Pakistan's 'Truth' On Kashmir Is Mostly Argumentative

[AnnoyingOrange]

Proud to be a Jehadi atleast i am not a nanga sadhu full on cow piss like you

LOL ...carry on lad.

 

[parkour guy]

Only a handful of separatists who are paid by Pakistan would love to join Pakistan...

Just stay safe in india and keep improving your ABM systems...BCZ TIME AND RAHEEL WAITS FOR NONE...

 

[AnnoyingOrange]

Just stay safe in india and keep improving your ABM systems...BCZ TIME AND RAHEEL WAITS FOR NONE...

Well Raheel needs to move fast then... because time is not on going to be on his side for long.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

'I believe the document comes with a header coup d' etat? Self evident it won't be countersigned by Maharaja

Ergo, illegal.

 

[nForce]

How so..it was never under the influence of Pakistan..I only mentioned GB to state what the outcome of the valley would be if locals get to choose.

Haha.. that was a pretty wide extrapolation in two lines. Nothing was under the influence of Pakistan pre- '47. I will refrain from speculations here.

The state of Gilgit Baltistan acceded to Pakistan by the mirs of the valley, by the wishes of the people. All mirs signed such accession papers and gave them to the established Gilgit government at the time and it was forwarded to Pakistani state.

Have more of such images, but will have to dig them up. It is to note they were not forced to sign or etc, etc. In fact there were celebrations in Gilgit Bazar, Chilas and Hunza for many days....
Then of course this happened...
How Gilgit-Baltistan got liberated . | Page 6

It's all good. That's why I brought the question of plebiscite there. Plebiscite means ground level representation of people, who elect. What you're showing me is not election, but selection, or rather election by those who have come up in the process of selection. Not the same thing. Hence it cannot be said, that it is the people who made the choice. It is the coup and those who led the coup were the people who made that choice.

 

[WAJsal]

Key wordd here is local forces , local kashmiris who are welcome to present including pandits in kashmir vallye.

Pandits do not equals to number of forces India has in Kashmir. It needs to reduce it's number to very few-as per the resolution you were referring to.

Apologies if it hurt you, it is never personal just to point out the fact we need to have a 360 degree view.

No reason to not remain civilized.

If pakistan wants to have an understanding with india it should talk to india not UN.

Sir ji India avoids talks with Pakistan. India doesn't want to talk on Kashmir. Face the reality...The reason we go the UN is because India avoids Kashmir and doesn't want to solve the issue.

If india wanted to occupy the state by force then why go to UN at all?

Could India and Pakistan afford a war in '47, both sides felt the issue had to solved diplomatically and came to a conclusion of letting the locals decide. I was stating that say we follow the resolution and turns out India doesn't do it's part..it creates problems, there has to be a mutual understanding first.

All these ifs & buts are immature excuses which will lead now where, it requires statesmanship to solve an issue. Right from nehru,vajpayee,mm singh lent a hand for peace to only have it to be spiten & bitten.

All these ifs & buts are immature excuses which will lead now where, it requires statesmanship to solve an issue. Right from nehru,vajpayee,mm singh lent a hand for peace to only have it to be spiten & bitten.

Incorrect, then again i do not want to go into this debate...

Ok for argument sake let me agree about GB, what were the tribal raiders doing in srinagar ? Are they locals ?

sake of the argument. My friend this is a documented fact, even accepted by Indian government. @nForce ...
Moving on to your post: i don't blame you, since many aren't educated about this topic. Gilgit agency was taken on lease by the British, they made local force-GB scout. GB Scout liberated Gilgit, it wasn't some local raiders...Srinagar and other agencies had no such trained local forces, they had an occupying Dogra force occupying them.

Ergo, illegal.

What law are you referring to?

Haha.. that was a pretty wide extrapolation in two lines. Nothing was under the influence of Pakistan pre- '47. I will refrain from speculations here.

My point only emphasized...

It's all good. That's why I brought the question of plebiscite there. Plebiscite means ground level representation of people, who elect. What you're showing me is not election, but selection, or rather election by those who have come up in the process of selection. Not the same thing. Hence it cannot be said, that it is the people who made the choice. It is the coup and those who led the coup were the people who made that choice.

