Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[mujahideen]

It may interest you to know that the Nizam signed the Instrument of Accession to India.
Junagad's signing the Instrument of Accession to Pakistan is news to me and Goggling has thrown up no indication that such an Instrument was signed.

Looks like both of our informations are wrong. So where do we go from here. Continue to repeat the same thing or do something about it. Continue to fight. Continue to use the same old arguments over and over again. What is done is done, now how do we fix the mess, we have made?

 

[Neo]

Mujahideen,

Could you please support your Junagarh claim by official documentation?
Its new to me aswell and I'm curious to to hear your findings.

Thanks

 

[UnitedPak]

- Letter of Accession

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), based in Geneva, recently passed a resolution proclaiming Kashmir's accession to India as null and void.

IHRC - Briefing: The Killing in Kashmir and the Terrorism Act 2000

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.

SJIR: The Fate of Kashmir : International Law or Lawlessness?

Alastair Lamb (in his book, Kashmir - A disputed legacy 1846-1990) points out that the Instrument of Accession could not have been signed by the Mahrajah on 26th October as he was travelling by road to Jammu (a distance of over 350 Km). There is no evidence to suggest that a meeting or communication of any kind took place on 26th October 1947. In fact it was on 27th October 1947 that the Mahrajah was informed by his MC Mahajan and VP Menon (who had flown into Srinagar), the the Instrument of Accession had already been negotiated in Dehli. The Mahrajah did not in fact sign the Instrument of Accession, if at all, until 27th October 1947. This sheds doubts on the actions of the Indian regime.

India's False Claim on Kashmir

Its a well known fact, the Maharaja of J&K was barely in control of the state. At best, he was in control of Jammu and Ladakh. (Link) So signing the Letter of Accession on behalf of the state that he barely controls is not recognized.

Finally, there is some doubt as to whether the treaty was ever signed. 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. While this does not void the treaty, it does mean that India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.

SJIR: The Fate of Kashmir : International Law or Lawlessness?

In his broadcast to the nation over All India Radio on 2nd November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said, "We are anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide ------ And let me make it clear that it has been our policy that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that state. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir".

http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/misc/pledges.htm

Another blow to the Letter of Accession theory. So actually letter of accession validates Pakistan's stand that the people should be left to decide their fate.

Therefore, letter of accession is lost, if not lost, null (declared by ICJ, UN Resolutions and PM Jawaharlal Nehru), if not null, void by the very people its supposed to serve. Even if its not void, the provision of the letter of accession lets the people of J&K decide their fate (according to PM Jawaharlal Nehru).

- UN Resolutions

Before I discuss this, common sense says, both parties need to firstly, admit that they bind by the resolutions and are willing to implement it. Pakistan, wants a UN sponsored plebiscite. India does not, as yet. So there is violation by India in the first step itself.

- Acceptance of UN resolutions on J&K by India & Pakistan
- Implementation on the modalities of resolutions by India & Pakistan

The London Economist stated that "the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [the Kashmiri people]...has been obstructing a holding of an internationally supervised plebis-cite."32

http://parep.org.sg/dangerinkashmir/unreps.htm

Sir Owen Dixon, the United Nations Representative to the UNCIP, reported to the Security Council that,

In the end, I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled.

SJIR: The Fate of Kashmir : International Law or Lawlessness?

This is the opinion of top UN officials on how serious is India in implementing UN resolutions.

Once India, agrees to adopt UN resolutions on J&K, Pakistan will remove its troops, while India needs to do the same.

Please look up, the beginning of the UN Resolution 38 (1948) adopted by the Security Council at its 229th Meeting held on 17 January 1948.

RESOLUTION 39 (1948) SUBMITTED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF BELGIUM AND ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL AT ITS 230TH MEETING HELD ON 20 JANUARY, 1948. (DOCUMENT NO. S/654, DATED THE 20TH JANUARY, 1948)

A. A Commission of the Security Council is hereby established, composed of representatives of three Members of the United Nations, one to be selected by India, one to be selected by Pakistan, and the third to be designated by the two so selected.Each representative on the Commission shall be entitled to select his alternates and assistants.

http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc20jan48.htm

Here is the second resolution in J&K, as the first resolution contains nothing worthwhile. Has India adopted that resolution? This is just the first clause. There's no point getting to a second clause when the first one is not agreed to.

