Candid Zardari accepts J&K militants are terrorists

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Getting technical, are we?

You may want to check the other thread where it is the UN that is being bashed not just Mr. Moon.

Anyway, the other things being subjective, let's come to the Durand line part.

You really don't know of the 99 year agreement between the Afghan king and the British which expired some time back? I am confused.

It should be a simple google search. Though I believe you when you say you were not aware.

I can dig it for you if you really want that. And again, I am not casting aspersions on the integrity of your country. Just making a counter point.

This is from wiki, with sources mentioned on the page:

Afghanistan's loya jirga of 1949 declared the Durand Line invalid as they saw it as ex parte on their side (since British India ceased to exist in 1947 with the independence of Pakistan). This had no tangible effect as there has never been a move to enforce such a declaration due to long periods of constant wars with other neighbors in the region. And most importantly, there was no time limit mentioned in the Durand Treaty. Additionally, world courts have universally upheld uti possidetis juris, i.e, binding bilateral agreements with or between colonial powers are "passed down" to successor independent states, as with most of Africa. A unilateral declaration by one party has no effect; boundary changes must be made bilaterally. Thus, the Durand Line boundary remains in effect today as the international boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and is recognized as such by most nations. Despite pervasive internet rumors to the contrary, US Department of State and the British Foreign Commonwealth Office documents and spokespersons have confirmed that the Durand Line, like virtually all international boundaries, has no expiration date, nor is there any mention of such in any Durand Line documents.[1][2][3] The 1921 treaty expiration refers only to the 1921 agreements.

 

[Black Stone]

I know the Kashmir issue goes deep for Pakistan and India, but I have a question.

I know it might not happen but would the Pakistani and Indian members on the forum think is a good settlement to the Kashmir issue to let Kashmir be independent and both nations giving up territory?.

Or is it more complicated than that?

Please share your views.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I know the Kashmir issue goes deep for Pakistan and India, but I have a question.

I know it might not happen but would the Pakistani and Indian members on the forum think is a good settlement to the Kashmir issue to let Kashmir be independent and both nations giving up territory?.

Or is it more complicated than that?

Please share your views.

Many Pakistanis are fine with that, and with joint administration. The Indians have lived this lie for so long, of 'integral part of India', on the basis of refusing to implement the UNSC resolutions and violating the conditions of the very instrument of accession that they claim gives them legal rights to the territory, that they cannot think beyond that.

 

[Goodperson]

The instrument of accession was conditional to a plebiscite which was never carried out. The condition of plebiscite was validated by the UNSC resolutions, otherwise the UN would have given India clear legal rights to the territory.

Since the conditions of the IoA and UNSC resolutions were never fulfilled, it is an illegal and immoral occupation.

Accession to India

1. The Accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India, signed by the Maharaja (erstwhile ruler of the State) on 26th October, 1947, was completely valid in terms of the Government of India Act (1935), Indian Independence Act (1947) and international law and was total and irrevocable. The Accession was also supported by the largest political party in the state, the National Conference. In the Indian Independence Act, there was no provision for any conditional accession. The Instrument of Accession executed by the Maharaja was the same as the ones executed by over 500 princely states in India. There has been no complication in any of the other cases. There would have been none in this case either, except for Pakistan's action in sending in tribal invaders first (in October 1947) and its own regular troops later (May 1948).

Plebiscite

Despite India's completely legal and valid position on Jammu & Kashmir, in order to find a solution to the situation created by Pakistan's aggression, India had accepted the option of holding a plebiscite in J&K. It had, however, been made clear by the Indian leaders that holding of such a plebiscite would be conditional upon Pakistan fulfilling Parts (I) & (II) of the UNCIP resolutions of 13 August, 1948, which inter alia, required that all forces regular and irregular under the control of both sides shall cease fire; Pakistan would withdraw its troops, it would endeavour to secure withdrawal of tribesmen and Pak nationals and India will withdraw bulk of its forces once the UNCIP confirms that the tribesmen and Pak nationals have withdrawn and Pak troops are being withdrawn. India was also to ensure that the state government takes various measures to preserve peace, law and order. Indian acceptance of these UNCIP resolutions was also subject to several conditions and assurances given by UNCIP including that Pakistan would be excluded from all affairs of Jammu & Kashmir, "Azad J & K Government" would not be recognised, sovereignty of J & K government over the entire territory of the state shall not be brought into question, territory occupied by Pakistan shall not be consolidated, and Pakistani troops would be withdrawn completely. Pakistan never fulfilled these assurances.

