Autonomy Under Indian Constitution: An Old Pragmatic Approach To Kashmir or a Recipe for Disaster?

[Joe Shearer]

No one is interested in non-muslim majority areas of Kashmir, they belong to India.



Actually its getting out of your hand, 50+ innocent protesters killed by army and counting. Indian Kashmiris have more commonality with Pakistanis then anyone else in India even if we ignore religion, please educate yourself.

Do you have any idea of what happened in the 90s?

 

[Soumitra]

Now let us see the consequence of abolition of Article 370 without the groundwork and due support of the people of J&K (and that includes the displaced Pandits). A probability of mass insurrection. What do you propose should India do to confront that? How do you propose that India justify its stance of making India a secular nation in 1947 rejecting and protesting the two nation theory and thus leaving Pakistan struggling to justify the demand for a separate homeland for the Muslims after breaking up India citing inability to peacefully co-exist? Till date, all the actions Pakistan has taken, be it initiation of war, or pursuing a nuclear policy at severe costs to its socio-economic prosperity or even its acts in J&K, have been to assure its own population and the rest of the world (and itself) of the righteousness of the demand for a separate homeland, and try and reconcile its existence to something other than ego. Why would you want to give legitimacy to a state born out of breaking up India and promoting hatred for all?

Additionally, how do you propose we deal with the insurrection that shall engulf Kashmir? What means do you propose to use to control the fallout?

I really would like your inputs on these.

First India being a secular state has nothing to do with Kashmir Solution

Regarding mass insurgency we have been dealing with that for 26 years

However I think there is another tactic we can use

Lets compare Kashmir to a child who is crying. There are 3 ways to deal with her

1. You give her some chocolate or toy so that she becomes quiet. - India has tried that with development initiatives but the kashmiris dont seem to want development
2. You slap her or punish her to make her quiet- India has tried that but not hard enough
3. You ignore her - This is something we have not tried. Let us make it clear to the Kashmiris. If you throw stones or protest in violent manner you will be ignored in the development. Any village which does that will get no funds from govt of India, no govt school or hospital. Let the geelanis and yasin maliks provide for them. We will not react if you throw stones or burn your own shops to the ground. Only reaction will be when someone picks a gun. If you pick a gun you will be shot in the middle of the head

You yourself have said

Out of the whole population in Kashmir, the majority are only bothered about the governance. I think I have mentioned it already earlier. Out of the remaining, the majority want azadi, not to be with Pakistan.

Let the majority who are bothered about governance put pressure on minority who do time pass by throwing stones. When entire villages will suffer from the actions of the few 2 things will happen. Either the majority will disaude them from violence or they will move to peaceful areas

 

[Kabira]

Ah I get the confusion. My mistake in not saying what I wanted to clearly. Out of the whole population in Kashmir, the majority are only bothered about the governance. I think I have mentioned it already earlier. Out of the remaining, the majority want azadi, not to be with Pakistan.

This is wishful thinking. Ethnic Kashmiris always had to do with current day Pakistan long before artificial countries like Pakistan/India were even made. One find millions of ethnic kashmiris settled in punjab rural areas since hundreds of years ago. Pakistan PM Nawaz is punjab based but ethnically Kashmiri. So some may fool you in to thinking they only want azadi from India and nothing else but believe me their ultimate destination is Pakistan.

 

[Hellfire]

This is wishful thinking. Ethnic Kashmiris always had to do with current day Pakistan long before artificial countries like Pakistan/India were even made. One find millions of ethnic kashmiris settled in punjab rural areas since hundreds of years ago. Pakistan PM Nawaz is punjab based but ethnically Kashmiri. So some may fool you in to thinking they only want azadi from India and nothing else but believe me their ultimate destination is Pakistan.

Your above logic applied - you are renegade Indians, so traitors.

Don't post nonsense .. Historically your foundation as a Muslim (Read history of Muslim evolution in Indian subcontinent) and as a Nation can be disproved and disputed. India existed you didn't.

