pakistani constitution? Where, for that matter, does it mention Gilgit-Baltistan? On the other hand, the constitutional arrangements on the Indian side are impeccable.

 

[M. Sarmad]

The 'allegation' that Pakistan violated the agreement is easily proved, and stands proved, by the declaration of independence of Azad Kashmir on a date prior to the signature of the Instrument of Accession.

No sir, it does not stand "proved" ...

I hope you realize that Allegations remain mere allegations until and unless proven in a court of Law

JFYI, sir, Pakistan had no role in Poonch uprising

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir, you forget that Accession of Kashmir was different than accession of any of those 544 states as no other accession was taken to the UN by any of the Parties involved (with the exception of Hyderabad Deccan).

And let me remind you that India itself took the matter to the UN, accepted the UN Resolutions, and agreed that the final accession of Kashmir to India or Pakistan would be decided in accordance with the will of people of Kashmir in a referendum held under UN auspices.

Indian admission into the state of J&K was provisionally accepted by the UN; to create conditions necessary for conducting of a free and fair plebiscite under UN auspices. Now, if India wants to backtrack (something it has been trying to do for last seventy years) from its commitments, and claim that the Accession is already complete (something it has been trying unsuccessfully since the 1950's), it will have to produce the Original Instrument of Accession to even initiate a legal case. That whether or not the ICJ will even accept such a case for hearing, of course, is a different thing.

Freedom is never "illegal" ... the people of the valley overthrew the despotic Raja...

Just a gentle reminder - the people of the valley did no such thing. The people of west Jammu, now called Azad Kashmir, killed the state troops in their part of the state. So did the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. The only fighting in the Valley between the Valley citizens and soldiers of any side was between armed brigands who sacked Baramula, with no regard religion, age or sex when their killing started. The citizens resisted the invaders, not the defending Indian Army. Please look up Sherwani and see for yourself.

No sir, it does not stand "proved" ...

I hope you realize that Allegations remain mere allegations until and unless proven in a court of Law

JFYI, sir, Pakistan had no role in Poonch uprising

There is no court of law governing a sovereign other than his own courts of law. Surely you are aware of that outstanding legal principle.

No sir, it does not stand "proved" ...

I hope you realize that Allegations remain mere allegations until and unless proven in a court of Law

JFYI, sir, Pakistan had no role in Poonch uprising

Oh, my dear Sir, I request that you look closely at my assertion. It is very fairly worded. You may have overlooked it in your haste.

Aakar Phoon Teh Fitte Mou

Try not to be vulgar.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Secondly, the UN never, ever rejected the aggression; it merely moved past this inconvenience to the easier goal of a plebiscite.

What matters (legally) is that the UN never, ever declared Pakistan the aggressor state in J&K
You may keep believing that UN had its own 'reasons' behind not declaring Pakistan the aggressor,
for us it was (and is) a vindication of Pakistan's stance that we were never the aggressors in J&K

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Vibrio
Come out from behind the bushes.

@jbgt90
Where are your death-defying Kashmir defendants?

What matters (legally) is that the UN never, ever declared Pakistan the aggressor state in J&K
You may keep believing that UN had its own 'reasons' behind not declaring Pakistan the aggressor,
for us it was (and is) a vindication of Pakistan's stance that we were never the aggressors in J&K

Sir, you have your own records, your own accounts, your own published books. Who are we to declare them fictitious?

 

[M. Sarmad]

No, Sir, it was not India's admission into the state of J&K, it was India's existing military presence in the state. There was no requirement to withdraw anything else.

India's commitment was to a resolution with its attendant terms; when the terms stand violated, in what way is India responsible for the frustration of the rest of the resolution?

For your information, it is a canard that the Instrument of Accession is not available. This went around like wildfire lit entirely by speculation, and is not a fact.

.

I know very well what the Indian position is, sir
But the fact remains that the UN has never accepted the Indian position, nor has it ever held Pakistan responsible for not fulfilling the pre-conditions of plebiscite (the main Indian argument)... However, we do have reports by UN appointed official mediators that blame India for halting the process. Do I need to remind you what Sir Owen Dixon had said?

There is no court of law governing a sovereign other than his own courts of law. Surely you are aware of that outstanding legal principle.

Sir, here we are discussing an International Dispute (under International Law) and Pakistan's and India's legal positions vis a vis J&K

That International Law in fact is not "Law" but "Morality" is an entirely different debate

Sir, you have your own records, your own accounts, your own published books. Who are we to declare them fictitious?

Sir, It is a FACT, not fiction, that Pakistan was NOT declared an aggressor state in Kashmir by the UN