India claiming Kashmir its part violation of UNSC resolution: FO

[war&peace]

A Pakistani terrorist sympathizer from the USA..I hope somebody will track his "support" before its too late. It's alarming how this forum lets terrorist sympathizers openly declare their intentions.

Ignored

 

[Kraitcorp]

One of the main reasons for India's aggressive stand is due to the fact that there are no more politicians left in India who were involved during the pre-partition time. The last one's were our Ex-PM MMS who had few relatives in Pakistan. Now this changes the Indian equation completely coupled with a growing economy. I think Pakistan must come to terms with realty.

 

[Centurion2016]

I would not go to full scale war with India.

1971 left Pakistan in two states.

Imagine what they could do today .

Better get back to sorting out Pakistanis massive internal problems

Leave Kashmiri issues to infdians.

It's their internal issue

 

[M. Sarmad]

Why can't you accept the facts , kashmir is not on the UN's agenda. It has been removed from the list of unresolved disputed territory since 2010

Read your news paper
http://tribune.com.pk/story/77671/kashmir-issue-left-unmentioned-in-united-nations/

My Indian friend, that was an inadvertent omission (British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant had not mentioned the Kashmir dispute in the context of unresolved long-running situations, despite the fact that it was included in the annual report) and the UN had set the record straight the very next day when it declared that the Jammu and Kashmir dispute remains on the UN Security Councils agenda, while rejecting as inaccurate that it has been removed from the list of unresolved issues.

Some articles today on Kashmir are inaccurate, UN Spokesman Farhan Haq said, referring to those reports, especially in Indian media.

He said the latest list of matters the Security Council is seized of continues to include the agenda item under which the Council has taken up Kashmir which, by a decision of the Council, remains on the list for this year, the spokesman added.

http://nation.com.pk/politics/17-Nov-2010/Kashmir-still-on-SCs-agenda-UN

http://www.rediff.com/news/report/kashmir-stays-on-unsc-agenda-list-for-this-year/20101117.htm

since the simla agreement was signed Pakistan can't start a war over kashmir.

Don't know what you are trying to say here, But I hope you realize that the occupation of Siachen Glacier by Indian Army in 1984 was the first major violation of Simla Agreement by India,.

 

[New World]

can any indian give me any logical and relevant explanation that why there are 8,00,000 paramilitary in small piece of land which is covered with snow most of the year..

Hope you ignore Kashmir and India too. That will be great.

sir, its really impossible to ignore someone when he/she is calling your name day and night...

 

[Pride]

can any indian give me any logical and relevant explanation that why there are 8,00,000 paramilitary in small piece of land which is covered with snow most of the year..

Because, your Army started using it as their background and bringing tourists in this place. We just claimed what was legitimate to us.

 

[Akhill]

can any indian give me any logical and relevant explanation that why there are 8,00,000 paramilitary in small piece of land which is covered with snow most of the year..


sir, its really impossible to ignore someone when he/she is calling your name day and night...

can you give me any proper source quoting the 8,00,000 paramilitary force ? what kind of crap does your estabilishment feeds you man.. i am really astonished at the dumbness.

 

[Dzz]

My Indian friend, that was an inadvertent omission

So what was the point of claiming it was the Indian medias false rumor when Pakistan media has reported the same thing?

Don't know what you are trying to say here, But I hope you realize that the occupation of Siachen Glacier by Indian Army in 1984 was the first major violation of Simla Agreement by India,.

That's bs, India didn't break the sochi agreement. It never crossed the LOC. Here is the raw facts

Siachen Glacier was inhabited deserts during the the creation of LOC. the UN left this undecided those mountain peaks were left undetermined. Both India & Pakistan claimed it was theirs , when that happend Pakistan put outposts there. When the Pakistani military left the their camp in winter, India just made a base there. There was no war, no contracts were broken. 0 lives were lost.

Kargil on the other hand was a direct war by Pakistan, the peaks are miles behind the LOC. If anyone broke the simla agreement it is Pakistan .your government knew the backlash it was going to get, that's the reason you all pretended you had nothing to do with this . You guys nearly started a nuclear war

 

[M. Sarmad]

So what was the point of claiming it was the Indian medias false rumor when Pakistan media has reported the same thing?

