What's new

India declares Gilgit-Baltistan as its integral part

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually the thing is that to either finance or to build an Infrastructure project in Kashmir, Pakistan often brings a third player like WB, Asian Bank or China to the picture, since it is a disputed territory b/w two nations, you need an NOC from the other party to the dispute.

But in case of Indian Kashmir projects, we finance & build our own projects, so no question of NOC arises on the first place.

Thanks senior.
 
May be comprehensions problem :P. There is a difference between 'I can smell' and 'I smell'
@Jade of course you can smell...We all have a nose :D

A troll feast going on.:P
@Ayush seemed to have died out

544591_260569720744552_346928339_n.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If Pakistan is aggressive on J&K being a dispute, then India too should be aggressive on its claim on P-O-K and GB

Pakistan does that because its part of Pakistan and because of Yr cruelty on Kashmiris people and the people wants to get rid of u and become part of Pakistan.
There is no such claims done by yr gov from start of Its independence nor there is any cruelty done by Pak gov there nor r people's wish there to be yr part.

So yr claim is just bogus and false claim.
 
Pakistan does that because its part of Pakistan and because of Yr cruelty on Kashmiris people and the people wants to get rid of u and become part of Pakistan.
There is no such claims done by yr gov from start of Its independence nor there is any cruelty done by Pak gov there nor r people's wish there to be yr part.

So yr claim is just bogus and false claim.
Actually it is done on both sides, but agreed it is more on our side.
But our claim is legitimate and so is yours according to you.

Peace.
 
Actually it is done on both sides, but agreed it is more on our side.
But our claim is legitimate and so is yours according to you.

Peace.

Just Speaking on Legal Grounds.

Ever heard of Indian Independence Act??

Prior to Independence of both countries, this act was passed.

That Act clearly stated that the Rulers of hundreds of kingdoms in the two Dominions were free to join which ever they choose or remain Independent if they want. There were no wishes of People involved here (I am not saying this but this was what the Act said clearly).

Now, in 1947, Maharaja of Kashmir decided to Join India by signing the Instrument of Accession, very much in the sync to the Act.

Now it's upto you & others to decide whose claim is more legitimate.
 
Just Speaking on Legal Grounds.

Ever heard of Indian Independence Act??

Prior to Independence of both countries, this act was passed.

That Act clearly stated that the Rulers of hundreds of kingdoms in the two Dominions were free to join which ever they choose or remain Independent if they want. There were no wishes of People involved here (I am not saying this but this was what the Act said clearly).

Now, in 1947, Maharaja of Kashmir decided to Join India by signing the Instrument of Accession, very much in the sync to the Act.

Now it's upto you & others to decide whose claim is more legitimate.

mate,what about junagarh and hyderabad?
 
mate,what about junagarh and hyderabad?

:lol:

Actually the minute i had written that Post, i was sure of this point being put, but surprised to see an Indian put it instead of a Pakistani.

Anyways, Both these cases are pretty different than Kashmir. I have three point to counter this argument:

1. India has an Instrument of Accession of Kashmir to show, is there any such Instrument of either Junagarh or Hyderabad by the GOP on the first Place??
2. Unlike Kashmir which was a Border Kingdom of Both India & Pakistan, Junagarh & Hyderabad was surrounded by all the sides by India. If they were to accede to Pakistan, It would have created a Nightmare for Logistics/infrastructure development,etc. & would be detrimental to the benefit of Local Populace which would have sooner or later ended with the same fate as East Pakistan a.k.a Bangladesh.
3. In the case of Hyderabad esp. Indian response was more reactive than active, since the Nizam's regime was seriously abusing the Human Rights & was on a killing spree, would a Democratic Country like India had done nothing & let die lakhs of innocents??
 
Actually it is done on both sides, but agreed it is more on our side.
But our claim is legitimate and so is yours according to you.

Peace.
Its not done in both sides dude other then some isolated issues nothing on regular basis n there is no curfew that i recall in any Area of azad Kashmir and G-B other then when in Gilgit city in 2007 when shia-sunni fassad broke. I see no body wanting to be part of India nor i see we doing a crackdown or curfew for this reason there.
Its actually the most peaceful regions of Pak.
U cant prove it that our Gov has done anything like that.
 
Its not done in both sides dude other then some isolated issues nothing on regular basis n there is no curfew that i recall in any Area of azad Kashmir and G-B other then when in Gilgit city in 2007 when shia-sunni fassad broke. I see no body wanting to be part of India nor i see we doing a crackdown or curfew for this reason there.
Its actually the most peaceful regions of Pak.
U cant prove it that our Gov has done anything like that.
UNHCR | Refworld | "With Friends Like These...": Human Rights Violations in Azad Kashmir

but still,as i said i accept it is more on our side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom