Pakistan Tribes Turn Against Army

[Armstrong]

Pakistan was even supplying weapons to Rezakars to suppress the pro-integration movement in Hyderabad.

Some evidence for that ?

Pakistan was even supplying weapons to Rezakars to suppress the pro-integration movement in Hyderabad.

Some evidence for that ?

 

[INDIC]

Some evidence for that ?



Some evidence for that ?

The Times in London reported on August 9, 1948 that the Hyderabad army was strengthened to 40,000 and supplies of arms were being received, presumably from Pakistan.

Hyderabad on the Net

 

[Armstrong]

The Times in London reported on August 9, 1948 that the Hyderabad army was strengthened to 40,000 and supplies of arms were being received, presumably from Pakistan.

Hyderabad on the Net

So it went from being 'Pakistan was even supplying weapons to Rezakars to suppress the pro-integration movement in Hyderabad' to us 'presumably' doing it !

Oh bhai sahib what were we sending them through our ships, our cargo plans or our trains ? None of which we had ! Or were we smuggling them through individuals; koi eik tou weapons consignment pakriii ho giii...koii Pakistani Army ke bandeiii hiii pakreiii hoon gei after Hyderabad fell ? Anything...?

 

[KS]

Go through this, a good read : The Durand Line: Legal issues | The Nation

Thanks for the link which only buttresses my point regarding the Afghan claim on KPK.

From the article,

It is provided in Article 11 of the Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties 1978 that a succession of states does not as such affect a boundary established by a treaty, or obligations and rights established by a treaty and relating to the regime of a boundary. Also, Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) excepts a boundary treaty from the operation of the rule of rebus sic-stantibus (fundamental change in circumstances).

Furthermore, Article 62 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organisations (1986) provides likewise that a fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked, as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty between two or more states and one or more international organisations, if the treaty establishes a boundary.

This is what I'm telling about. Pakistan's claim on KPK is based on it's view that both India and Pakistan are sucessor states of British India and hence a treaty negotiated by British India would hold good for both these states. That view itself is fundamentally wrong as I proved in earlier posts about India being the sole legal sucessor to British India and Pakistan requiring to re-negotiate the treaties that British India signed with other sovereign states.

Furthermore I've never heard of Jinnah Sahib refusing plebiscite in case of Junagardh or Hyderabad but do quote some credible references that place such a proposition & its refusal in 'documentary' form.

That is from Sardar Patel's correspondence, 1945-50, 1 edition. Unfortunately there no e-book of that available on net, that I could find. But if you can trust A.G.Noorani, noted lawyer and historian, read the first lines of this link.

+ Why its omitted in Pakistani books, I can understand

 

[INDIC]

So it went from being 'Pakistan was even supplying weapons to Rezakars to suppress the pro-integration movement in Hyderabad' to us 'presumably' doing it !

Oh bhai sahib what were we sending them through our ships, our cargo plans or our trains ? None of which we had ! Or were we smuggling them through individuals; koi eik tou weapons consignment pakriii ho giii...koii Pakistani Army ke bandeiii hiii pakreiii hoon gei after Hyderabad fell ? Anything...?

Cargo flights between Karachi and Hyderabad carrying weapons.

That is from Sardar Patel's correspondence, 1945-50, 1 edition. Unfortunately there no e-book of that available on net, that I could find. But if you can trust A.G.Noorani, noted lawyer and historian, read the first lines of this link.

+ Why its omitted in Pakistani books, I can understand

So, Pakistan accepted accession of Junagarh in September 47, Kashmir was attacked in October 47 by Lashkars and finally Junagarh was integrated in November 47. See, the timeline.

 

[INDIC]

Mountbatten personally offered a plebiscite in Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir (with the acquiescence of Nehru), on 1 Nov 1947 to solve the issues amicabbly but Jinnah expressly rejected it. He wanted all and finally ended up loosing all, well almost all.

I was watching movie on Sardar Patel, Sardar Patel always consulted VK Krishna Menon on major issues.

 

[KS]

So, Pakistan accepted accession of Junagarh in September 47, Kashmir was attacked in October 47 by Lashkars and finally Junagarh was integrated in November 47. See, the timeline.

Basically Jinnah wanted Kashmir on the basis that its majority population was Muslim inpite of the fact the ruler acceded to India,

but earlier, he had accepted the accession of Junagadh by the Nawab even though the majority population was Hindu and he also refused for the plebiscite which was offered in all three princely states by Mountbatten.

Ayesha Jalal states in exact words, He (Jinnah) received his first shock upon discovering that Pakistan was militarily incapable of securing the accession of Junagadh”. (Ayesha Jalal; The State of Martial Rule; p. 43).

 

[INDIC]

Basically Jinnah wanted Kashmir on the basis that its majority population was Muslim inpite of the fact the ruler acceded to India,

but earlier, he had accepted the accession of Junagadh by the Nawab even though the majority population was Hindu and he also refused for the plebiscite which was offered in all three princely states by Mountbatten.