There is a difference between inadvertent omission of Jammu and Kashmir dispute in a statement by the President of Security Council (While it was duly mentioned in the Annual Report of the Security Council and was also present on its agenda) and the claims made by the Indian Media that "Jammu and Kashmir out of U.N. list of disputes", describing it as "a huge set back for Pakistan" ....

The next day, on November 16, 2010, the UNO had to clarify that Jammu and Kashmir dispute remained on its agenda and rejected such media reports as "inaccurate".

But the Indian Media obviously didn't make it clear to the gullible Indians that it was a 'mistake' (Maybe it was an intentional deception?) and as a result a lot of Indians still believe that Kashmir Dispute has been removed from the UN list of unresolved disputes since 2010 !!

That's bs, India didn't break the sochi agreement. It never crossed the LOC. Here is the raw facts

]Siachen Glacier was inhabited deserts during the the creation of LOC. the UN left this undecided those mountain peaks were left undetermined. Both India & Pakistan claimed it was theirs , when that happend Pakistan put outposts there. When the Pakistani military left the their camp in winter, India just made a base there. There was no war, no contracts were broken. 0 lives were lost.

Pakistan had de facto control of Siachen, up to Line NJ 9842-Karakoram Pass (KKP). until reversed by India in blatant violation of Simla Agreement in 1984. Pakistan’s view on this issue is substantiated by the following agreements, statements and events:


1) Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru’s address to the Indian Parliament on 7th May, 1962, acknowledging Pakistan’s de facto control up to KKP, by stating “the defense of which is under the actual control of Pakistan.”

2) The government of India’s protest note of 10th May 1962 to Pakistan, which referred to the area west of KKP as “…presently under Pakistan’s unlawful occupation.” (Muhammad, 1991) in response to communiqué issued about Pakistan China boundary negotiations.

3) Indian Prime Minister Nehru’s address to Parliament of 5th March, 1963, again referring to Pakistan’s actual control of the area by stating. It then reached the Karakoram Pass

4) The refusal of the Chinese to discuss with India the area west of the Karakoram Pass, which separated Baltistan from Indian-controlled Ladakh.

5) The words “thence north to glaciers” in the Karachi Agreement and the actual location of the glaciers in the area i.e. Siachen ,Terram , Northern, Central and Southern Rimo Glaciers and the general direction as well as alignment of the line of control (LOC) leading up to Pt NJ 9842.

6) Delhi’s protest note to China “at this de facto recognition of Pakistan’s control of Hunza and Baltistan” in the wake of Pakistan China Border Agreement (1963)

7) The non delineation or demarcation demand of the LOC beyond PT NJ 9842, after the Tashkent (1966) and Simla Agreements (1972). “Despite India’s strong position, India did not do it.”

8) Authorization of as many as twenty one mountaineering expeditions in the area by Pakistan from 1974-1984. Another testimony is that of Academic Alpine Club of Kyoto expedition to Baltoro Glacier in 1958 and to Siachen Glacier through Bilafond La in 1962 under Professor T.Shidei which included a Pakistani member R.Bashir (Sakai, 2005).

9) Protest notes of Pakistan’s Northern Area Military Headquarters, of August 21, 1983 and August 29, 1983. (Raghavan, 2002) after Indian intrusions in the area.

10) The reflection of so called line of “Cartographic Aggression” in numerous books and atlases as far back as 1965, which include Neville Maxwell’s book India’s China War, Goode’s World Atlas Fifteenth Edition 1978, Times Atlas Of The world 1980 and 1988, Rand McNally Goode’s World Atlas of The World 1992, Oxford Encyclopedic World Atlas of 2000 and the most unbiased account on Kashmir titled Essential Documents and Notes on Kashmir Dispute by P.L. Lakhanlal 1965.