 

[Kabira]

Your above logic applied - you are renegade Indians, so traitors.

Don't post nonsense .. Historically your foundation as a Muslim (Read history of Muslim evolution in Indian subcontinent) and as a Nation can be disproved and disputed. India existed you didn't.

Don't be ridiculous now, if not for British masters we may not even be posting here right now. In 18th century because of drought in valley thousands of ethnic Kashmiri muslims migrated to punjab and were welcomed by punjabi muslims and settled in rural areas on permanent basis. See relation between Pakistanis and ethnic Kashmiris is ancient long before artificial countries even existed. Make no mistake next step after azadi is re-union with motherland Pakistan.

I always find Indians amusing when they say Kashmiris only want azadi at most and nothing to do with Pakistan lol then give them azadi. You it and we know it as well what will happen after azadi.

 

[Hellfire]

Don't be ridiculous now, if not for British masters we may not even be posting here right now. In 18th century because of drought in valley thousands of ethnic Kashmiri muslims migrated to punjab and were welcomed by punjabi muslims and settled in rural areas on permanent basis. See relation between Pakistanis and ethnic Kashmiris is ancient long before artificial countries even existed. Make no mistake next step after azadi is re-union with motherland Pakistan.

I always find Indians amusing when they say Kashmiris only want azadi at most and nothing to do with Pakistan lol then give them azadi. You it and we know it as well what will happen after azadi.

Go spend time in Kashmir valley. Then we will talk, find out what a Kashmiri hailing from Kashmir Valley which lies due east of Pirpanjals and south of shamshabari thinks. It's not about Azadi either. They want better governance. Only the miniscule who have the time and money to waste, speculate for Azadi followed by Pakistan. Rest are too busy trying to make a living.

Your posts are heading tangentially. The topic of the ethnic breakdown and make up has been exhaustively been dealt with on the forum elsewhere. Not going to waste time on it further. Stick to topic.

Gave a stupid post to which you have responded as an example of the fact that I can post crap all day long and so can you ... Not here for that. If you have something to post on topic do so.

Thanks

@Joe Shearer have to set Indian members straight but will be veering way off course. But no option now

@Soumitra @Stephen Cohen I hate to do this but your points to this topic I shall now answer with only one example - Nagaland.

Please do research the Naga issue and the actions of India till date including reaffirming autonomy to the State without change of boundary by Modi himself. That is the answer why J&K needs a solution WITH article 370 intact.

Will answer your points after you read about it and in case you do have some queries about the Nagas and how the process with Nagas is valid for solution to J&K also

Do you have any idea of what happened in the 90s?

I doubt it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Go spend time in Kashmir valley. Then we will talk, find out what a Kashmiri hailing from Kashmir Valley which lies due east of Pirpanjals and south of shamshabari thinks. It's not about Azadi either. They want better governance. Only the miniscule who have the time and money to waste, speculate for Azadi followed by Pakistan. Rest are too busy trying to make a living.

Your posts are heading tangentially. The topic of the ethnic breakdown and make up has been exhaustively been dealt with on the forum elsewhere. Not going to waste time on it further. Stick to topic.

Gave a stupid post to which you have responded as an example of the fact that I can post crap all day long and so can you ... Not here for that. If you have something to post on topic do so.

Thanks

@Joe Shearer have to set Indian members straight but will be veering way off course. But no option now

@Soumitra @Stephen Cohen I hate to do this but your points to this topic I shall now answer with only one example - Nagaland.

Please do research the Naga issue and the actions of India till date including reaffirming autonomy to the State without change of boundary by Modi himself. That is the answer why J&K needs a solution WITH article 370 intact.

Will answer your points after you read about it and in case you do have some queries about the Nagas and how the process with Nagas is valid for solution to J&K also



I doubt it.

@hellfire

Two comments addressed to the Pakistanis first, to the Indians next:

@save_ghenda we will get nowhere as long as we continue to surround ourselves with this ethnic nationalist smog. I realise that there is sentiment involved, but that involves only one set of people. How do you expect the others involved to share in it, or to sympathise? And how do you think that will contribute to a generally acceptable solution?