Not really, it was the local mirs, who were not forced, it was their personal choice...They remained in power till 1973, if i am not wrong. Plus what say you to the celebrations in Gilgit Bazar, Chilas and Hunza. It is a documented fact. Gilgit is loyal to Pakistan, face the reality. I only brought it in the argument to state the outcome of the valley would be if locals get to choose.

 

[jaunty]

Basic translation is incorrect, "Kashmir baney ga Pakistan," means it will be a part of Pakistan...Just shows the quality of the article.

The basic essence of "Kashmit banega Pakistan" is Pakistan conquering Kashmir. Pakistan has tried and failed. There is no other way of it happening. So, although the direct translation seems wrong (and I am sure the author is aware of it) his goal was to depict the idea behind it, which he did perfectly.

Overall a very good article based on facts, his last point about Huriyat notwithstanding. Of course, Pakistanis won't like it. Very few people like it when they are shown the mirror.

The state of Gilgit Baltistan acceded to Pakistan by the mirs of the valley

They did not have such authority. GB was a part of the original princely state of Jammu and Kashmir and if you consider the original state as disputed then GB is also a part of it-- not to mention the part you acceded to China illegally.

 

[Neutron]

The Kashmir dispute is the oldest unresolved international conflict in the world today. Pakistan considers Kashmir as its core political dispute with India. So does the international community, except India.

India's forcible occupation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 is the main cause of the dispute. India claims to have ‘signed' a controversial document, the Instrument of Accession, on 26 October 1947 with the Maharaja of Kashmir, in which the Maharaja obtained India's military help against popular insurgency. The people of Kashmir and Pakistan do not accept the Indian claim. There are doubts about the very existence of the Instrument of Accession. The United Nations also does not consider Indian claim as legally valid: it recognizes Kashmir as a disputed territory. With the exception of India, the entire world community recognizes Kashmir as a disputed territory. The fact is that all the principles on the basis of which the Indian subcontinent was partitioned by the British in 1947 justify Kashmir becoming a part of Pakistan: the State had majority Muslim population, and it not only enjoyed geographical proximity with Pakistan but also had essential economic linkages with the territories constituting Pakistan

Pakistan's 'Truth' On Kashmir Is Mostly Argumentative | S.Mubashir Noor

You know, I struggle with the truth. Is this most sacred of human constructs majoritarian, historical or divine? If it is all three, is there a golden ratio between them that makes some truths universal? Also, how does this truth triangle apply to the Kashmir issue bedeviling India and Pakistan?

For starters, Pakistan's "truth" on Kashmir is absolutely majoritarian. The "Dushman Hindustan" (Nemesis India) narrative is the national gospel and any political rhetoric wrapped around the "Kashmir banega Pakistan" (Pakistan will conquer Kashmir) chant preaches to packed crowds.

"It is imperative for an artificial nation-state like Pakistan to have an artificially bloated sense of nationalism. "

I have no issues with this overblown patriotism. It is imperative for an artificial nation-state like Pakistan to have an artificially bloated sense of nationalism. Since 1947, the government has carefully brainwashed us to believe that Pakistan had a parallel history of its own for centuries before partition. This "Muslim" version of the Indian subcontinent implies Pakistan was always here, they just called it the Mughal Empire back then.

Historical truth, however, does not side with Pakistan on Kashmir. The exiting British Raj in 1947 had both the Muslim League and Indian National Congress sign off on theIndian Independence Act. This legislation simplified, or so everyone thought, the divvying up of British India into the sovereign republics of India and Pakistan.

Under said act, areas won outright by either Congress or the Muslim League in the 1945-1946 elections would go straight to India or Pakistan. Moreover, the 565princely states of the Raj would choose their own masters through the Instruments of Accession.

Unfortunately, this transition did not go smoothly. Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir opted to mull his options before joining either country. His decision infuriated Pakistan's founding father Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who was convinced somehow that all Muslim-majority areas (princely or otherwise) would become part of Pakistan. No such clause existed in the Indian Independence Act.

Regrettably, Jinnah, a singular legal talent, then abandoned his lifelong devotion to the fine print. By sending a Pashtun tribal militia across the border into Kashmir, he forced Hari Singh's hand. The panicked Maharaja quickly ran to India for help and signed the Instrument of Accession, thereby formalizing his state's entry into the Indian federation.