The Jammu and Kashmir Issue

You can clearly see which was signed earlier.

 

[Black Stone]

Many Pakistanis are fine with that, and with joint administration. The Indians have lived this lie for so long, of 'integral part of India', on the basis of refusing to implement the UNSC resolutions and violating the conditions of the very instrument of accession that they claim gives them legal rights to the territory, that they cannot think beyond that.

I was referring to full independence as in Kashmiri's elect their leaders and proceed an independent policy not influenced by either Pakistan or India.

Have their own defences like a normal nation etc.

The start-up would require support from Pakistan, India and perhaps China. But eventually leading to self-determination.

 

[Vinod2070]

This is from wiki, with sources mentioned on the page:

A simple google search for "Durand line agreement 99 years" brings many links that counter what you mention here.

IntelliBriefs: The Unholy Durand Line, Buffering the Buffer

Abstract: The British signed a document with the person of King Abdul Rahman Khan in 1893 referring to the borders between Afghanistan and British India. The line devised by the British was worked by the British Colonial Officer Durand and thus became known as the Durand Line. The document was to be ratified by the legislative body in Afghanistan. It never happened. It was to remain in force for one hundred years. It has not been revived on the deadline, which was 1993 either. Pakistan and now especially its military government is trying disparately to pressure Taleban into what Pakistani interior minister Moinuddin Haider calls revival of the sanctification of the Durand Line.

Why the Durand Line is important

Ever since then every government in Islamabad militaryand non-military has desperately tried to reach a bilateral agreement with successive regimes in Kabul to convert the Durand Line into the international border, but without any success. Despite propping up several pro-Pakistan regimes in Kabul, Islamabad was unable to get any of them to endorse the Durand Line as the international border. In 1996, when the Durand agreement and line completed a century, it was considered to have lapsed. Consequently, Pakistan's de jure western border ceased to exist.

Anyway it's between Pakistan and Afghanistan. I just want to point to the hypocrisy of accepting the "colonial" borders to the West but rejecting the same on the East as a conspiracy.

 

[Vinod2070]

Vinod what is the real issue for Pakistan, no disrespect but i dont think we need to ask that from India. Also Zadari can never ever say something like that and if indeed he has said then he himself has committed a political suecide. Also Pakistan is a terrorist country or whatever you want to call it, Kashmir still remains a disputed territory. There hasnt been a declared decision for the status quo and until then Pakistan one way or the other is committed to it until the issue gets solved whatever outcome there maybe.

As you wish. No disrespect to you either, I see you as a patriotic Pakistani.

I may not agree with your views all the time (especially regarding India) but I respect them in general. Please carry on the good work.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

A simple google search for "Durand line agreement 99 years" brings many links that counter what you mention here.

IntelliBriefs: The Unholy Durand Line, Buffering the Buffer

Why the Durand Line is important

Nowhere in your excerpts does it state why the agreement was to be for a hundred years, nor why the agreement was to be ratified by a 'legislative body' (a bit of an oxymoron considering that Afghanistan was ruled by a monarchy at that point).

Here is a text of the Durand, and nowhere does it mention either the '100 years' or ratification by any 'legislative body'.

Khyber.ORG :: Durand Line Agreement, 1893

Your claim continues to be invalid and untrue.

Anyway it's between Pakistan and Afghanistan. I just want to point to the hypocrisy of accepting the "colonial" borders to the West but rejecting the same on the East as a conspiracy.

No borders in Kashmir in the East were decided, while there is a definitive agreement on the Durand line - even the IoA condition of a plebiscite was unfulfilled, as were the UNSC resolutions. Therefore there is no agreement to implement, or border to respect in the East, as far as Kashmir is concerned.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

GP:

The instrument of accession was itself conditional to a plebiscite being held, and I have posted relevant excerpts from Owen Bennet Jones's book and other sources on that several times in the other Kashmir threads. The plebiscite was therefore part of both the IoA and the UNSC resolutions.

What you have offered is an Indian interpretation of the issue, and of course we can see that whether it is the UNSC resolutions or the conditions of the IoA, the GoI does not care for legalities when it comes to Kashmir. Again, there would have been no need for the UN to instruct a plebiscite had India's claim through the IoA been clear without the condition of plebiscite.