@Soumitra
@Stephen Cohen Instead of wasting our time trying to force-fit our ideology on this situation, is it possible for the bhakt contingent to contemplate solutions which have the Kashmiri sentiment in mind?

 

[Soumitra]

@hellfire

Two comments addressed to the Pakistanis first, to the Indians next:

@save_ghenda we will get nowhere as long as we continue to surround ourselves with this ethnic nationalist smog. I realise that there is sentiment involved, but that involves only one set of people. How do you expect the others involved to share in it, or to sympathise? And how do you think that will contribute to a generally acceptable solution?

@Soumitra
@Stephen Cohen Instead of wasting our time trying to force-fit our ideology on this situation, is it possible for the bhakt contingent to contemplate solutions which have the Kashmiri sentiment in mind?

If by Kashmiri sentiment you mean plebicite or giving the region to Pakistan then no not possible. If anyone wants to go to Pakistan they are free to take a one way ticket.

If you mean "Azadi" or autonomy see the solution I posted a few posts above. This gives these people complete azadi to run their affairs.

Let us make it clear to the Kashmiris. If you throw stones or protest in violent manner you will be ignored in the development. Any village which does that will get no funds from govt of India, no govt school or hospital. Let the geelanis and yasin maliks provide for them. We will not react if you throw stones or burn your own shops to the ground. Only reaction will be when someone picks a gun. If you pick a gun you will be shot in the middle of the head

Let the Geelanis and Yasin Maliks take care of the people who are against India. those who are with India will benefit from India.

Let these seperatists not cry for help when floods hit them. Let them not go to Indian govt schools and hospitals. Let them not use the Indian banks for their transactions.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

@Stephen Cohen Instead of wasting our time trying to force-fit our ideology on this situation, is it possible for the bhakt contingent to contemplate solutions which have the Kashmiri sentiment in mind?

Kashmiri "SENTIMENTS " are never going to be satisfied ; no matter
what you do

There is No solution except Kashmiris drop their obsession for Pakistan

On our part ; any step for autonomy will be an unmitigated disaster
which will UN DO all the hard work done earlier

 

[M. Sarmad]

First, that UN resolution was non-binding in nature.

My Indian friend, sometimes things are not as simple and straightforward as we want/believe them to be.


The UN maintains that "NO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CAN BE DESCRIBED AS UNENFORCEABLE." .....

India approached UN under Chapter VI of the UN charter, However, the decision taken by UN reflected that its resolutions were not based exclusively on this chapter .... The resolutions, apart from chapter VI, are based upon other chapters, including chapter VII



The fact that there does not exist any provision for the deputing of UN peace keeping mission under chapter VI makes it obvious that UN resolutions were not exclusively based on chapter VI .... The interim measures which included cease fire and deputation of United Nations Military Observer Group were based on Article 40 of chapter VII ... (For details: Higgins, Rosalyn. United Nations Peace Keeping 1946-67: Documents and Commentary. London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1970. (349-51)..... Rosalyn Higgins (b. 1937) is the former President of the International Court of Justice )


Besides chapter VI and VII , UN resolutions are based on other chapters also(i.e Article 1 , Chapter I (2) and Article 55 , Chapter IX)

Second, Pakistan has already given away any option of UN intervention by signing the Simla agreement and agreeing to bilateral solution of all pending issues

Wrong again ...

The UN refuses to accept the Indian position. Almost 44 years since the signing of the Simla Agreement between India and Pakistan but the UN refuses to terminate UNMOGIP ..


The Simla Agreement 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 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 a clear evidence of UN’s involvement in the Kashmir issue.