11) Joining two authentic points i.e. Pt NJ 9842 and KKP, duly recorded in international agreements since 1949 and 1963 respectively, over an uninhabited area, through a notional line, which was never claimed to be demarcated or delineated is in fact a “cartographic expression” and not aggression in any sense of the word.

12) Statement of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister of India of 16 Nov 1989 at Kolkatta, caps it all. Mr. A.G. Noorani in its review article states it “tacitly acknowledged breach of Simla Agreement “when Mr.Rajiv said “We have recovered about 5000 square kilometers of area from occupied Kashmir in Siachen area”.




And this list can go on ...... The point is, if India believed that Siachen should fall on east of LoC as per the Karachi Agreement and Simla Agreement, it should have communicated its concerns through proper diplomatic channels (as did Pakistan in Aug 1983) instead of sending in troops and occupying the area militarily, thus altering the situation unilaterally ..



Simla Agreement stated:


"Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation ... "

and

"In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line."



Indian Military leadership admits that they occupied Siachen, Indian PM boasted that India had "recovered" 5000 square km land area from Pakistani occupation in Siachen area .... Yet some Indians insist that no violation of Simla Agreement was committed by India !! ... What they fail to realize is: whether or not Pakistan was "planning" to do the same does NOT absolve India of liability for the violation of Simla Agreement... Moreover, Siachen glacier was under de-facto control of Pakistan anyway ... EVEN IF Pakistan was planning to establish military outposts in an area already under its control, it wouldn't have been a direct violation of the Simla Agreement (even if such outposts were established) ... However, the claim that Pakistan was planning to do so is not fully substantiated. So, this argument brought forward by Indians is flawed on many levels ...

 

[rishav]

pakistanis should watch this video and come out of their fools paradise .

the world is with India

 

[Stag112]

Pakistan not withdrawinng forces, giving away parts to china shamelessly, supporting terrorism and UN designated terrorists, claiming parts like GB as their own also violates UN resolutions.

Just saying.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Chapter SIX resolutions are TISSUE PAPERS

 

[Jackdaws]

Another Day, Another Thread on Kashmir, And as usual clueless Indians blabbering on about things they know nothing about ......



Which Instrument of Accession ??

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.


The Fate of Kashmir
International Law or Lawlessness?
BY VIKAS KAPUR AND VIPIN NARANG
http://web.stanford.edu/group/sjir/3.1.06_kapur-narang.html


----

Excerpts from 'The Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU & KASHMIR ––A REAPPRAISAL'

by Alastair Lamb

THE INDIAN CLAIM TO JAMMU & KASHMIR A REAPPRAISAL

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/autonomy...ipe-for-disaster.440287/page-12#ixzz4FhRGU9hA


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.

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


Voluntary Resolutions ??

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


2) India approached UN under Chapter VI of the UN charter , BUT 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 ...

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) ...

^^ And this is not my personal opinion. That is Rosalyn Higgins' opinion on 'Kashmir Resolutions and under which chapter they were passed' .. Source: 'Higgins, Rosalyn. United Nations Peace Keeping 1946-67: Documents and Commentary. London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1970. (349-51)

(Rosalyn Higgins is an expert on International Law; a Doctor of Juridical Science. She has served as a Judge in the International Court of Justice for fourteen years (and was elected President in 2006). Her competence has been recognised by many academic institutions, having received at least thirteen honorary doctorates)


3) Moreover, there always has been a general inability of the Permanent Five to agree upon imaginative and expansive applications of Chapter VI ... In Somalia, the Security Council deployed the UN's first operation, UNOSOM I, in mid-1992 to separate warring combatants and help delivery of humanitarian relief ....