To sum it up:

In his telegram to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Indian Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said, "I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the state to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or state must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view". (Telegram 402 Primin-2227 dated 27th October, 1947 to PM of Pakistan repeating telegram addressed to PM of UK).

http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/misc/pledges.htm

 

[dabong1]

Some sort of reply back to UnitedPak post would be good salim.....the indian side of the argument.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Alastair Lamb is a well know India baiter.

Further, it is juvenile to claim that A or B Maharaja had barely any control of the State.

It is like saying the Federal Govt of Pakistan has no control over FATA and NWFP and so it is not a part of Pakistan!!

If one has to go by anything, then it is the UNSC Resolution!

Read that!!

 

[Flintlock]

Its disputed territory tat has divided a people - there needs to be a resolution to this dispute, You can't pretend it doesn't exist.

The same can be said about Punjab, Bengal, Balochistan, and FATA as well.

They are all single-ethnicity territories divided up among 2 nation states.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The same can be said about Punjab, Bengal, Balochistan, and FATA as well.

They are all single-ethnicity territories divided up among 2 nation states.

None of those examples fits the situation of kashmir.

Indian Punjab had its separatist movement, but it was based on grounds that Pakistani Punjab had nothing to do with - in essence Indian Punjab and Bengal are for all intents and purposes not the same provinces anymore. I feel no kinship with Sikhs I meet - I feel a lot more Kinship with Pakistani Muhajir and Pakistani Pashtun. Islam has essentially created its own unique identity.

The people of Balochistan and NWFP both willingly joined the Pakistani Federation - and I pointed this out earlier, that the dynamics behind the alienation amongst the average person (not the Sardars) are due to lack of development and too much central control.

Kashmir is disputed between two nations, it is divided between two nations (during the lifetime of the dispute, which forms a powerful narrative for the people).

Kashmiris were never given the chance to decide which nation they would be a part of. The solution endorsed by an independent and neutral body of great repute, the UNSC, and endorsed by Pakistan (and India at the time) is of letting the Kashmiris determine their own fate (this validates the separatist sentiment, since India denies this right that she endorsed herself).

You cannot ignore the dynamics behind the issues, and just make comparisons.

 

[Flintlock]

None of those examples fits the situation of kashmir.

Indian Punjab had its separatist movement, but it was based on grounds that Pakistani Punjab had nothing to do with - in essence Indian Punjab and Bengal are for all intents and purposes not the same provinces anymore. I feel no kinship with Sikhs I meet - I feel a lot more Kinship with Pakistani Muhajir and Pakistani Pashtun. Islam has essentially created its own unique identity.

The people of Balochistan and NWFP both willingly joined the Pakistani Federation - and I pointed this out earlier, that the dynamics behind the alienation amongst the average person (not the Sardars) are due to lack of development and too much central control.

Kashmir is disputed between two nations, it is divided between two nations (during the lifetime of the dispute, which forms a powerful narrative for the people).

Then how do you explain:

Separatist movements in Balochistan

The fact that the Durand Line is virtually non-existent for the people on either side of the border.

The fact that Karzai recently said that the Durand line is invalid.


I say, Pakistan can easily put the Kashmir issue to rest if it wants to. If Pakistan stops its propaganda/ moral support campaign, the separatist movement will die down.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Neither do I....but this isn't about UN resolutions.

I vividly remember watching the "Jugular vein" speech by ZA Bhutto, which is why I don't buy the idea that Pakistan has always supported Kashmiri freedom.

The question of UN resolutions and what they advocated as a solution, has direct implications for what its policy has been.

If the UN resolutions early on recommended a plebiscite, and Pakistan agreed, then that indicates that for all intents and purposes, Pakistan has always supported the "moral solution".

I am unsure why references to a "jugular vein" by any leader until such time as there is peace between the two nations, should surprise you.

As I said before, the "jugular vein" argument exists because there is hostility between India and Pakistan - there is hostility between India and Pakistan because of kashmir - if Kashmir is resolved, so is the hostility - if there is no hostility, there is no need for a "jugular vein" argument.


Oh and wait...you forgot a technicality:

"Azad Kashmir" is only a tiny part of the Pakistani region. The other huge part, called Northern Areas is directly under Pakistani rule.

Also there's the Trans-Karakoram tract, which Pakistan has gifted to China, further weakning its moral standing.

In terms of how it affected people, we did not lose our moral standing, since the estimates I have come across indicate that the population in Aksai Chin was less than 10,000.