Moreover, this Indian claim has been refuted by various UN representatives who, on several occasions, have clarified that, only a bilateral agreement, which solves the problem, would legally supersede the numerous existing UN resolutions on that dispute. Also, in the absence of any fundamental change in the circumstances, the UN resolutions can become invalid only when the UN Security Council declares them null and viod. For example in 1956, the then UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjold, had clearly stated that ‘the UN decision is valid until it has been invalidated by the organ which took it. ......In April 1990, the UN Representative, Francis Guiliani, clarified: ‘a bilateral agreement, which solved the problem, would supersede the resolution aimed at solving the issue. However, as long as the problem remained, the resolutions would remain in effect regardless of when they were adopted .....

Third, Pakistan not only required to withdraw all the security forces from Pak occupied Kashmir region, but they are also required to remove all the people who have settled in P-O-K after 1947, and the part they have given away to China (Shaksgam valley) also needs to be a part of the plebiscite.

India claims that acceptance of Resolution 47 (1948) was stated by Nehru to be conditional on the withdrawal of Pakistani forces from territory within the 1947 boundaries of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, in accordance with the terms of that Resolution. Pakistani forces have, of course, never been withdrawn.


The factual position is as under:-


(a) The demilitarization of Jammu and Kashmir was to take place in a synchronized manner on both sides of the ceasefire line. It was India which refused to implement the process of demilitarization.


(b) The proof of Indian refusal to demilitarize is to be found in the report of Sir Owen Dixon (an eminent Australian Jurist and United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan) to the Security Council, contained in Document S-1971, in which he concluded as follows:-

"In the end, I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of 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 influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperilled."(Para 52 of Document S/1971).


(c) It should also be noted that after a thorough examination of the matter the Security Council in its Resolution No. 98(1952), adopted on 23rd December 1952, allowed both India and Pakistan to maintain a limited number of their forces on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization in order to maintain law and order. This number was to be between 3000-6000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistani side and 12000-18000 remaining on the Indian side of the cease-fire line. Pakistan agreed to this proposal; India did not.


(d) To claim, in the face of this clear and irrefutable evidence, that the plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan refused to withdraw its forces, is patently an attempt to deceive the world. The simple truth is that India did not allow the creation of conditions necessary for the holding of a free and fair plebiscite under UN auspices.



As for Shaksgam Valley, Almost every scholar holds that, to the contrary, it was Pakistan which acquired 750 sq. miles of administered territory

https://defence.pk/threads/what-we-...-know-the-sino-pak-boundary-agreement.310842/

Fourth, India has the legal document of accession of Kashmir,

Although, at first glance, India’s claim to Kashmir appears consistent with international law, a more thorough analysis suggests otherwise !!


1) 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.


2) The legality of the Instrument of Accession may also be questioned on grounds that it was obtained under coercion. The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void."..... India’s military intervention in Kashmir was provisional upon the Maharaja’s signing of the Instrument of Accession. More importantly, however, the evidence suggests that Indian troops were pouring into Srinigar even before the Maharaja had signed the treaty. This fact would suggest that the treaty was signed under duress.


3) The Maharaja had no authority to sign the treaty, hence the Instrument of Accession can be considered without legal standing . The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was hardly in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Hari Singh was in flight from the state capital, Srinigar. And it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power .....



Thus, an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Instrument of Accession shows that the accession of Kashmir to India was neither complete nor legal, as Delhi has vociferously contended for over sixty years.




Alastair Lamb (in his book, Kashmir - A disputed legacy 1846-1990) points out that the Instrument of Accession could not have been signed by the Mahrajah on 26th October as he was travelling by road to Jammu (a distance of over 350 Km). There is no evidence to suggest that a meeting or communication of any kind took place on 26th October 1947. In fact it was on 27th October 1947 that the Mahrajah was informed by his MC Mahajan and VP Menon (who had flown into Srinagar), the the Instrument of Accession had already been negotiated in Dehli. The Mahrajah did not in fact sign the Instrument of Accession, if at all, until 27th October 1947. This sheds doubts on the actions of the Indian regime


Moreover, further shedding doubt on the treaty`s validity, in 1995 Indian authorities claimed that the original copy of the treaty (letter of accession) was either stolen or lost !!!