Ayesha Jalal states in exact words, He (Jinnah) received his first shock upon discovering that Pakistan was militarily incapable of securing the accession of Junagadh”. (Ayesha Jalal; The State of Martial Rule; p. 43).

But still they thought of making land-locked Hyderabad as the part of Pakistan. Pakistan succeeded only in securing Kalat.

 

[KS]

But still they thought of making land-locked Hyderabad as the part of Pakistan. Pakistan succeeded only in securing Kalat.

Liquat Ali Khan said to Mountbatten on the same meeting on Nov 1 1947 - that they (LAK and MJ) were confident that Kashmir would somehow come to Pakistan. But Hyderabad (deep inside India) was the real prize.

 

[Armstrong]

Thanks for the link which only buttresses my point regarding the Afghan claim on KPK.

From the article,

It is provided in Article 11 of the Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties 1978 that a succession of states does not as such affect a boundary established by a treaty, or obligations and rights established by a treaty and relating to the regime of a boundary. Also, Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) excepts a boundary treaty from the operation of the rule of rebus sic-stantibus (fundamental change in circumstances).

Furthermore, Article 62 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organisations (1986) provides likewise that a fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked, as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty between two or more states and one or more international organisations, if the treaty establishes a boundary.

This is what I'm telling about. Pakistan's claim on KPK is based on it's view that both India and Pakistan are sucessor states of British India and hence a treaty negotiated by British India would hold good for both these states. That view itself is fundamentally wrong as I proved in earlier posts about India being the sole legal sucessor to British India and Pakistan requiring to re-negotiate the treaties that British India signed with other sovereign states.

What you established before was :

1. Membership of all international organizations together with the rights and obligations attaching to such membership will devolve solely upon the Dominion of India

2. The Dominion of Pakistan will take such steps as may be necessary to apply for membership of such international organisations as it chooses to join. (25)

A treaty is not the same as membership of an International Organization. Furthermore, as you rightly pointed out, Article 62 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organisations (1986) provides likewise that a fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked, as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty between two or more states and one or more international organisations, if the treaty establishes a boundary.

Additionally treaties are not revoked unilaterally but before an International Tribunal - the International Court of Justice; Afghanistan has yet to take Pakistan to the ICJ to further its stand.

One might even consider asking British India why it agreed for a referendum in NWFP considering the the legal position that Pakistan would find herself in after the Partitioning of India. Does it not, also, follow that by agreeing to a fundamental change in NWFP, a referendum on joining its partitioned territory, British India in fact endorsed the devolution of her legal rights & obligations as per the Treaty to Pakistan.

And yes I'm still waiting for the 99 year lease clause !

That is from Sardar Patel's correspondence, 1945-50, 1 edition. Unfortunately there no e-book of that available on net, that I could find. But if you can trust A.G.Noorani, noted lawyer and historian, read the first lines of this link.

+ Why its omitted in Pakistani books, I can understand

So its essentially wholly unsubstantiated ! I've read Mr. Norrani's article but it borrows from the same Patel's Papers that in them self provide as much evidence to substantiate what did or did not happen as the evidentiary basis of forming an opinion on Kargil whilst pitting Musharaf's book against Nawaz Sharif's.

Surely if an offer was made it would be in some sort of documentary form like such was the case in all past offers.

Cargo flights between Karachi and Hyderabad carrying weapons.

And Martians landing in their flying saucers; koiii tou evidence ho gaaa ? Anything pictorial, any captured Pakistani soldiers, any intercepted cargo flights....anything ?

 

[Areesh]

Some proof for that 99 year clause in the original treaty or any of its reaffirmations would be much appreciated !

So this part was conveniently ignored again. And here we are talking about Junagadh, Hyderabad, Kashmir etc etc

@Armstrong

Hey buddy. Just a friendly question. Don't you think it is useless to talk to individuals whose whole verdict is based on lies and twists and turns? If someone is so that deceitful that he can't present a simple proof for his own repeated claim but still repeats the claim here and there then what exactly is purpose of having a debate with such guys? Don't you think you are wasting your precious time behind low class lunatics? Just a friendly question.

 

[INDIC]

Liquat Ali Khan said to Mountbatten on the same meeting on Nov 1 1947 - that they (LAK and MJ) were confident that Kashmir would somehow come to Pakistan. But Hyderabad (deep inside India) was the real prize.

I read that after the liberation of Hyderabad, there were widespread protests in Pakistan urging Pakistan government to attack India.

 

[KS]

So this part was conveniently ignored again. And here we are talking about Junagadh, Hyderabad, Kashmir etc etc

No it was not ignored. You are quibbling on mere technicalities when I am addressing on the main point of the legality of Afghan claim on KPK. Keep quibbling.

 

[pk_baloch]

@Armstrong im worried about india not pakistan .....what will happen when nato will completely go from this region??

 

[INDIC]

@Armstrong im worried about india not pakistan .....what will happen when nato will completely go from this region??

I heard America will stay till 2024.