The other part "Gilgit-Baltistan", considered ethnically distinct from Kashmir, and here is what they have to say:

Provincial status sought for Gilgit, Baltistan​

By A Reporter

RAWALPINDI, April 30: The government should declare Gilgit-Baltistan the fifth province and announce holding of fresh and transparent elections for the Northern Areas Legislative Assembly and the local bodies.

Historically, geographically and politically, Gilgit-Baltistan deserves to be a province. The people of the region should have the right to send their representatives to the National Assembly and Senate of Pakistan, of which they have been deprived for the last 60 years, said speakers at a seminar organised by the Balawaristan National Students Organisation here.

Pakistan People’s Party leader Naheed Khan, nationalist leader Mirza Wajahat Hassan, secretary-general All Parties National Alliance Arif Shahid, Prof MARK Khaleeq, leader Balawaristan National Front Shujaat Ali Khan, Dr Sharif Astori, Amir Taimoor Aazam, Zafar Iqbal and student leader Zakir Hussain were among those who spoke on the occasion.

They urged the government to provide the basic human and constitutional rights to the people of the region immediately. The 18,000 square-kilometer area, with a population of two million, could not be left out of the national mainstream any longer, because it was against the solidarity of the country, they said.
Provincial status sought for Gilgit, Baltistan -DAWN - National; May 01, 2008

Maybe you are right...the Kashmiri separatists perhaps consider Pakistan the more favourable party....but that is only because of religion. Not because of any ground realities.

Theoretically one could argue that many small states should just offer to become part of the US - after all, think of the economic benefits that would accrue - but that is not happens, because peoples desire to determine their own identity and destiny.

Therefore whether or not the people in AK are more prosperous than those in IAK has little to do with how people view their identity.

That is perhaps the perception in the kashmir valley. But I believe that is mainly due to the rise of religious extremism, and the pathetic and unsafe conditions in the valley.

I think if Kashmiris are allowed a period of peace and development, they will change their minds.

So long as the Kashmiris of AK want to maintain the role of the Pakistani State in defense, the perception will always be, among Kashmiris, that Pakistan stands for freedom of the Kashmiris. So long as the identity of the Kashmiris is estranged from the idea of "Indian" (which it will through the presence of a "free Kashmir" in Pakistan, and the fact that they were never given the right, established by the UNSC, to determine their identity), no number of Jobs will change how kashmiris view their identity.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Then how do you explain:

Separatist movements in Balochistan

The fact that the Durand Line is virtually non-existent for the people on either side of the border.

The fact that Karzai recently said that the Durand line is invalid.


I say, Pakistan can easily put the Kashmir issue to rest if it wants to. If Pakistan stops its propaganda/ moral support campaign, the separatist movement will die down.

Stealth - I already explained the reasons behind the Balochistan movement, and the differences between that and Kashmir.

In Balochistan the ideological cause, of an independent Baloch Nation, is a secondary one - there was a referendum and Baloch Sardar consultations prior to its joining the Pakistani Federation. The primary cause is the lack of development and the perception of "Punjabi domination".

The primary cause can therefore be addressed using the methods being utilized by India in Kashmir, and now by Pakistan in Balochistan.

The problem for Karzai is that there really isn't a separatist movement worth its salt in the NWFP or FATA (not to join Afghanistan anyway). The most popular Pashtun nationalist party, the ANP, declared that it would struggle for providing equal rights to all the provinces and remain part of the Pakistani Federation.

Again, the primary cause for gripe is the lack of development and the perception of "Punjabi domination", and the people of the NWFP also voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to join Pakistan.

There are indeed some in Afghanistan who want a greater Afghanistan, but the sentiment itself is not supported in Pakistan, and the people they want to join Afghanistan voted themselves to join Pakistan.

So in both those cases your comparison with Kashmir is flawed, for a variety of reasons.

 

[Flintlock]

The question of UN resolutions and what they advocated as a solution, has direct implications for what its policy has been.

If the UN resolutions early on recommended a plebiscite, and Pakistan agreed, then that indicates that for all intents and purposes, Pakistan has always supported the "moral solution".

I am unsure why references to a "jugular vein" by any leader until such time as there is peace between the two nations, should surprise you.

As I said before, the "jugular vein" argument exists because there is hostility between India and Pakistan - there is hostility between India and Pakistan because of kashmir - if Kashmir is resolved, so is the hostility - if there is no hostility, there is no need for a "jugular vein" argument.

Pakistan has periodically said that it supports the moral solution, while its actions have been anything but more. However, that's besides the point.

