Reality of Kashmir today June 2016 (Truth is Bitter)

[Hellfire]

(3) What is your definition of an "Indian version of history"?

Anything counter to their stance?

Anyways, there is redundancy to the UN resolution as Shimla Accord carried the whole process of UN resolution and Karachi Agreement much forward.

Historically, Pakistan has reneged from every accord they have been a party to. As @WAJsal has correctly pointed out for other members, the Pakistani forces did not withdraw in the aftermath of ceasefire for whatever reasons they may have had. However, since all the steps to be taken by India were sequential to their initial step, the UN resolution was bound to fail.

Anyways, since the whole issue is now a non-issue in the wake of ceding of territories by Pakistan to China, the construction of CPEC and the purported moves to integrate the territory into Pakistan under Chinese desires in order to give a sense of legitimacy to the CPEC project and the fact that after more than 65 years, the demography of the Pakistani Kashmir is no more pure 'Kashmiri'. The only option remains, which Musharraf tried and had MMS moved fast enough we could have achieved, is to convert the present LC into an IB and from there work towards enhancing trade links in order to bring a sense of normalcy to Kashmir and also to ensure that economic development of the region as also trade and commerce.

What is astounding is that the Pakistanis who champion the cause of the common Kashmiri fail to realize that economic prosperity and commercial-trade links are the key to their long term aim of 'Kashmir's Benefit'

That's what is hypocrisy - something which a member was earlier charging the Indian position of!

 

[Uzair Shafiq [Босс]]

The UN is failed establishment.
Pakistan needs to become a economic power the moment we are that. The moment we are a stable state with no or little insurgencies and a healthy economy. Us din india walon ko dekhna.

 

[for truth]

@Joe Shearer @Syama Ayas @SarthakGanguly @Didact

A fine detail.......

https://defence.pk/threads/the-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.7904/page-11

@OrionHunter made a really interesting point in the above thread (link above)

Kashmir resolutions were passed under chapter VI of UN charter, and any resolution passed under chapter VI of UN charter are considered "non-binding".

"The resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council under chapter VI of UN Charter.[1]Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII.[2][3][4]"

"In March 2001, the then Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan during his visit to India and Pakistan,remarked that Kashmir resolutions are only advisory recommendations and comparing with those on East Timor and Iraq was like comparing apples and oranges, since those resolutions were passed under chapter VII, which make it enforceable by UNSC."

http://gutenberg.us/articles/united_nations_security_council_resolution_47


"Chapter VI establishes the appropriate methods of settling international disputes and the Security Council’s powers in relation to them. It is generally agreed that resolutions under Chapter VI are advisory rather than binding. "

http://hir.harvard.edu/sovereigntycollective-insecurities/


If the resolutions were passed under Chapter VII, it would have been enforceable and binding, meaning that non-implementation of it would mean violation of resolutions by India. But it is not, the Kashmir resolutions were never meant to be implemented, they were mere recommendations, as stated by secretary general of UN-Kofi Anan-during his time in UN.

whether Pakistanis pull out their army or not, we are not obliged to implement the Kashmir resolutions.

And all the pompous talk by Pakistanis and their politicians that India is violating UN resolutions is one load of horse crap propaganda. In reality, we never violated any resolution, because resolutions passed concerning Kashmir were never enforceable nor legally binding and were a mere recommendations, nothing more......

 

[Joe Shearer]

Gandhi Ji and Nehru Papa did not approve freedom struggle..they advocated non-violence..it was Subhash Chandra Bose who wanted to fight bullets with bullets...real man.....

True.

But he also had very strange fascistic tendencies. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to call these autocratic tendencies.

The whole family has tightly-strung nerves.

 

[gypsyreader]

India lost the plot in Kashmir just because of its actions and colonial mindset.

I believe posters such as the OP do not understand or appreciate or perhaps are unwilling to acknowledge the Indian mindset towards Kashmir. Even if every single Kashmiri Sunni muslim (the only demographic group to have sizeable population with pro-separatist sentiments) were to come out on the streets with guns and Pakistani flags (Or Kashmiri or ISIS flags) and chant India go back, We will hold it, no matter what the cost, no matter how heavy the losses.