On the withdrawal of forces, the UNSC resolutions thread is a sticky in the strategic affairs section, where the argument I believe has been successful made, using the letters of the UN officials in charge, that it was India that did not fulfill its obligations under the resolutions.

Here is the excerpt from OBJ's book:


"Later in October 1947, when India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru was deploying troops in Kashmir. Mountbatten insisted that any decision by the maharajah to accede to India would be only be temporary prior to a referendum, plebiscite, or at the very least representative public meetings. When Mountbatten accepted the maharajah's decision to accede to India he told him:

... my government have decide to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. Consistently with their policy that, in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government's wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and its soil cleared of invaders, the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people."

 

[Kasrkin]

In relation to the topic, I think many people will feel Zardari and his whole party are terrorists. He never speaks about Indian state terrorism in Kashmir, our leader just sold out 60 years of our nations policy.

On a happier note, I reckon things will be back to normal once he is gone *ahum*dead*ahum*

 

[Kumar]

Pakistan President itself accepted they are militants.
Till now Pakistan never accepted this.
Now its a very good chance for India to cancel the Simla agreement.

 

[Vinod2070]

Nowhere in your excerpts does it state why the agreement was to be for a hundred years, nor why the agreement was to be ratified by a 'legislative body' (a bit of an oxymoron considering that Afghanistan was ruled by a monarchy at that point).

Here is a text of the Durand, and nowhere does it mention either the '100 years' or ratification by any 'legislative body'.

Khyber.ORG :: Durand Line Agreement, 1893

Your claim continues to be invalid and untrue.


No borders in Kashmir in the East were decided, while there is a definitive agreement on the Durand line - even the IoA condition of a plebiscite was unfulfilled, as were the UNSC resolutions. Therefore there is no agreement to implement, or border to respect in the East, as far as Kashmir is concerned.

I don't have much time to do research on this.May be some other time.

But tell me, if everything is settled on your Western border, why does Afghanistan not recognize it? Even Taliban refused to accept that border!

This UN thing is just a hogwash. Who cares for UN anyway. Don't tell me you do. Has the UN taken up this issue in the last so many decades?

The only issue is Pakistan refuses to accept Kashmir as a part of India, same as Afghanistan refuses to accept the Durand line. There is no difference at all between the two.

It is not adjusting to what you have and craving for what you don't.

 

[Kumar]

Militant flays Zardari over India and "terrorists"

By Zeeshan Haider

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - The founder of one of Pakistan's most feared armed Islamist groups accused President Asif Ali Zardari of being too dovish towards India, and criticised him for referring to militants in Indian-held Kashmir as "terrorists".

Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a major militant group fighting in Indian Kashmir, described Zardari's comments as "a clear violation and digression from the consistent policy of Pakistan".

Though India and Pakistan have fought three wars since their partition in 1947, Zardari told the Wall Street Journal in an interview published on Saturday, that "India has never been a threat to Pakistan".

His remarks were encouraging for a peace process that has made glacial progress on core territorial disputes like Kashmir since his predecessor, General Pervez Musharraf, began talks with India nearly five years ago.

But Zardari's perception stands at odds with traditional thinking in a Pakistani military establishment that has always seen its eastern neighbour as the Muslim state's greatest threat.

Lashkar-e-Taiba is one of the groups that analysts say the Pakistan military has used to run a proxy war in Indian Kashmir since the 1990s, though Pakistan has always said it only gave moral and diplomatic support for the Kashmiri freedom struggle.

Saeed, now head of Jamaat-ud-Dawa, an Islamist charity regarded as a front for the LeT, told Reuters by telephone from the eastern city of Lahore that he was pained by Zardari's comments.

"Pakistan has always pleaded the cause of Kashmiri people but the present elected government, particularly President Zardari, who has wrested all powers, is openly referring to freedom fighters as terrorists and talking about trade with India," Saeed said.

"It tantamounts to rubbing salt on the wounds of Kashmiris at a time when their movement has turned into a popular uprising."

Zardari, widower of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, told the U.N. General Assembly last month that his government "will fight against terrorists who attack us and fight against terrorists who use our territory to plan attacks against our neighbours or anywhere else in the world."