UNOSOM I entered and operated without invoking Chapter VII

Further Reading: http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/6/1/1305.pdf



The binding nature of these UN resolutions (acknowledgement from India at a government level)



Finally some quotes from Indian officials on Kashmir exemplifying their commitment to plebiscite rather than forced accession as history has found them do :-

We adhere strictly to our pledge of plebiscite in Kashmir – a pledge made to the people because they believe in democratic government …… We don’t regard Kashmir as a commodity to be trafficked in
-Krishna Menon (Press statement in London, reported in the Statesman,
New Delhi, 2nd August, 1951)

The Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible
-Letter from Govt. of India to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, 11th September, 1951

I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken.
-Krishna Menon (Statement at UN Security Council, 24th January, 1957)

The resolutions of January 17, 1948 and the resolutions of the UNICP, the assurances given, these are all resolutions which carry a greater weight – that is because we have accepted them, we are parties to them, whether we like them or not.
-Krishna Menon, (Statement at UN Security Council, 20th February, 1957)

These documents (UNCIP reports) and declarations and the resolutions of the Security Council are decisions; they are resolutions, there has been some resolving of a question of one character or another, there has been a meeting of minds on this question where we have committed ourselves to it.
-Krishna Menon, (Statement at the Security Council, 9th October, 1957)


India believes that sovereignty rests in the people and should return to them.
-Krishna Menon, (The Statesman, Delhi, 19th January, 1962)







The POWs were repatriated under Delhi Agreement (1973/74), the Simla Agreement (1972) had failed to resolve this issue...


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 .....

Firstly, I admire your post. It is rare to come across a post which makes a legal case rather than one which is filled with jingoistic chest thumping.

A few points -

1. According to the Indian Independence Act passed by the British Parliament and agreed upon by the Muslim League and the Congress - ALL Princely State effectively became independent and their rulers were free to remain independent or accede to either of the new dominions. Based on this, a few big Princely states like Kashmir, Hyderabad, Sikkim etc. chose to remain independent. Once your forces/tribal forces invaded an independent state i.e. Kashmir, the ruler of that state was free to exercise his right to accede to either dominion. He chose India; he was well within his rights to do so. Heck, Mr. Jinnah threw the 2 nation theory to the wind and offered better terms of accession to both Princely States - Jodhpur and Jaisalmer than India did. They almost signed but feared a backlash from their majority Hindu populations.


2. Your second point - "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". Correct. But the pre-requisite here is membership. Since Kashmir was not a member of the United Nations, it does not need to register a document with an entity whose membership it was not part of. Switzerland itself became a member of the UN in 2002 only - till then it was not required to register its treaties with the Secretariat. None of the Instruments of Accession signed by over 500 Princely States in both India and Pakistan were ever registered with the Secretariat. Else based on your logic, one can even question the Accession of Kalat in Pakistan.

3. Your next point - "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." The onus to prove that India in anyway threatened the Maharaja will be on the State of Pakistan. India may have refused to intervene to save him but that is not force. He could have approached the US or UK or USSR too - that was entirely upto him.

 

[Dzz]

There is a difference between inadvertent omission of Jammu and Kashmir dispute in a statement by the President of Security Council (While it was duly mentioned in the Annual Report of the Security Council and was also present on its agenda) and the claims made by the Indian Media that "Jammu and Kashmir out of U.N. list of disputes", describing it as "a huge set back for Pakistan" ....

The next day, on November 16, 2010, the UNO had to clarify that Jammu and Kashmir dispute remained on its agenda and rejected such media reports as "inaccurate".

But the Indian Media obviously didn't make it clear to the gullible Indians that it was a 'mistake' (Maybe it was an intentional deception?) and as a result a lot of Indians still believe that Kashmir Dispute has been removed from the UN list of unresolved disputes since 2010 !!








Pakistan had de facto control of Siachen, up to Line NJ 9842-Karakoram Pass (KKP). until reversed by India in blatant violation of Simla Agreement in 1984. Pakistan’s view on this issue is substantiated by the following agreements, statements and events:


1) Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru’s address to the Indian Parliament on 7th May, 1962, acknowledging Pakistan’s de facto control up to KKP, by stating “the defense of which is under the actual control of Pakistan.”

2) The government of India’s protest note of 10th May 1962 to Pakistan, which referred to the area west of KKP as “…presently under Pakistan’s unlawful occupation.” (Muhammad, 1991) in response to communiqué issued about Pakistan China boundary negotiations.

