Pakistan: Armed attack targeting vehicles of Chinese company underway in Gwadar, Balochistan, Aug. 13

[S.Y.A]

Seems you are completely ignorant about history. Gilgit and Batlistan were under the rule of Maharaja Hari Singh. They were part of the dispute referred to the UN and about which the UN passed a resolution. Only the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir had the legal authority to accede them to Pakistan, which he didn't. Under what legal basis were they severed from Jammu and Kashmir and incorporated into Pakistan?

under illegal occupation by the maharaja. it was never a part of kashmir. they revolted and succeeded in breaking free. pakistan had nothing to do with that. they acceded to pakistan later on.

 

[Paji]

This is the first demand here if someone comes with solid argument.

Either they resort to foul language or demand a ban.

99.999% haven’t read the UN resolution about plebiscite. They have no idea about what was required to be done before plebiscite could be undertaken, but plebiscite inko chahiye.

Right, Pakistan did not bother to conduct a referendum in Gilgit and Batlistan, even though they would probably have favored joining Pakistan, because the establishment knew that would legitimise the status quo and weaken their utopian case for all of Kashmir. The whole Pakistani policy on Kashmir has always been schizophrenic.

India has no reason to conduct a referendum in Kashmir since the instrument of accession provides the basis for Indian claim to all of J&K, including Gilgit Batlistan and Aksai Chin.

Even in Hyderabad, no referendum was carried out, even though the overwhelming majority would have voted for India, since the Nizam had already acceded.

In Junagadh, even though the Nawab fled and the Diwan requested India to take over the administration, a referendum was carried out and the sovereign will of the people overturned the Nawab's decision.

Using the same principle, Pakistan can certainly carry out a referendum in J&K, but for that they will first need to establish control over all of J&K, including Aksai Chin, and the referendum will have to include Gilgit Batlistan and Aksai Chin.

 

[Paji]

under illegal occupation by the maharaja. it was never a part of kashmir. they revolted and succeeded in breaking free. pakistan had nothing to do with that. they acceded to pakistan later on.

The Maharaja's control over these territories was recognised under the Treaty of Amritsar with the same British government that created Pakistan.

When and how did Gilgit Batlistan accede to Pakistan? Did any ruler sign an instrument of accession? If so, who and on what date ? Was there any refererendum held ? If so, on what date was it held ?

 

[Olympus81]

Even the Indian foreign office doesn’t want to discuss the UN resolutions issue but Indians here use terminology within the resolutions to use it as a precursor of not holding a plebiscite.

Common sense would suggest both parties agree to abide by the resolution and then perform actions within the resolution.

All this argument of Pakistan withdrawing first and then a plebiscite can be held is childish to say the least. The terminology says Pakistan and India need to withdraw.

Anyways, UN resolution is not going to be implemented because India is unwilling to. Water under the bridge.

Lets focus on the thread at hand.

 

[VkdIndian]

All this argument of Pakistan withdrawing first and then a plebiscite can be held is childish to say the least. The terminology says Pakistan and India need to withdraw.

Childish because it doesn’t suit Paksiatn?

UN resolution is very clear and unambiguous in stating that PKaistan was required to move out first.

Anyways, UN resolution is not going to be implemented because India is unwilling to.

Not because India is unwilling, but, due to Paksiatn violating all the terms in it. How will Paksiatn justify handing over Aksai Chin to Chinese but demand plebiscite?

Last possibility of any peace was in 1999 when Vajpayee put his reputation in line to ride the bus of peace, but Musharraf sent troops into Kargil to hijack any possibility of peace. India realised the futility of any peace attempts due to unwillingness of the Establishment.

It is agreed that India played the same dirty game as Paksiatn and made the resolution untenable. With Article 370 gone, there isn’t going to be any movement.

Your establishment has made a mess in all directions. The issues with AfPak are also due to unnecessary desire of the Establishment to control Afghanistan. Short sightedness at it’s best.

 

[Olympus81]

Again childish. Common sense suggests that both parties agree to implement resolution first and then abide by the actions within it.

India’s position is we don’t want to implement UN resolutions but Pakistan should withdraw? Logical?

Anyways not the thread to discuss this topic.

 

[Paji]

India’s position is we don’t want to implement UN resolutions but Pakistan should withdraw? Logical?

India's position is that under the same Indian Independence Act based on which Pakistan was created and got all of the princely states now part of Pakistan, the Maharaja of J&K had the sole right to accede his state to either India or Pakistan and he chose India. Therefore, all of the former J&K, including Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, Gilgit Batlistan and Aksai Chin are legally part of India. No referendum is required and Pakistan and China should vacate the occupied Indian territory based on international law .

The position of some Pakistanis seems to be that there should be a referendum in Kashmir because of a UN resolution from 75 years ago. However, none of them seem to be aware that the first prerequisite in that resolution is that Pakistan withdraw all of its regular and irregular foreces from Kashmir and that India be allowed to maintain enough troops in all of the territories to maintain law and order. Only after these steps have been completed is a referendum envisaged.

I do agree that the situation has changed so much since then that the UN resolution is now completely irrelevant. That doesn't seem to stop some Pakistani posters here from still clinging to it ( though none of them seem to have read it or are aware of the steps Pakistan is required to take before the referendum can be held).

 

[Areesh]

the Maharaja of J&K had the sole right to accede his state to either India or Pakistan and he chose India.

The so called maharaja who was committing genocide of Muslims of Jammu?

Nah. He along with his accession agreement can go to hell

How will Paksiatn justify handing over Aksai Chin to Chinese but demand plebiscite?

We don't need to justify anything since we never had Aksai chin to handover to anyone in the first place

On other hand India is still giving territory in Ladakh region to China even today

 

[Azadkashmir]

army too busy farming and digging for gold, to manage border or gwador, sorry chinese just take the bullet.