Saeed voiced support for the recent anti-India protests in Indian Kashmir triggered by a decision to grant land for shelters for Hindu pilgrims travelling to mostly-Muslim Kashmir.

Around 40 people have been killed by the Indian security forces and 1,000 wounded in these protests.

"I think the peace process should be abolished ... Pakistan should support the uprising. Right now there is no militancy there, now it's a popular movement," Saeed said.

The two nuclear-armed neighbours, went to the brink of their fourth war in 2002 after an attack on the Indian parliament in New Delhi in December 2001.

India accused Lashkar-e-Taiba and another militant group of being behind the attack.

Just weeks later, Pakistan banned Lashkar-e-Taiba. The United States has listed LeT and Jamaat-ud-Dawa as terrorist organisations, but Pakistan has not outlawed the charity, and its workers remain active in Pakistani Kashmir.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I don't have much time to do research on this.May be some other time.

But tell me, if everything is settled on your Western border, why does Afghanistan not recognize it? Even Taliban refused to accept that border!

This UN thing is just a hogwash. Who cares for UN anyway. Don't tell me you do. Has the UN taken up this issue in the last so many decades?

The only issue is Pakistan refuses to accept Kashmir as a part of India, same as Afghanistan refuses to accept the Durand line. There is no difference at all between the two.

It is not adjusting to what you have and craving for what you don't.

Afghanistan's refusal to recognize the Durand is rooted in irredentism and territorial expansionism. As the original links I gave from wiki showed, legally Afghanistan has no position to unilaterally claim for change on the Durand, and the agreement on that is for all to see.

The point here is that legally (and from the peoples perspective - referendum in NWFP) Pakistan's position on the Durand is unassailable, except for a hostile government with dreams of expansionism.

You can keep calling the UN thing a 'hog wash', it doe snot reduce the legitimacy of the resolutions, nor wash away the fact that India's signature accepting the decisions is on the resolutions. What that, and teh condition of plebiscite in the IoA does is validate Pakistan's position that there is no settled border in Kashmir, and that it is disputed territory, and India's claim to it is illegal. This is a stark difference between the Durand and a vindication of Pakistan's position.

Whether India refuses to accept it or not (after originally accepting both the condition of plebiscite in the IoA and the UNSC resolutions) does not make your country's position on Kashmir any less illegal or immoral.

I find it curious - on one side there is a signed agreement protected by international legal precedence, that demarcates the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, that you refuse to recognize on spurious claims - and on the other you defend your own country's refusal to implement conditions and resolutions demanding a plebiscite she agreed to and signed off on.

Fascinating - what I see is an utter lack of respect for agreements and law, so long as it is Pakistan that suffers of course.

 

[Vinod2070]

Afghanistan's refusal to recognize the Durand is rooted in irredentism and territorial expansionism. As the original links I gave from wiki showed, legally Afghanistan has no position to unilaterally claim for change on the Durand, and the agreement on that is for all to see.

What do you think, Indians see your claim on Kashmir as? Based on the highest principles of humanity?

It is just territorial grab that you want. You give a ---- for what the people of Kashmir or anywhere want. That is only a factor if it helps you in your position.

The point here is that legally (and from the peoples perspective - referendum in NWFP) Pakistan's position on the Durand is unassailable, except for a hostile government with dreams of expansionism.

You can keep calling the UN thing a 'hog wash', it doe snot reduce the legitimacy of the resolutions, nor wash away the fact that India's signature accepting the decisions is on the resolutions. What that, and teh condition of plebiscite in the IoA does is validate Pakistan's position that there is no settled border in Kashmir, and that it is disputed territory, and India's claim to it is illegal. This is a stark difference between the Durand and a vindication of Pakistan's position.

Whether India refuses to accept it or not (after originally accepting both the condition of plebiscite in the IoA and the UNSC resolutions) does not make your country's position on Kashmir any less illegal or immoral.

I find it curious - on one side there is a signed agreement protected by international legal precedence, that demarcates the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, that you refuse to recognize on spurious claims - and on the other you defend your own country's refusal to implement conditions and resolutions demanding a plebiscite she agreed to and signed off on.

Fascinating hypocrisy and lack of respect for agreements and law.

Not me or India. It is Afghanistan. I was just comparing the situations on your Eastern and Western borders.

I don't really care whether that border is a 100 miles (or 500 miles) this side or that as long as India is not targeted by the terror brewing on that border.