@Azlan Haider #259 agreed with. Was so documented.
@OrionHunter But his comment #254 point (a) - utter nonsense. The withdrawal of the tribesmen and other combatants not normally resident was the key ... subsequent to which India was to draw down the troops You need to point it to him emphatically.
rest of the points will deal with in brevity:
when he quotes resolution 98, I quote Simla Agreement where it becomes a bilateral agreement, the luxury of discussing the case in hindsight as afforded.
Like I have previously said on three instances so far to Pakistani members here:
'you unilaterally surrender your national interests' similarly, they have the propensity to not meet any single obligation as due them starting whereof Resolution 38 onwards, instead they are justifying by quoting subsequent resolutions.
1. The plebiscite 'requirement' was an Indian requirement while signing the Instrument of Accession. It was Indian condition for acceptance of the same.
2. If they question the legality of Instrument of Accession, they do so at peril of question of their own locus standii as the instrument was in compliance with the Act under which all such instruments were to be entered into and also the same gave the legal basis for Pakistan. So we can start now questioning Pakistan itself and give immense pleasure to nut jobs of 'akhand bharat'.
3. If, on basis of point 1 above, say that plebiscite was a mandatory requirement, then ask for the details of plebiscite on their side when the Principalities in Gilgit-Baltistan acceded to them as also the plebiscite when over the objections of Mir of Hunza they simply handed over Shasgam Valley and today instead lie claiming gain of territory.
4. And if he points to volte-face by India on issue of plebiscite please post him the history of accession of Baluchistan, wherein the Principality of Kalat was to remain as an independent autonomic principality somewhat akin to J&K in terms of settlement between the Khan of Kalat and Pakistani Dominion. However, MA Jinnah had a change of heart and the same was subsequently absorbed into Pakistan (and a minor scirmish to oppose it took place between a lashkar led by Khan's younger brother and PA in the aftermath).
I admit you have your research and I don't doubt your intentions too. I am sorry to say it but your research is biased and you are blinded by your nationalistic ego. I would commend your effort though for leaving your prior position of denial. It is a step in the right direction but an internet connection and a computer will take you only that far.
How about considerable time in Kashmir valley in streets of Srinagar, Baramulla, Lolab, Bandipore etc? Does it hold any value?
When a Pakistani sitting on a computer, tells me that the issue in Kashmir valley is - that it wants to join Pakistan, that is where your above statement comes in.
I am never in denial ..(which denial by the ways? Can you elaborate?) but when you post facts as they stand and not your perception/appreciation of it from your point of view.
I am only discussing the historical mistakes on all sides. The biggest mistake was the Kashmiris themselves. They kept changing their stance from independence-accession to India-accession to Pakistan-independence. When such a stand exists, they were doomed to failure as is evident today.
I was trying to move to present day situation and how one can resolve it after clearing up the past and laying facts as they stood. Asked people to contribute minus the nationalism. But can anyone avoid it? So when I laugh at Pakistani members and scoff their ill informed posts, you get to tag me as a nationalist. Yes that I am and am sure you are also, indeed as it should be. But, my dear sir, when I say the Accession is legal, it is on the basis of logic of Indian Instrument of Accession and conditions as described in Para 3 subclause a. Whereas my Pakistani friends get stuck on mere rants and one liners of illegality. Also they fail to explain the said illegality while being validated by the aforementioned Act not being extended to Pakistan itself, whose own legality and that of its territories is legalized under the same clause?
Am surprised that I come out as nationalist, have been called not so perfect Indian a few days back. Post your rebuttals in a chronological manner with overall picture and not segmental and specific arbitrary portions of the issue.
