Kashmir is disputed territory, not part of India: Pakistan tells UN

[Tiki Tam Tam]

A part of Hunza-Gilgit called Raskam and the Shaksgam Valley of Baltistan region, was ceded by Pakistan to the People's Republic of China in 1963 pending settlement of the dispute over Kashmir.

This indicates how much Pakistan really cares for the issue of Kashmir!

One does not hand over one's own territory for generosity's sake or does one?

One can sure hand over things willing what is not one's!

 

[UnitedPak]

You are totally beside the point.

The importance of Kashmir to India isn't about "more land". Its about maintaining the integrity of India as envisaged by our founders, and ensuring that the union of disparate peoples remains united.

"Our founders" were very specific about Muslim majority states going to Pakistan and Hindu majority states going to India.

Kashmir was one of the highest muslim majority states on the subcontinent, then what happened?

You cant even play that card.

India only cares about land. How many people died in the Indo-China war? All for the sake of land I suppose.
Pakistan is in this for the people of Kashmir.

Once again, I think it would be acceptable for India to keep Jammu (its hindu majority as I understand), but Kashmir belongs to Pakistan. It did from the very start. Thats what the "K" in Pakistan stands for.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Aksai Chin was historically part of the Tibetan Himalayan Kingdom of Ladakh until Ladakh was annexed from the rule of the Namgyal dynasty by the Dogras and the princely state of Kashmir in the 19th century. It was subsequently absorbed into British India by the 1904 treaty between Tibet and British India which led to the McMahon Line demarcation agreed to by Tibet and India in the early decades of 20th century. China, which at that time did not recognize Tibet's Sovereignty but rather considered Xizang (Tibet) to be part of China, did not accept the agreement reached between Tibet and British India.

For a newly independent country, with no industry, resources, and an extremely hostile, much larger and better equipped neighbor, the decision to cede territory that historically had no links (and with a population estimated to be under 10,000), other than "occupation" by the Dogra's, was a pragmatic and sensible thing to do.

Nonetheless, as the topic indicates, Pakistan has basically indicated that in the absence of any flexibility from India, the UN resolutions remain on the table, so lets be done with that part of the argument anyways - beggars, princes and other riffraff can ride unicorns for all I care - probably will have to before the "integral part" ever comes to pass.

 

[Flintlock]

"Our founders" were very specific about Muslim majority states going to Pakistan and Hindu majority states going to India.

...and that all the princely states were to be given option to join either country!!

Kashmir joined India.
Britain has confirmed that the accession was perfectly legal!!

What else do you need?

Once again, I think it would be acceptable for India to keep Jammu (its hindu majority as I understand), but Kashmir belongs to Pakistan. It did from the very start. Thats what the "K" in Pakistan stands for.

Ah....totally useless choice.

Dividing land on the basis of religion is against the core principles of India.

Pakistan's founders demanded to be given land so India agreed....for the last time.

Sorry, but Indian land will not be split on the basis of religion again!

 

[Sena Lee]

You are Sinosphere from from Irandef right? nice to see you here.

You must also be a member on IDF, whats your name on IDF?

 

[bhangra12345]

"Our founders" were very specific about Muslim majority states going to Pakistan and Hindu majority states going to India.

Your founders might have, not my countries leaders. Dont try to hoist your countries founders aspirations as the aspirations of my countries leaders.

Kashmir was one of the highest muslim majority states on the subcontinent, then what happened?

It was not a state under direct "british india". It was a princely state- huge difference and hence did not come under radcliffe's award. So no similarity

You cant even play that card.

which card? am i missing something?

India only cares about land. How many people died in the Indo-China war? All for the sake of land I suppose.

My soldiers are ready to fight for my motherland and they have some high values and traditions.

Nope, bringing Pakistan here would amount to a flame-bait. so no comment

Pakistan is in this for the people of Kashmir.

and when did the people of kashmir agree to gift their land to china by Pakistan? Did they conduct any 99% rigged elections(in the future I propose to call them Mushy's elections)?

Giving away the kashmiri people's land as a gift to china without even fighting for it? and then talking about being in here for the same people. Man, I do love surprises.

Once again, I think it would be acceptable for India to keep Jammu (its hindu majority as I understand), but Kashmir belongs to Pakistan. It did from the very start. Thats what the "K" in Pakistan stands for.

When did what YOU think become acceptable for India?

Wait a minute, if a create some acronym for India with USA/ china/Pakistan in it, will they become part of India? Seriously was that even something one should consider?