The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), based in Geneva, passed a resolution in 1995 proclaiming Kashmir's accession to India as bogus and null and void.





http://icj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/....t-1995-eng.pdf




Therefore, letter of accession is lost, if not lost, null (declared by ICJ, UN Resolutions and PM Jawaharlal Nehru), if not null, void by the very people its supposed to serve. Even if its not void, the provision of the letter of accession lets the people of J&K decide their fate (according to PM Jawaharlal Nehru)




In his broadcast to the nation over All India Radio on 2nd November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said,:

"We are anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide ------ And let me make it clear that it has been our policy that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that state. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir"






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


In The Senior's Cafe, Don't expect that your lies and false propaganda by the Indian state will go unchallenged ...



Cheers
------------------

 

[Hellfire]

@Rain Man Factually incorrect statements have been posted in quote to you. Some have credence, rest is utter non-sense.

May I request your indulgence on the issue? Am here on a stroll and troll mode till 30 Sep due to commitments which are case of self inflicted fingering ... hence your rebuttals are solicited.

The process can be started with setting him straight on simultaneous actions taken by Dominion of Pakistan as legalised by Indian Independence Act of 1947 with respect to the accession of Kalat, Lasbela, Kharan and Makran with Lasbela and Kharan placed in fiducial control of the Khan of Kalat by the British as was Makran, a district of Kalat.

Three months before the formation of Pakistan, Muhammed Ali Jinnah had negotiated the freedom of Baluchistan under Kalat from the British. Discussions were made about Kalat's relationship with Pakistan as it was formed. This ensued a series of meetings between the Viceroy, as the Crown’s Representative, Jinnah and the Khan of Kalat.

This resulted in a communique on August 11, 1947, which stated that:

a. The Government of Pakistan recognizes Kalat as an independent sovereign state in treaty relations with the British Government with a status different from that of Indian States.

b. Legal opinion will be sought as to whether or not agreements of leases will be inherited by the Pakistan Government.

c. Meanwhile, a Standstill Agreement has been made between Pakistan and Kalat.

d. Discussions will take place between Pakistan and Kalat at Karachi at an early date with a view to reaching decisions on Defence, External Affairs and Communications.

This was the situation of the four principalities/districts as on 14 August 1947 when the Dominion of Pakistan came into being under the Indian Independence Act of 1947 under the relevant clauses and subclauses as elucidate. These were the territories which gave rise to modern day Baluchistan. ( I may not be completely correct, you may please check up)

I shall post relevant write ups (heavy reliance on cross references across spectrum but should be more and less somewhat accurate save a for a discrepancy which is regretted and the same may please be pointed out):

In the 20th century, what is now known as Pakistani Balochistan was in fact split into three: the Khanate of Kalat, British Balochistan (ruled directly under the Governor General) and the tribal areas leased by the Khan to the British. As the departure of the British became imminent, and the winds of Indian nationalism began blowing, the younger generation of educated elite, though hailing mostly from Sardar backgrounds, saw that despite the vast differences between Baloch and Indian identity, the region had been absorbed into Hindustani affairs. The Government of India Act of 1935 implicitly incorporated the Khanate of Kalat as part of the Indian princely states, reneging on previous constitutional promises of Kalat’s sovereignty.

The tenuous position of Kalat, British Balochistan and the leased areas caused the birth of political consciousness in the form of nationalism. In the 1920, leaders such as Mir Yusuf Ali Magsi and Abdul Aziz Kurd founded the first political party, Anjuman-e Ittehad-e Balochan wa Balochistan, that united Balochis and Pathans both in the demand for constitutional reforms and an autonomous united Balochistan. After the passing of the Government of India Act in 1935, rifts within the party formed, with one faction aiming to participate as a member of the new federal India and the Khan striving to gain sovereign status for his kingdom. Those that were willing to cooperate with the British were seen as traitors. In 1937, the Kalat State National Party (KSNP) was formed from the radical wing of the Anjuman, aimed at unifying Balochistan around the figure of the Khan and the Anjuman-e Watan was founded by Abdus Samad Khan Achakzai as a vanguard of Pashtun nationalism in Balochistan.


