Great myths of Indian history

[roadrunner]

Roadrunner,

Why do you jump to conclusion before reading completely??

My posts were in to say order of development of my understanding of Durand line.

Read the next two posts.

To reiterate, the question is not whether Pakistan inherited the treaties from British India. The question is regarding Afghanistan's acceptance of Pakistan as such. These two are completely different. Afghanistan says Pakistan is not.

Dud, you Bharatis are obsessed with names. The same for the naming of Bharat. Just because you called your country India in 1947, does not mean you can claim all of Pakistan's history (India is derived from Sindh). The treaty is a geographical one, you can change the name of Afghanistan to Pakistan, and Pakistan to Bhrat, and NWFP and Balochistan would still legally belong to Pakistan.

Now I know that people will deal this as flame bait, I just got a weird thought in my mind.

Status as on 1970: East Pakistan has more pakistani population than west pakistan.

in 1971, when east pakistan became bangladesh, so majorities of pakistanis became bangladeshis. So if I apply the same majority population concept used by "Pakistan" for Kashmir in this case, shouldnt Bangladesh be treated as the "true Pakistan".

By the extension of this logic, is Kashmir a dispute between India and Present day Pakistan/Bangladesh? What makes present day Pakistan have the higher authority in this case?

Please also note, I will extend the same logic which you will use on this dispute for the durand line dispute also. So, I require a logic which validates Pakistani position with respect to durand line and kashmir?

Interchangebilities for the sake of convenience:
i)
British India : "Past Pakistan"
durandline : kashmir.
afghanistan : india
ii)
present India: "present Pakistan"
pakistan: bangladesh

i) is immutable, where as (ii) is mutable. So for two I will ask you why you took a particular mutation and why not the other mutation.

Can anybody with a legal brackground help me out in the nuances? The ideas are hazy

Look Dud. Bangladesh wanted to call itself Bangladesh, and West Pakistan wanted to call itself Pakistan. There's no inheriting of names in this case.. how can you not see the obvious?

 

[bhangra12345]

Look roadrunner,

I will take this analogy into a completely different case so that emotions are not involved. That is the reason I wished for legal luminaries.

Say two companies, Kata and Bata sign an agreement on no-competition pact in shoe's business. Unfortunately Kata divided itself into "Kata" and Mata. Now the original Kata's shoe business was completely given to Mata. So now the new "Kata" has no interest whether the original pact is valid or not, but mata has interest in it. The new "Kata" says to bata, I dont care what you do with that agreement. You tear it, break it, I dont care. But the question for Bata is, is it still supposed to honour the agreement with mata?

Munshi Sir, you told that you are an advocate in Supreme court of Bangladesh. I dont know whether your expertise is in company law or not. But I think you will atleast have a rough idea of it? Could you help me out with this.

Please no emotions involved.

 

[roadrunner]

Look roadrunner,

I will take this analogy into a completely different case so that emotions are not involved. That is the reason I wished for legal luminaries.

Say two companies, Kata and Bata sign an agreement on no-competition pact in shoe's business. Unfortunately Kata divided itself into "Kata" and Mata. Now the original Kata's shoe business was completely given to Mata. So now the new "Kata" has no interest whether the original pact is valid or not, but mata has interest in it. The new "Kata" says to bata, I dont care what you do with that agreement. You tear it, break it, I dont care. But the question for Bata is, is it still supposed to honour the agreement with mata?

Munshi Sir, you told that you are an advocate in Supreme court of Bangladesh. I dont know whether your expertise is in company law or not. But I think you will atleast have a rough idea of it? Could you help me out with this.

Please no emotions involved.

Look Dud, this has already been explained before. IF Mata agrees to tear up the agreement also, AND Bata does as well, they can rip it up..But both have to agree.

 

[bhangra12345]

Look Dud, this has already been explained before. IF Mata agrees to tear up the agreement also, AND Bata does as well, they can rip it up..But both have to agree.

Are you sure about this? Have you studied the company law, say of Pakistan. In which schedule it is and according to what interpretation it is. Are you a lawyer? In which court of law did you practice? Why should I take the above for your word?

We have a lawyer in this particular forum, he has better credentials on this issue than me and you. Why not ask him and get an unbiased view?

 

[roadrunner]

Are you sure about this? Have you studied the company law, say of Pakistan. In which schedule it is and according to what interpretation it is. Are you a lawyer? In which court of law did you practice? Why should I take the above for your word?

We have a lawyer in this particular forum, he has better credentials on this issue than me and you. Why not ask him and get an unbiased view?

Dud, this is international law, not company law.

 

[bhangra12345]

and may I know which convention is the international law in 1890's?

It is only my attempt to understand the scenario.

 

[Drifter]

Democrat pak has some points, but as a proud pakistani and pashtoon i disagree with most of your comments. I see my self as a muslim and a pakistani and see others such as punjabis as my countrymen regardless of their language and creed. We may have our differences at times but those can expressed in a much civilised way, no matter how much differences we have, as a pakistani i am willing to lay down my life for anyone of my countrymen regardless of them being punjabi, sindhi, mohahir, baloch etc.

You hold some views that are not very good for unity of our nation and people, i must say you are free to express them, but show some respect calling quaid a drunk, regardless of his actions he is a deceased man, as muslim and and as a pashtoon you should honour and not make bad comments of those who no longer live.

 

[Neo]

A very good first post Drifter, I fully agree with you!

Please introduce yourself in the members in tro section in order to allow us to give you a warm welcome.

Thanks!
Neo