3) Indian Prime Minister Nehru’s address to Parliament of 5th March, 1963, again referring to Pakistan’s actual control of the area by stating. It then reached the Karakoram Pass

4) The refusal of the Chinese to discuss with India the area west of the Karakoram Pass, which separated Baltistan from Indian-controlled Ladakh.

5) The words “thence north to glaciers” in the Karachi Agreement and the actual location of the glaciers in the area i.e. Siachen ,Terram , Northern, Central and Southern Rimo Glaciers and the general direction as well as alignment of the line of control (LOC) leading up to Pt NJ 9842.

6) Delhi’s protest note to China “at this de facto recognition of Pakistan’s control of Hunza and Baltistan” in the wake of Pakistan China Border Agreement (1963)

7) The non delineation or demarcation demand of the LOC beyond PT NJ 9842, after the Tashkent (1966) and Simla Agreements (1972). “Despite India’s strong position, India did not do it.”

8) Authorization of as many as twenty one mountaineering expeditions in the area by Pakistan from 1974-1984. Another testimony is that of Academic Alpine Club of Kyoto expedition to Baltoro Glacier in 1958 and to Siachen Glacier through Bilafond La in 1962 under Professor T.Shidei which included a Pakistani member R.Bashir (Sakai, 2005).

9) Protest notes of Pakistan’s Northern Area Military Headquarters, of August 21, 1983 and August 29, 1983. (Raghavan, 2002) after Indian intrusions in the area.

10) The reflection of so called line of “Cartographic Aggression” in numerous books and atlases as far back as 1965, which include Neville Maxwell’s book India’s China War, Goode’s World Atlas Fifteenth Edition 1978, Times Atlas Of The world 1980 and 1988, Rand McNally Goode’s World Atlas of The World 1992, Oxford Encyclopedic World Atlas of 2000 and the most unbiased account on Kashmir titled Essential Documents and Notes on Kashmir Dispute by P.L. Lakhanlal 1965.

11) Joining two authentic points i.e. Pt NJ 9842 and KKP, duly recorded in international agreements since 1949 and 1963 respectively, over an uninhabited area, through a notional line, which was never claimed to be demarcated or delineated is in fact a “cartographic expression” and not aggression in any sense of the word.

12) Statement of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister of India of 16 Nov 1989 at Kolkatta, caps it all. Mr. A.G. Noorani in its review article states it “tacitly acknowledged breach of Simla Agreement “when Mr.Rajiv said “We have recovered about 5000 square kilometers of area from occupied Kashmir in Siachen area”.




And this list can go on ...... The point is, if India believed that Siachen should fall on east of LoC as per the Karachi Agreement and Simla Agreement, it should have communicated its concerns through proper diplomatic channels (as did Pakistan in Aug 1983) instead of sending in troops and occupying the area militarily, thus altering the situation unilaterally ..



Simla Agreement stated:


"Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation ... "

and

"In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line."



Indian Military leadership admits that they occupied Siachen, Indian PM boasted that India had "recovered" 5000 square km land area from Pakistani occupation in Siachen area .... Yet some Indians insist that no violation of Simla Agreement was committed by India !! ... What they fail to realize is: whether or not Pakistan was "planning" to do the same does NOT absolve India of liability for the violation of Simla Agreement... Moreover, Siachen glacier was under de-facto control of Pakistan anyway ... EVEN IF Pakistan was planning to establish military outposts in an area already under its control, it wouldn't have been a direct violation of the Simla Agreement (even if such outposts were established) ... However, the claim that Pakistan was planning to do so is not fully substantiated. So, this argument brought forward by Indians is flawed on many levels ...

you litraly cop pasted a page from a doc written by your Your brigadier Asad Hakeem





One of the major reasons for this failure has been the absence of a defined boundary between India and Pakistan demarcating the Siachen glacier. The 1972 agreement specified the northern most point of the LoC as the one defined by the cease-fire line of 1949 Karachi Agreement -- NJ 9842. This resulted in differing interpretations by both the countries of its further demarcation northwards. India interprets the extension of the CFL from this point to the North upto another point Indira Col , whereas Pakistan interprets the line to run North East from NJ982 to the Karakoram pass.


http://www.ipcs.org/article/indo-pak/delhi-round-of-indo-pak-talks-i-siachen-153.html



It started when the USA depicted the souchin glacier map within Azad Kashmir when not even Pakistani maps claimed it in during the simla and karachi agreement. It was during this time that the pak stealthy started encroaching siachen and glacier vissa to tourists there.