It is morally, ethically and strategically imperative for us that we control and administer Kashmir; the survival of every single ethnicity, sect excluding the one particular group is contingent on the Indian establishment being able to provide and project security and safety of life and afford freedom to the people to follow their customs and traditions without threat of violence.

The day India pulls out of Kashmir, the roads will turn into rivers of blood. As demonstrated by the events of the early 1990s, the minority groups will be given no quarter, shown no mercy. They will be lynched in the streets, murdered in their homes. The day we pull back, these minorities will become sub-human, fit to be exterminated, to the ascendant masters. Kashmir will become the valley of roses, the valley of blood roses.

The idea of India, the idea of humanity, the idea of opposing tyranny, the absolute necessity of preventing the rise of a genocidal regime all necessitate without exception, the absolute necessity that the Indian government fight on, no matter ho difficult the path, no matter the sacrifices needed, no matter how hostile the people.

India will do whatever it takes to protect Kashmir. We will destroy it, in order to protect it. Humanity, and posterity will never forgive us if we do not hold firm.

 

[Areesh]

even if all it accomplish was just an attempt to show you what a semblance of reality looks like, it is useful. to that extent, you are welcome. Beyond that, whether you actually see it or not is purely a factor of what stuff you are made of and what you want to make of yourself.

No you didn't show any reality. In fact you showed nothing other than trash.

 

[OrionHunter]

Quite right, me bhoyo, but incomplete.

You forgot to point out, or perhaps didn't know, that in the proceedings of the commission (it actually met), India clearly agrees to all points, without a single deviation!

@Joe Shearer , talked to a retired Brigadier served in PA NLI regiment, he is from Hunza. Did go to Bunji last time we went to GB, met one of my uncles there, quite a good base that and quite beautiful too...Couldn't link him to the family tree and quite surprisingly too, we are in a good number in Hunza... Anyway provided a good analysis on the subject:

PA will not withdraw it's troops as it fears Indian side to not go forward with the part it is supposed to play, without any agreement or a third force PA cannot take any such step. Considered to be a foolish step of the highest degree.

This was mentioned by the Pakistani side to the Commission. They were reminded that the place to seek amendments was in the UN itself, and not by persuading, browbeating or intimidating the Commission members, who were helpless to change a single word of the mandate given to them.

Incorrect.

This was a Pakistani surmise.

There was NEVER a single instance of the Indian side disagreeing.

This was one of the murkiest parts of the transactions, and puts the entire


One of the golden points touched: As per the resolution:
"(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani Nationals not normally resident therein, who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State."

Meaning local forces will not be withdrawn, meaning NLI. Roughly it is said to be 85% local force(people from GB and AJK) and others making up from Chitral and surrounding areas not a lot of Punjabi or other Pakistani personnel's. So technically Pakistan will only have to withdraw a limited number of force.

Here you have shifted ground, from conditions in 1947-48 to conditions today.

First, let me remind you of what conditions were then, specifically, about Gilgit, by inference, about Baltistan.

1. Only the Gilgit Scouts were normally resident therein. There was no Northern Light Infantry.
2. The Chitral State Forces, and their artillery component, were also players. Without their enthusiastic participation, Skardu would not have been captured, nor would Kargil (.(it was garrisoned by a brave Gurkha officer of the J&K State Forces and a handful of men, and they were ultimately starved out).
3. Creating a force - the NLI - some 24 years after independence, during the period 1971 to 1998, can hardly be slipped into the account. Only the Gilgit Scouts and the Chitral State Forces are legitimate presences.
4. I agree that there were NO Punjabi or other Pakistani personnel; that was not a question in the context of Gilgit or Baltistan; it was a question only when it comes to the so-called Azad Kashmir, the Mirpur strip.

Secondly, folks need to understand that Pakistan cannot just take the first step and expect India to follow-up. There is a need to have mutual agreement between the two states regarding the plebiscite. So i don't really understand this comment...

