My friend, let me tell you honestly that
@Joe Shearer is much more capable. May be he is tired (it was a tedious debate) that is why he didn't understood properly what I was saying. And his reply was wide of the mark.
You see, you deserve a response befitting your posts, hence, abstaining from a comprehensive response as you require attention, and that needs time, which I don't have right now.
However:
1.
Sir, I appreciate your effort ... But an eye-witness account by an Indian Soldier or something stated by an Indian Official can not be accepted as "evidence" as India itself is a party to the dispute.
What is your issue here? I fail to understand.
(i) You don't accept the Instrument of Accession.
(ii) You don't accept the Sovereign's statement on the said accession.
(iii) You don't accept the accepted and proclaimed leader of the Kashmiris at the time - Sheikh Abdullah's acceptance of the Instrument of Accession. Indeed, you have now taken to denounce him, thereby insulting every Kashmiri of the time, who had full faith and backed him every move during the years leading up to 1947.
(iv) You ignore your own acceptance of the territories south of Manawar as International Boundary between India and Pakistan vide Karachi Agreement of 1949 (copy appended vide
http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IN PK_490729_ Karachi Agreement.pdf).
This area, south of Manawar, is opposite Jammu-Katra-RS Pura-Sambha, all parts of J&K. By signing on the dotted lines that day, you have indeed accepted and recognized the same. So you mean to tell me, you are now backtracking from your agreement as signed by you as a legal sovereign nation? Please clarify that point. Don't side step the issue as you have been doing so far.
Other than the fact that you are sticking to the stand taken by GoP since 1947, I really am yet to see any point of relevance or facts here.
2.
No, what I am saying is that the existence of such an Instrument of Accession has never been Independently Verified and this may have a few legal implications.
By extension of the logic, so is the case of Gilgit, Baluchistan et al. Gilgit was a result of mutiny, show me your plebiscite/referendum.
Now, I am curious as to what is your position on the State of Jammu & Kashmir? Because your statements are contradictory, at times claiming it as an entity and at others, challenging the legal basis of the same as a princely state. Wgat do you think, should we take the whole question of J&K according to regions? If so, why have you refused to state as such in all the resoultions till date? You are merely indulging in a circumlocutory act.
By the ways
@Joe Shearer has aptly pointed out the non-validity of your contentions on the aforementioned points. So, your points have no merit.
However, since you are talking of independently verifying, the same holds for all accessions done on either side, so meaning, should we now question the whole accession on both sides and merely allow China to move in?
My friend, are you Chinese? I could not come across a more ludicrous logic, as stated by you, other than to serve the aims of the Chinese, who have claims to every inch of earth where any one remotely a part of China even urinated! Lately they have included waters, so since their ships dispose off the waste by evacuation into ocean, you may as well hand them the oceans shortly.
3.
Sir, we have discussed this many times before. The UN Resolutions endorsed a binding agreement, and India stalled the original mechanism as it did not agree to any of the demilitarization proposals.
Yikes. Under Chapter VI? Now you are tickling me. Stop
4.
It's not about where he signed it. It's about "what legal authority did he have for signing the agreement when he had practically lost his sovereignty" ?
Under international law, if a dispute arises as to sovereignty over a portion of territory where one party has actually displayed sovereignty, it is not enough for the other party to show territorial sovereignty once existed; it must also be shown that the territorial sovereignty has continued to exist and did exist at the time critical to deciding the dispute." This demonstration consists of the actual display of state activities that may be performed only by a territorial sovereign." "The principle that continuous and peaceful display of the functions of state within a given region is a constituent element of territorial sovereignty is . . .based on . . international jurisprudence and doctrine widely accepted .
H. BRIGGS, THE LAW OF NATIONS 239, 240 (2d ed. 1952) (citing Island of Palmas Case, (U.S. v. Neth.), 2 R. Int'l Arb. Awards 829 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 1928) (dispute over Spain's capability to cede the Island of Palmas to the U.S.))
And what, according to you, is Baltistan ?
In theory, sovereignty reverted to Kashmir, but the Maharaja was never able to make this sovereignty effective in any way. When the Maharaja sent a governor to Gilgit, the Gilgit Scouts imprisoned him and turned the territory over to Pakistan. In light of this fact, it is clear that the Maharaja did not perform the activities of a territorial sovereign in the Gilgit region. As such, the Maharaja had never exercised sovereignty over the region, and could not transfer more rights than he possessed.
H. BRIGGS, supra note 59, at 242.
Interesting. So we occupied valley if we go by your logic so far. So why are you quoting the law which is again antithetical to your own position?
You see, your reading is tremendous, but your posting of facts in bits and pieces is merely a ploy at obfuscation ....
5.
He is already dead. And he was the last officially recognized Khan of Kalat. However, If someone thinks that he has a case, he can go to the International Court of Justice. Good luck with that ..
Now again an antithetical point.
We also say the same. Good luck with that.
Anyways, I am curious, can you point out to me any place where Pakistan has signed a document allowing Kashmiris a right to self determination?
I couldn't find any.
They signed all documents pertaining to question of accession either to India or Pakistan. And the dumb buggers in valley have no clue that they are up a creek of excreta without a paddle.
Yet I find Pakistanis here championing their right to independence .....
@PaklovesTurkiye your comment on last two lines?
@hellfire So, that's it ? trying to team up now ? No more arguments ?
Literally begging for support from the Indian Members ?
@Joe Shearer
Nah. Am on (s)troll mode. Got a bugger of an exam on 30 Sep (and should be off line now
). Recertification. So avoiding engaging you.
He is enough. I am merely enjoying his wordplay. Amazing. Even his critics respect that!!! LOL
As for the underlined, we both are supposedly "imperfect" Indians, I getting bracketed with
@Joe Shearer for talking of peace as opposed to war.
So, aim is to guide the disbelievers (they actually think
@Joe Shearer is paid agent of Pakistan!!!) who would rather have us go down a war path as opposed to peace.