As with so many long-running conflicts, it began with an undefined border. In the late 1970s, a German mountaineer showed Col Kumar a US-drawn map of northern Kashmir marking the Indian-Pakistan ceasefire line much further to the east than he expected. It appeared the Americans had cartographically ceded a large chunk of the eastern Karakoram to Pakistan, including the Siachen glacier.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-26967340


it was only after the the American maps the pak government went all out lurking and reshaping offical docs



in 1985, Pakistan published the official Atlas of Pakistan – the first such publication in Pakistan – that removed the Giligit Agency from the status of a disputed territory, as it had been hitherto always shown , and gave it an entirely separate standing. It left only Baltistan’s status untouched (on whose eastern edge, Pakistan claims, stands the Siachen glacier) as a disputed territory. But some Indian writers cannot be absolved of the responsibility of adding to this confusion, either. Two books by Indian authors- The Fourth Round: Indo-Pak War in 1984 by Ravi Rikhye and Lt. Gen. KP Candeth’s The Western Front: Indo- Pakistan War in 1971 – had maps, that only strengthened Pakistan’s claim.


http://www.salute.co.in/the-dispute-over-the-siachen-glacier/

^ UNSC depiction of the actual LOC ,siachen glacier is not part of the LOC

 

[M. Sarmad]

Firstly, I admire your post. It is rare to come across a post which makes a legal case rather than one which is filled with jingoistic chest thumping.

A few points -

1. According to the Indian Independence Act passed by the British Parliament and agreed upon by the Muslim League and the Congress - ALL Princely State effectively became independent and their rulers were free to remain independent or accede to either of the new dominions. Based on this, a few big Princely states like Kashmir, Hyderabad, Sikkim etc. chose to remain independent. Once your forces/tribal forces invaded an independent state i.e. Kashmir, the ruler of that state was free to exercise his right to accede to either dominion. He chose India; he was well within his rights to do so. Heck, Mr. Jinnah threw the 2 nation theory to the wind and offered better terms of accession to both Princely States - Jodhpur and Jaisalmer than India did. They almost signed but feared a backlash from their majority Hindu populations.


2. Your second point - "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". Correct. But the pre-requisite here is membership. Since Kashmir was not a member of the United Nations, it does not need to register a document with an entity whose membership it was not part of. Switzerland itself became a member of the UN in 2002 only - till then it was not required to register its treaties with the Secretariat. None of the Instruments of Accession signed by over 500 Princely States in both India and Pakistan were ever registered with the Secretariat. Else based on your logic, one can even question the Accession of Kalat in Pakistan.

3. Your next point - "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." The onus to prove that India in anyway threatened the Maharaja will be on the State of Pakistan. India may have refused to intervene to save him but that is not force. He could have approached the US or UK or USSR too - that was entirely upto him.

Some of the points you have raised are valid but that's not what this discussion is about, and you are ignoring a very simple fact. The case of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir is different from Accession of any of the other (over 500) Princely States. Why ? Because this 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 (including Pakistan as a member nation of UN and as a party). Indian admission into the State is provisional. India has taken over under the UNCIP Resolutions ONLY to assist in establishing a representative provisional administration at Srinagar, to work for creating a conducive atmosphere for holding a free and fair Plebiscite for all the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan as a party to the dispute administers two administrations of the State on its side of cease fire line.


The moment India took this dispute to the UN and the UNSC passed it's first Resolution on Kashmir, Kashmir became an internationally recognized disputed territory under International Law. This dispute is still registered as such and thus remains a pending agenda till it is resolved. So, the question of Accession of J&K (to India or Pakistan) cannot be compared to the accession of any other state (to either dominion).