Assuming that Pakistan is willing to let go of the strategic advantage offered by occupying Kashmir, and also the fact that Kashmir probably makes up more than 10% of its territory, will Pakistan be willing to engage China in resolving the dispute regarding the areas under its occupation?

In terms of how it affected people, we did not lose our moral standing, since the estimates I have come across indicate that the population in Aksai Chin was less than 10,000.

The other part "Gilgit-Baltistan", considered ethnically distinct from Kashmir, and here is what they have to say:

That is a good move. So now with Northern Areas as a province of Pakistan, the validity of the LOC has inched one more step towards validity as the border.

As a side note, do the people of NA even want to be a part of Pakistan?

Theoretically one could argue that many small states should just offer to become part of the US - after all, think of the economic benefits that would accrue - but that is not happens, because peoples desire to determine their own identity and destiny.

That's absurd. The US is on the other side of the planet. It can't effectively administer any territory here.
Moreover, the cultural difference is too great.

Also, if Pakistan is being so idealistic on the Kashmir issue, why not display the same idealism in dealing with its own separatist movements?

Therefore whether or not the people in AK are more prosperous than those in IAK has little to do with how people view their identity.

I would argue that the prosperity and freedom of Indian Kashmiris is far more important than where their loyalties lie at the moment.
If they are happy as Indian citizens, their loyalties will change.

[/QUOTE]
So long as the Kashmiris of AK want to maintain the role of the Pakistani State in defense, the perception will always be, among Kashmiris, that Pakistan stands for freedom of the Kashmiris. So long as the identity of the Kashmiris is estranged from the idea of "Indian" (which it will through the presence of a "free Kashmir" in Pakistan, and the fact that they were never given the right, established by the UNSC, to determine their identity), no number of Jobs will change how kashmiris view their identity.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

I say that if Pakistan will stop its propaganda/moral support campaign in Kashmir, the problem will resolve itself.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Indian Punjab had its separatist movement, but it was based on grounds that Pakistani Punjab had nothing to do with - in essence Indian Punjab and Bengal are for all intents and purposes not the same provinces anymore. I feel no kinship with Sikhs I meet - I feel a lot more Kinship with Pakistani Muhajir and Pakistani Pashtun. Islam has essentially created its own unique identity.

couldn't have said it any better myself. Believe me when I say, we have found no similarities between my family and hindus even in UP state. Of course, I am a descendent from arab migrants.

as for your balochistan issue, well, here you go...

YLRG9vvdc8o[/media] - New Era of Pakistan province Baluchistan
(P.S. notice the map)

 

[Flintlock]

Stealth - I already explained the reasons behind the Balochistan movement, and the differences between that and Kashmir.

In Balochistan the ideological cause, of an independent Baloch Nation, is a secondary one - there was a referendum and Baloch Sardar consultations prior to its joining the Pakistani Federation. The primary cause is the lack of development and the perception of "Punjabi domination".

I'll get back to that. Let me learn more about the issue.

The problem for Karzai is that there really isn't a separatist movement worth its salt in the NWFP or FATA (not to join Afghanistan anyway). The most popular Pashtun nationalist party, the ANP, declared that it would struggle for providing equal rights to all the provinces and remain part of the Pakistani Federation.

Dude, these areas aren't even under the control of the Pakistan govt. They have never been...they are lawless areas where tribal laws reign supreme.

I think that itself shows how much a part of Pakistan these people want to be.

The only difference between these areas and Kashmir is that Kashmir has got a hostile country creating problems, and the state is more or less non-existent. Oh, and the Kashmiris are far more peaceable.

There are indeed some in Afghanistan who want a greater Afghanistan, but the sentiment itself is not supported in Pakistan, and the people they want to join Afghanistan voted themselves to join Pakistan.

Current situation doesn't exactly validate that...

 

[EagleEyes]

Dude, these areas aren't even under the control of the Pakistan govt. They have never been...they are lawless areas where tribal laws reign supreme.

I think that itself shows how much a part of Pakistan these people want to be.

The only difference between these areas and Kashmir is that Kashmir has got a hostile country creating problems, and the state is more or less non-existent. Oh, and the Kashmiris are far more peaceable.

Dude, i read your first line and it tells me how much you know about the situation in Balochistan (yes please do read non-separatists based websites once in a while ) Pakistani government has full control over Balochistan.

 

[Flintlock]

Dude, i read your first line and it tells me how much you know about the situation in Balochistan (yes please do read non-separatists based websites once in a while ) Pakistani government has full control over Balochistan.

I'm not talking about Balochistan