The KSNP took its cue from the Khan of Kalat, Ahmed Yar Khan, who, with some historical justification, claimed that Kalat was never a part of India. The British never accepted this claim but Jinnah unequivocally accepted it and signed an agreement to the effect on August 11, 1947. Satisfied by this agreement, the Khan established two houses of parliament in October 1947 to ascertain the will of the people concerning the future of the state. While not ‘democratic’ in the modern sense, the Darul Awam (House of Commons) and Darul Umara (House of Lords) were broadly representative of public opinion in the state.

The debates in these houses were a clear indication of the aspirations of the Baloch and Brahui people. Ghaus Bakhsh Bizenjo, the leader in the Darul Awam, clearly stated: “We have a distinct civilisation… We are Muslims but it is not necessary that by virtue of being Muslims we should lose our freedom and merge with others. If the mere fact that we are Muslims requires us to join Pakistan, then Afghanistan and Iran should also amalgamate with Pakistan”. We are ready to have friendship with that country on the basis of sovereign equality but by no means [are we] ready to merge with Pakistan…” The Baloch knew that under accession their separate identity and unique heritage was being threatened; they only wanted alignment with Pakistan, not accession.

Unfortunately, Pakistan rejected the legitimate concerns of the Baloch. Pakistan never treated Kalat as a non-Indian state and insisted on unconditional accession. To attain this objective, the Pakistani government used several ploys, including the buying off of Kalat state feudatories (Kharan and Las Bela) through lavish privy purses, and the elevation of the Gichki sardar of Mekran — a Kalat district sardar — to princely status. The end result of these machinations, including a threat of military action, was that the Khan acceded to Pakistan in March 27, 1948.

As expected, public reaction against the accession was strong and the brother of the Khan, Abdul Karim, repudiated the accession and led the first of many insurgencies against Pakistan.

@OrionHunter This is where you take down the argument.






INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION OF KALAT STATE (Note: The terms and conditions are akin to those of Instrument of Accession of J&K)

WHEREAS the Indian Independence Act, 1947, provides that as from the fifteenth day of August, 1947, there shall be set up an independent Dominion known as PAKISTAN, and that the Government of India Act, 1935 shall, with such omissions, additions, adaptations and modifications as the Governor-General may by order specify, be applicable to the Dominion of Pakistan;
AND WHEREAS the Government of India Act, 1935, as so adapted by the Governor-General provides that an Indian State may accede to the Dominion of Pakistan by an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof:







NOW THEREFORE

I, His Highness Baglar Begi Khan of Kalat (signed) Ruler of Kalat State in, the exercise of my sovereignt; in and over my said State DO hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession and

1. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of Pakistan with the intent that the Governor-General of Pakistan, the Dominion Legislature, the Supreme Court and any other Dominion authority established for the purposes of the Dominion shall, by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession, but subject always to the terms thereof, and for the purposes only Dominion, exercise in relation to the State of Kalat (hereinafter referred to as “this State”) such functions as may be vested in them by or under the Government of India Act, 1935, as in force ,in the Dominion of Pakistan on the 15th day of August 1947 (which Act as so in force is hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. I hereby assume the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given to the provisions of the Act within this State so far as they are applicable therein by virtue of this My Instrument of Accession.

3. I accept the matters specified in the Schedule hereto as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for this State.

4. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of Pakistan on the assurance that if an agreement is made between the Governor-General and the Ruler of this State whereby any functions in relation to the administration in this State of any law of the Dominion Legislature shall be exercised by the Ruler of this State, then any such agreement shall be deemed to form part of this Instrument and shall be construed end have effect accordingly.

5. Nothing in this Instrument shall empower the Dominion Legislature to make any law for this State authorising the compulsory acquisition of land for any purpose, but I hereby undertake that should the Dominion for the purposes of a Dominion law which applies in this State deem it necessary to acquire any land, I will at their request acquire the land at their expense or if the land belongs to me transfer it to them on such terms as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

6. The terms of this my Instrument of Accession shall not be varied by any amendment of the Act or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, unless such amendment is accepted by me by an Instrument supplementary to this Instrument.

7. Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future constitution of Pakistan or to fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements with the Government of Pakistan under any such future constitution.

8. Nothing, in this Instrument affects the continuance of my sovereignty in and over this State, or, Save as provided by or under this Instrument, the exercise of any powers, authority and rights now enjoyed by me as Ruler of this State or the validity of any law at present in force in this State.

9. I hereby declare that I execute this Instrument on behalf of this State and that any reference in this Instrument to me or to the Ruler of the State is to be construed as including a reference to my heirs and successors.

Given under my hand this 27th March 1948. Nineteen hundred and forty eight
Signed by: His Highness Baglar Begi Khan of Kalat
(Ruler of Kalat State)

I do hereby accept this Instrument of Accession.
Dated this 31st March 1948 Nineteen hundred and forty eight
Signed by: Ma Jinnah
(Governor-General of Pakistan)

On August 15, 1947, a day after Pakistan was formally established; the Khan declared Kalats independence but offered to negotiate a special relationship with Pakistan in the spheres of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications. Pakistani leaders rejected this declaration touching off a 9-month diplomatic tug of war that climaxed in the forcible annexation of Kalat.


Pakistan historians have tried to argue that the Khans stand was not representative of Baloch sentiments and point as evidence to the pro-Pakistan Assembly of Baloch leaders (called Shahi Jirga) held in Quetta on June 29, 1947. However, the participants were those who had been appointed by the British and the Assemblys recommendation related only to British Balochistan.


Apart from declaring independence, the Khan also formed the lower and upper houses of the Kalat Assembly. A meeting of the Kalat National Assembly (elections for which had been held a few weeks earlier) held on August 15, 1947 as well as subsequent meetings of the Assembly, decided not to join Pakistan and Affirmed the position that Kalat was an independent state and would only enter into friendly treaty relations with Pakistan. Amongst those who, in these meetings of the Kalat Assembly spoke in clear terms about the justification for an independent Balochistan was Ghaus Bakhsh Bizenjo, who later became a leader of the National Awami Party and also the Governor of Balochistan for a short period.


Bizenjos speech of December 14, 1947, in the Kalat Assembly is noteworthy for the ample warnings that it conveyed to the Pakistani state:

"We have a distinct civilization and a separate culture like that of Iran and Afghanistan. We are Muslims but it is not necessary that by virtue of being Muslims we should lose our freedom and merge with others. If the mere fact that we are Muslims requires us to join Pakistan then Afghanistan and Iran, both Muslim countries, should also amalgamate with Pakistan. We were never a part of Indiabefore the British rule. Pakistan’s unpleasant and loathsome desire that our national homeland, Balochistan should merge with it is impossible to consider. We are ready to have friendship with that country on the basis of sovereign equality but by no means ready to merge with Pakistan. We can survive without Pakistan. But the question is what Pakistan would be without us? I do not propose to create hurdles for the newly created Pakistan in the matters of defense and external communication. But we want an honorable relationship not a humiliating one. If Pakistan wants to treat us as a sovereign people, we are ready to extend the hand of friendship and cooperation. If Pakistan does not agree to do so, flying in the face of democratic principles, such an attitude will be totally unacceptable to us, and if we are forced to accept this fate then every Baloch son will sacrifice his life in defense of his national freedom."

On January 4, 1948 the Upper House comprising Sardars discussed the question of a merger with Pakistan and declared This House is not willing to accept a merger with Pakistan which will endanger the separate existence of the Baloch nation.