 

[bhangra12345]

For a newly independent country, with no industry, resources, and an extremely hostile, much larger and better equipped neighbor, the decision to cede territory that historically had no links (and with a population estimated to be under 10,000), other than "occupation" by the Dogra's, was a pragmatic and sensible thing to do.

So wasnt India a newly independent country? Did it gift any of its lands away to anyone? Hell, we overthrew the portuguese in goa forcibly, against all the western countries opinion and threats, because it is our land. But the most important point you miss is, you have given away not Pakistan's land, but kashmiri's (for me it is Indian) land, without even having the dare to put up even a token fight and then come back tell with a straight face, that all you care about is of kashmiris? You gave away kashmiri land for some token cash and small strategic gains and you say ..... well whatever.

Nonetheless, as the topic indicates, Pakistan has basically indicated that in the absence of any flexibility from India, the UN resolutions remain on the table, so lets be done with that part of the argument anyways - beggars, princes and other riffraff can ride unicorns for all I care - probably will have to before the "integral part" ever comes to pass.

Basically have party

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

...and that all the princely states were to be given option to join either country!!

Kashmir joined India.
Britain has confirmed that the accession was perfectly legal!!

What else do you need?

If the credence and legality of the accession was so indisputable, why did the UN not choose to base its arbitration upon that?

Instead we have resolutions calling for a decision on the final status based upon the wishes of the people of the state - as it should be, oh resident of "The worlds largest democracy" - or would you have preferred the British sell India off to the highest bidder, or whichever country took their fancy?

Ah....totally useless choice.

Dividing land on the basis of religion is against the core principles of India.

Pakistan's founders demanded to be given land so India agreed.

India didn't agree to squat - if you want to take it to that level, India didn't even exist as a country until after Pakistan. The British were the ones in charge, and if anyone "agreed" it was them. So please refrain from your colonialist and superiority ridden comments.

Also, to each their own, as much as I am against religion in state affairs, it is the choice of a people to determine what system they desire.

Sorry, but Indian land will not be split on the basis of religion again!

Good for India!

But of course we are talking about land that is disputed territory, not Indian territory, per almost every country and organization in the world.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So wasnt India a newly independent country? Did it gift any of its lands away to anyone? Hell, we overthrew the portuguese in goa forcibly, against all the western countries opinion and threats, because it is our land. But the most important point you miss is, you have given away not Pakistan's land, but kashmiri's (for me it is Indian) land, without even having the dare to put up even a token fight and then come back tell with a straight face, that all you care about is of kashmiris? You gave away kashmiri land for some token cash and small strategic gains and you say ..... well whatever.

India was a newly independent country,and you conveniently ignored the rest of the comments elucidating Pakistan's position, economically and militarily, with respect to India. Pakistan had its own compulsions, and India its own.

Typing "kashmiri land" a dozen times does not make it so. The linkage of Aksai Chen, as posted before, was more with China than Kashmir - a rightful return of land from the clutches of the marauding Dogra's I say.

Basically have party

Better keep the wine in the aging barrels - its going to be a while before the unicorns show, non animated of course.

 

[Flintlock]

If the credence and legality of the accession was so indisputable, why did the UN not choose to base its arbitration upon that?

Instead we have resolutions calling for a decision on the final status based upon the wishes of the people of the state - as it should be, oh resident of "The worlds largest democracy" - or would you have preferred the British sell India off to the highest bidder, or whichever country took their fancy?

...because its the UN...its wants to keep its decision as neutral as possible, irrespective of who's right and who's wrong.

India didn't agree to squat - if you want to take it to that level, India didn't even exist as a country until after Pakistan. The British were the ones in charge, and if anyone "agreed" it was them. So please refrain from your colonialist and superiority ridden comments.

Indian congress leaders agreed to split India very reluctantly, if you realize.

The British were no longer in charge. They were wrapping up and leaving.

There is nothing colonialist about my comments:

India, before the idea of Pakistan was created, was envisioned by all Indian leaders, Muslims, HIndus and Sikhs as a secular republic.

India isn't some foreign country that is occupying land. Every Indian has an equal stake in the country and is treated equally. This goes against the basic principle of colonialism.

Also, to each their own, as much as I am against religion in state affairs, it is the choice of a people to determine what system they desire.

I'm afraid that sometimes the right leadership is needed to show the correct path.

Good for India!

But of course we are talking about land that is disputed territory, not Indian territory, per almost every country and organization in the world.

Yes, because once again, the world doesn't want to take sides.

However, for all historical, geographical, cultural reasons, Kashmir is part of India. India's first PM was a kashmiri, and Kashmiris have played an important role in throughout the history of India, ancient and modern.