Now, was this sequence of events ideal? Not at all. Was Hari Singh within his rights to throw his lot with India? Most assuredly. Some say Jinnah's testy relationship with Lord Mountbatten cost him Kashmir. Others say Jawaharlal Nehru schemed with the Viceroy to keep his beloved home state within the Indian dominion. Either way, the only evidence admissible in court is the Instrument itself.

The comedy of errors did not end here either. If Jinnah shot future Pakistan in the foot by trying to conquer Kashmir, India's socialist leader Nehru returned the favor bytaking Kashmir to the UN Security Council. There he ran into a brick wall named the Cold War. America, the newly minted global sheriff and custodian of Christian capitalist values, suspected socialism was the gateway drug to ungodly Bolshevism.

Unsurprisingly, then, there was little sympathy for India's position and pro-Pakistan resolutions on Kashmir piled on from 1948 to 1971. It was only after the Soviet Union took India under its wings and started using the UNSC veto in the 1960s that the latter got some breathing room. However, this also meant that hitherto non-aligned India entered the Cold War on the Soviet side. This was not a particularly happy arrangement, as the recently declassified CIA report from 1985 confirms.

Pakistan's divine (or moral) case on Kashmir is tethered to Allama Iqbal's version of the Two-Nation Theory, a facetious idea for the time. Never before in history, nor since, has religion been solely responsible for the division of a landmass as huge as the Indian subcontinent. The Viceroy's office would surely have laughed out a lesser lawyer than Jinnah.

Nevertheless, an unfortunate byproduct of the Two-Nation Theory was that it wrongly imbibed a warrior-of-faith complex in the Pakistani populace. This led to the public being more passionate about the perils of Muslims abroad instead of focusing their energies on building Pakistan. Both Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Gen. Zia-ul-Haq expertly used pan-Islamism to start ultimately pointless wars.

"If the Hurriyat Conference and its constituents so chafe under Indian rule, why do they not move to Pakistan?"

There is, however, a more important facet of this theory that keeps getting lost in cross-border jingoism. If the Hurriyat Conference and its constituents so chafe under Indian rule, why do they not move to Pakistan?

Pakistan, after all, exists for all the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent and nowhere does it say that 1947 was the cutoff point on immigration. Also, considering the 65% voter turnout in the 2014 assembly elections, it seems the majority of Kashmiris have already made peace with living under India.

So what if the separatists have to leave their ancestral lands and homes behind? Did 8 million Muslim refugees not cross over into Pakistan from India in 1947, penniless and without shelter? All for a better life. Surely the Hurriyat leaders and partisans don't think they are better than the original Muhajirs?

 

[Spectre]

The Kashmir dispute is the oldest unresolved international conflict in the world today. Pakistan considers Kashmir as its core political dispute with India. So does the international community, except India.

Point of this statement which actually conveys nothing? You might as well say 2+2 =4 for all the impact it would make

International Community as I understand is a non entity in this bilateral matter due to Shimla Agreement.

 

[Neutron]

The Simla Agreement of 2 July 1972, to which Pakistan also continues to adhere, did not alter the status of Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory.

Para 6 of the Agreement lists “a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir" as one of the outstanding questions awaiting a settlement.

Para 4 (ii) talks of a "Line of Control" as distinguished from an international border. Furthermore, it explicitly protects "the recognized position of either side." The recognized position of Pakistan is the one, which is recognized by the United Nations and the World Community in general.

Article 1(iv) obviously refers to the Kashmir issue when it talks of "the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedeviled the relations between the two countries for the last 25 year"

Point of this statement which actually conveys nothing? You might as well say 2+2 =4 for all the impact it would make

International Community as I understand is a non entity in this bilateral matter due to Shimla Agreement.

 

[Spectre]

The Simla Agreement of 2 July 1972, to which Pakistan also continues to adhere, did not alter the status of Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory.

Para 6 of the Agreement lists “a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir" as one of the outstanding questions awaiting a settlement.

Para 4 (ii) talks of a "Line of Control" as distinguished from an international border. Furthermore, it explicitly protects "the recognized position of either side." The recognized position of Pakistan is the one, which is recognized by the United Nations and the World Community in general.