What was the position of the Muslim League on this issue? The League had, in fact, signed a joint statement with Kalat and repeated the declaration two or three times that the League recognized that Kalat was not an Indian state and constituted an independent entity and the League would recognize and respect this independence. In fact, as late as August 11, 1947 a joint statement was signed in which the League leaders, now as the government of Pakistan,again recognize the independence of Kalat. The operative portions of the communiqué dated August 11, 1947 is worth quoting from:


As a result of a meeting held between a delegation from Kalat and officials of the Pakistan States Department, presided over by the Crown Representative, and a series of meetings between the Crown Representative, HH the Khan of Kalat, and Mr Jinnah, the following was the situation:

1. The Government of Pakistan recognizes Kalat as an independent sovereign state; in treaty relations with British government, with a status different from that of Indian states.
2. Legal opinion will be sought as to whether or not agreements of leases made between the British government and Kalat will be inherited by the Pakistan government.

Hence, by 1948 there was a situation where Khan of Kalat had declared independence, both houses of the Kalat Assembly had endorsed this decision and rejected accession with Pakistan, the Muslim League had acknowledged the independence of Kalat as late as in August 1947. Despite all this, and despite the close personal relations that Jinnah had with the Khan of Kalat and despite the Khan having made large financial contributions to the Muslim League, On April 1, 1948 the Pakistan Army invaded Kalat. The Khan surrendered and accepted the merger by signing the instrument of accession and ended the 225 days independence of the Kalat confederacy formed by Mir Ahmad Khans ancestors almost 300 years earlier.

I am sure @Rain Man that you can do justice and show the mirror to Pakistanis henceforth.

It is hypocritical, nay distinctly sly and dishonesty on part of Pakistan to have a duplicitous standard. Where as at no point of time did India give an assurance of independence during accession, the story here was different.

Once again, my request, deal with this gentleman who is more ignorant than his apparent posts tend to show. And especially his quip of Seniors Cafe and lies and propaganda!

The story of Baluchistan is much worse than that of Kashmir if one is to take a dispassionate view. However, we, as Indians only focus on Kashmir. Time to change the approach and pin them on their approach.

Thanks

@Joe Shearer Is he the gentleman you were referring to while tagging me? The azaadi proponent of 'Ganga' fame?

May I request your indulgence here ...? I am tied down with other things which preclude my being able to do anything beyond stroll right now.

And btw nice pic in whats app the french suits

@OrionHunter Join in

 

[M. Sarmad]

@Rain Man Factually incorrect statements have been posted in quote to you. Some have credence, rest is utter non-sense.

Will you be kind enough to point out which statements, according to you, are factually incorrect ? .. Dismissing everything that you disagree with, or that makes you feel uncomfortable, as "utter nonsense" is not helpful. Discussion forums like this one are there for a purpose. We can discuss things, we can present our POV's, we can defend our positions, we can bring forward our arguments and counterarguments,. And in the end, if we are not convinced, we may agree to disagree. It's not about winning a debate, it's about learning ...

 

[Hellfire]

@Azlan Haider Please bear with me till 30 Sep. I know it is in bad form, but am stuck. Your posts are interesting and will need time to reply in depth.

May I request your indulgence in granting me a time till 30 Sep as am seriously stuck somewhere else which precludes me from enjoying and learning from your posts? You have actually struck a chord with your 'learning' POV, I respect that and you will find me to be a blank person without a POV, I assure you. I can agree with quite a few things you post about, some I seriously dismiss. But then, that I shall take up with you once have the time to get into a depth on these aspects.

Looking forward to it, if you have the time to consider then. Will revert to you.
Cheers and have a great day.

Thanks.

Sorry @Azlan Haider edited the post ... however will get back.

@OrionHunter Go through the thread, and add on. Posted something for you to read in #146

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer Is he the gentleman you were referring to while tagging me? The azaadi proponent of 'Ganga' fame?

May I request your indulgence here ...? I am tied down with other things which preclude my being able to do anything beyond stroll right now.

I was referring to Junaid Qureshi, son of Hashem Qureshi, and afaik, he is not a member of this forum.

And btw nice pic in whats app the french suits

@OrionHunter Join in

Which picture is that, chief? I didn't get the French suits bit.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer your whatsapp dp with a french beard!!!!

Good Heavens!