Now, India claims that "Kashmir is an integral part of India", and that the Accession of Kashmir to India is legal and complete as the Maharaja of Kashmir had signed the "Instrument of Accession" in October 1947.


Does this claim have any "Legal" basis? Answer is NO, it doesn't. For the reasons already mentioned. India can't even file a case or invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations as the original "Document" was reported stolen/lost in 1995, and that Document was never presented to the UN or Pakistan, it's NOT registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations.


Is it (India claiming Kashmir its part) in violation of UNSC Resolutions ? Yes, it is. The UN Security Council Resolutions of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, clearly laid down that "the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite."

you litraly cop pasted a page from a doc written by your Your brigadier Asad Hakeem





One of the major reasons for this failure has been the absence of a defined boundary between India and Pakistan demarcating the Siachen glacier. The 1972 agreement specified the northern most point of the LoC as the one defined by the cease-fire line of 1949 Karachi Agreement -- NJ 9842. This resulted in differing interpretations by both the countries of its further demarcation northwards. India interprets the extension of the CFL from this point to the North upto another point Indira Col , whereas Pakistan interprets the line to run North East from NJ982 to the Karakoram pass.


http://www.ipcs.org/article/indo-pak/delhi-round-of-indo-pak-talks-i-siachen-153.html



It started when the USA depicted the souchin glacier map within Azad Kashmir when not even Pakistani maps claimed it in during the simla and karachi agreement. It was during this time that the pak stealthy started encroaching siachen and glacier vissa to tourists there.


As with so many long-running conflicts, it began with an undefined border. In the late 1970s, a German mountaineer showed Col Kumar a US-drawn map of northern Kashmir marking the Indian-Pakistan ceasefire line much further to the east than he expected. It appeared the Americans had cartographically ceded a large chunk of the eastern Karakoram to Pakistan, including the Siachen glacier.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-26967340


it was only after the the American maps the pak government went all out lurking and reshaping offical docs



in 1985, Pakistan published the official Atlas of Pakistan – the first such publication in Pakistan – that removed the Giligit Agency from the status of a disputed territory, as it had been hitherto always shown , and gave it an entirely separate standing. It left only Baltistan’s status untouched (on whose eastern edge, Pakistan claims, stands the Siachen glacier) as a disputed territory. But some Indian writers cannot be absolved of the responsibility of adding to this confusion, either. Two books by Indian authors- The Fourth Round: Indo-Pak War in 1984 by Ravi Rikhye and Lt. Gen. KP Candeth’s The Western Front: Indo- Pakistan War in 1971 – had maps, that only strengthened Pakistan’s claim.


http://www.salute.co.in/the-dispute-over-the-siachen-glacier/

^ UNSC depiction of the actual LOC ,siachen glacier is not part of the LOC

Yes, I did. As that's (more or less) Pakistan's official position on this matter. And we know that India has its own interpretation and it does not accept Pakistan's position. Now read the point I had made in my post (which you completely ignored):






The point is, if India believed that Siachen should fall on east of LoC as per the Karachi Agreement and Simla Agreement, it should have communicated its concerns through proper diplomatic channels (as did Pakistan in Aug 1983) instead of sending in troops and occupying the area militarily, thus altering the situation unilaterally ..



Simla Agreement stated:


"Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation ... "

and

"In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line."



Indian Military leadership admits that they occupied Siachen, Indian PM boasted that India had "recovered" 5000 square km land area from Pakistani occupation in Siachen area .... Yet some Indians insist that no violation of Simla Agreement was committed by India !! ... And They say that India invaded and occupied Siachen because Pakistan was planning to do the same. What they fail to realize is: whether or not Pakistan was "planning" to do the same does NOT absolve India of liability for the violation of Simla Agreement... Moreover, Siachen glacier was under de-facto control of Pakistan anyway ... EVEN IF Pakistan was planning to establish military outposts in an area already under its control, it wouldn't have been a direct violation of the Simla Agreement (even if such outposts were established) ... However, the claim that Pakistan was planning to do so is not fully substantiated. So, this argument brought forward by Indians is flawed on many levels ...