Check out India's duplicity. In Kashmir's case which has majority Muslim population, India never held plebiscite to this date. While in Junagadh, it held plebiscite as soon as possible because it had Hindu majority.
In regards to Junagadh, it is not an internationally recognized disputed territory, is it? So, you added J&K Union Territory because it is an internationally recognized dispute, but claims new territories because you consider it as disputed? India also annexed Goa - Pondichery and quite a few territories in and around the subcontinent which are recognized added to the maps of India.
Junagadh is disputed. Junagadh acceded to Pakistan, Pakistan accepted the accession, India recognized the fact that the accession took place and protested and then illegally invaded and annexed the territory.
tit for tat.
For you yes. You can dispute anything under the sun.
No, Pakistan is basing its claims based on facts and law.
As I said, there is no legality here. Pakistan didn't agree 'legal' accession of Princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.
there are part of Tibet which are also under the occupation of superpower2012 (and wrongly called Kashmir). open means that once you evict the superpower, you will negotiate with China to determine what is Tibet and what is Kashmir
???
India herself took the dispute to the UNSC where the UNSC Resolutions supersede the Instrument of Accession now.
Shimla does not supersede the UNSC Resolutions, it in fact endorses the commitment of both sides to the UN Charter and the UNSC Resolutions.
The bilateral (technically trilateral, since the British were involved) agreement was the partition plan agreed to by India and Pakistan. The formal accession of Junagadh to Pakistan, and Pakistan's acceptance of the instrument of accession forms the legal basis for Pakistan's claim to Junagadh.
Given both countries rejected the UNSC resolutions and we entered into Shimla agreement, the point being?
Not only Shimla agreement makes no mention of UNSC resolution, but it also mandates dispute settlement bilaterally. And Shimla agreement has no exit rules unless both sides agree to scrap it, which neither sides have requested to, yet.
And India rejected such an accession, put an economic blockade, forced it's ruler out, and conducted a referendum which for obvious reasons was in favor of us. The lack of any UN resolution or bilateral agreement makes it some irredentist claim.
Completely false. There is absolutely no official position from Pakistan on 'rejecting' the UNSC Resolutions and neither does Simla supersede the UNSC Resolutions. In fact, as I pointed out, Simla reiterates the commitment of both countries to the UN Charter, and therefore the UNSC Resolutions.
There's no need for an exit clause since Simla does not supersede the UNSC Resolutions or override them. Show me where it states that the UNSC Resolutions are no longer applicable, because if that was the intent of Simla, it would clearly state so.
India's rejection of the accession and subsequent military occupation and annexation through force was and is illegal, hence Pakistan's continued claim to the territory.