Article 1(iv) obviously refers to the Kashmir issue when it talks of "the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedeviled the relations between the two countries for the last 25 year"

None of which is relevant to the point which I made and the situation on ground.

International Community as I understand is a non entity in this bilateral matter due to Shimla Agreement.

 

[Neutron]

None of which is relevant to the point which I made and the situation on ground.

Pakistan upholds the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. These resolutions of 1948 and 1949 provide for the holding of a free and impartial plebiscite for the determination of the future of the state by the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

You can't exclude international community because this conflict adversely affected security situation of south asia. It is the sole reason of increase in militancy in this region.Aggressive posturing of Pakistan and india in Afghanistan, Nuclear arms race and economic slow down everything somehow linked with this conflict.
These two countries cannot resolve this issue bilaterally.
There are only two logical conclusions
a. Nuclear conflict (for more details read my article kashmir a nuclear flash-point)
b. International intervention

choose whatever suits you for future generations of Pakistan and India.
I think every sane person will like to accept international intervention and plebiscite considering catastrophic consequences of Nuclear conflict

 

[Spectre]

Pakistan upholds the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. These resolutions of 1948 and 1949 provide for the holding of a free and impartial plebiscite for the determination of the future of the state by the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

You can't exclude international community because this conflict adversely affected security situation of south asia. It is the sole reason of increase in militancy in this region.Aggressive posturing of Pakistan and india in Afghanistan, Nuclear arms race and economic slow down everything somehow linked with this conflict.
These two countries cannot resolve this issue bilaterally.
There are only two logical conclusions
a. Nuclear conflict (for more details read my article kashmir a nuclear flash-point)
b. International intervention

choose whatever suits you for future generations of Pakistan and India.
I think every sane person will like to accept international intervention and plebiscite considering catastrophic consequences of Nuclear conflict

India will not use the nuclear weapons first and it has been enshrined as it's nuclear doctrine. India is also quite comfortable with the status - quo - it is Pakistan which wants to change it.

Given the above what can change this is an criminal act of subversion or terrorism by Pakistan for which not only India but the international community would hold Pakistan responsible - just like in Kargil to refresh the memory.

It is very simple my friend - No one used the N-Word but Pakistan and that amounts to rent seeking behavior on the lines of Solve Kashmir or all hell will break loose. Just like what you are doing.

 

[Neutron]

India will not use the nuclear weapons first and it has been enshrined as it's nuclear doctrine. India is also quite comfortable with the status - quo - it is Pakistan which wants to change it.

Given the above what can change this is an criminal act of subversion or terrorism by Pakistan for which not only India but the international community would hold Pakistan responsible - just like in Kargil to refresh the memory.

It is very simple my friend - No one used the N-Word but Pakistan and that amounts to rent seeking behavior on the lines of Solve Kashmir or all hell will break loose. Just like what you are doing.

Cold start doctrine, FSD already debated till death.
Don't want to go into details again. You can visit relevant thread. I am cool my dear. Do consider narratives of both side before your concluding remarks.

 

[ito]

Pakistan upholds the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. These resolutions of 1948 and 1949 provide for the holding of a free and impartial plebiscite for the determination of the future of the state by the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

You can't exclude international community because this conflict adversely affected security situation of south asia. It is the sole reason of increase in militancy in this region.Aggressive posturing of Pakistan and india in Afghanistan, Nuclear arms race and economic slow down everything somehow linked with this conflict.
These two countries cannot resolve this issue bilaterally.
There are only two logical conclusions
a. Nuclear conflict (for more details read my article kashmir a nuclear flash-point)
b. International intervention

choose whatever suits you for future generations of Pakistan and India.
I think every sane person will like to accept international intervention and plebiscite considering catastrophic consequences of Nuclear conflict

The chances of plebiscite or international intervention is almost next to nil, unless India agree for a third party intervention which I doubt are very slim. The Indian narrative is quite different: terrorism is cause of tensions between India and Pakistan. Nobody would know what would have happened if 26/11 not happened.

Anyways, leave apart all the resolutions and your Kashmir narrative. Can you afford to keep Pakistan hostage to Kashmir? Can you be in perpetual conflict with a state that is 10 times more resourceful. Common sense tells us that Pakistan will badly loose. It is you choice: would you want welfare of 180 million people or perpetual fight with India for 5 million people.