 

[bhangra12345]

For a newly independent country, with no industry, resources, and an extremely hostile, much larger and better equipped neighbor, the decision to cede territory that historically had no links (and with a population estimated to be under 10,000), other than "occupation" by the Dogra's, was a pragmatic and sensible thing to do.

You gave the statement Pakistan vis-a-vis India.
Now read the statement India vis-a-vis china, was the situation any much different? You decide for yourselves.

Aksai chin had similar population as aksai chen, but the response was different. Dont you think

Better keep the wine in the aging barrels - its going to be a while before the unicorns show, non animated of course.

Nah! the wine is of perfect age and has to be immediately consumed burp!!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

...because its the UN...its wants to keep its decision as neutral as possible, irrespective of who's right and who's wrong.

Yes, because once again, the world doesn't want to take sides.

Oh please - If you are going to pass that puerile tripe off as an argument then we are done here.

What does "neutrality" in international arbitration, or any arbitration for that matter, mean?

Was "world pressure" over Kargil "neutral"?

Let me know when you have a rebuttal based on reason and facts.

Indian congress leaders agreed to split India very reluctantly, if you realize.

The British were no longer in charge. They were wrapping up and leaving.

There is nothing colonialist about my comments:

India, before the idea of Pakistan was created, was envisioned by all Indian leaders, Muslims, HIndus and Sikhs as a secular republic.

India isn't some foreign country that is occupying land. Every Indian has an equal stake in the country and is treated equally. This goes against the basic principle of colonialism.

The Congress leadership had no choice, the Muslims had spoken. It was our choice to carve out our own nation from the colony that the British were leaving, as it was yours to carve out a nation called India.

There was an "agreement between" the British, Pro Pakistan leadership and the Congress, on the status and nature of the colony after they left - that status was to be the division of the colony into two countries. India never existed as a nation before 1947, as you so rightly pointed out, it was but an idea, as was Pakistan. How long the idea existed before fulfillment is irrelevant - that other ideas came around and proved just as strong is not.

To suggest that "India agreed", indicates a desire, to me, of trying to present an impression of "control" over Pakistan's very existence, as if you gave charity - that is offensive. "India" could not agree to anything, since "India" did not exist at that point.

I'm afraid that sometimes the right leadership is needed to show the correct path.

That is for each nation and its people to decide - The alternative is to live through "wars to spread democracy and freedom" in perpetuity.

However, for all historical, geographical, cultural reasons, Kashmir is part of India. India's first PM was a kashmiri, and Kashmiris have played an important role in throughout the history of India, ancient and modern.

Yeah, i wonder why that argument didn't work at the UN.

You might as well claim Pakistan as well - Liaquat Ali Khan was born in the area now called India, as was Musharraf, not to mentions the millions of immigrants from the area that now comprises India.

The two countries, India and Pakistan, were created out of the same colony, an argument based on "culture, history and geography" is one that Pakistan can make just as forcibly. There never was a unified entity before the British, so "India" can claim "historical ties" only as much as Pakistan can.

The only deciding factor left is the expression of the kashmiris wishes about which country they wish to join.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You gave the statement Pakistan vis-a-vis India.
Now read the statement India vis-a-vis china, was the situation any much different? You decide for yourselves.

Aksai chin had similar population as aksai chen, but the response was different. Dont you think

Nah! the wine is of perfect age and has to be immediately consumed burp!!

Hey if you guys wanted to pick fights with everyone in the neighborhood, that was your choice.

From my perspective, the case for Aksai Chen historically being a part of Tibetan territory was strong, it was barren, unpopulated land, and giving it to China created goodwill with an immensely powerful neighbor.

Once again, different compulsions and interests for both sides.

 

[Sena Lee]

From my perspective, the case for Aksai Chen historically being a part of Tibetan territory was strong, it was barren, unpopulated land, and giving it to China created goodwill with an immensely powerful neighbor.

Once again, different compulsions and interests for both sides.

China would not forget the good things Pakistan has done for China.

China appreciates Pakistan's friendship and ally.

China would assist Pakistan whenever possible.

 

[ejaz007]

If maharaja had signed instrument of accession and it was legal than why India took the matter to UN and agreed on plebiscite? Nehru himself on a number of occasions promised people of Kashmir that they would be allowed to decide their own future.

If land cannot be divided on the basis of religion than why India invaded Hyderabad on September 13, 1948. Hyderabad state had decided not to join India or Pakistan and till 1948 was ruled by Nawab of Hyderabad. The Indians invaded on the pretext that the people wanted to join India. Why doesn’t that rule apply here?