All this would not have happened if Pakistan had in the first place gone by the wording of the UN Resolution that you have yourself quoted. India was furious that the UN had not condemned Pakistan as an aggressor and thrown out the aggression, but, as always, honoured the international proceedings. Pakistan did not.

Maybe folks tend to forget that there is a thing called mutual agreement.

Sure.

But to start by disagreeing with a third-party formulation, stating one's own position, and then expecting the other party to abandon its own position, abandon the third party's position and accept the dissenting party's position is a trifle extreme, wouldn't you say?

PS: Sartaj Aziz has already stated that Pakistan wants the UN resolution to be implemented. This has always been our stance. It is India that doesn't want to reach a mutual agreement, as Indian intellectuals are scared of any plebiscite. And so is the general population.

This is so horribly untrue, in the light of facts and events as they actually happened, that there is no point even responding.

Sartaj Aziz comes across as a hypocritical master of bureaucratic double-speak, whom I have personally come to loathe as I loathe only a very few other Pakistanis - the infamous 195, Bhutto the father, Bhutto the daughter, Hamid Gul.

Actually any Indian who has studied the region knows any plebiscite is like handing over Kashmir to Pakistan. One of our Indian friends provided a good solution to this problem for India..., though not surprised.
View attachment 315289

A similar solution...
View attachment 315292


Withdraw what a 5-10% of it's force, technically NLI will not have to be withdrawn as it is a local force. PA is not losing the argument mate, too much delusion.

A usual argument from our Indian friends, but they tend to ignore basic needs and start making false claims. Stating that Pakistan needs to be the one who needs to withdraw troops and that India is waiting for that is actually the most innocent argument one can think of. Anyway you can use this post for future references...
@Arsalan ,@HRK ,@Manticore ,@Irfan Baloch ,@Gufi ,@Jonah Arthur ....

So, dear Sir, can you.

I suggest that you look up the actual proceedings of the Commission. They will make your flesh creep, whether you read it as a loyal Pakistani or as a neutral analyst.

No Pakistani is prepared to listen to any narration that shows that Pakistan has never accepted any international rule or principle that violated two core principles:

1. Pakistan and India were peers and equals;
2. All Pakistani demands were ipso facto legitimate and non-negotiable.

A gentle reminder: the Rann of Kutch and Pakistani claims therein. Another reminder: the history of repeated Pakistani complaints about the Indus River Treaty.



Give us a break, @HRK .

I do not make statements without prior careful research. All that you have painstakingly dug out is vitiated by facts on the ground, not facts of our creation or due to our actions, but exclusively facts created or due to the actions of Pakistan. Come back and talk to me once you have gone into the details that you should have gone into.

And a request: try to avoid the word 'hypocrisy'. It is redolent with irony.

I don't think so.

I do not expect ever to convince a Pakistani audience, no matter how much information I put into such an effort. This is an emotional issue.

That was an excellent riposte @Joe Shearer! You hit the nail on the head! Our Pakistani friends are clutching at straws!

The funniest part was about the NLI that @WAJsal mentioned, which he contends consisted of 85% of the invading forces! Huh? So, as you said, "creating a force - the NLI - some 24 years after independence, during the period 1971 to 1998, can hardly be slipped into the account. Only the Gilgit Scouts and the Chitral State Forces are legitimate presences."

There was no NLI then but a battalion strength of Gilgit scouts, which was the first battalion in 1948 to 'capture' an undefended Kargil and Batalik. The remaining personnel of the expanded Corps were designated as the Corps of Northern Scouts in November 1949.

The northern scouts were bifurcated on 1st January 1964, and Karakoram scouts were raised with its Head Quarters at Skardu. Gilgit scouts were converted into 1st and 2nd Northern Light Infantry Battalion. Gilgit scouts were later converted into 1st and 2nd Northern Light Infantry Battalion.

As per Maj (Retd) AGHA HUMAYUN AMIN who wrote the book, THE 1947-48 Kashmir War: The war of lost opportunities, the tribesmen were brought from the NWFP tribal areas on trucks requisitioned by Government of Pakistan and concentrated in Batrasi north-east of Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Major Khurshid Anwar undertook to organise and lead the tribesmen into Kashmir from Pakistan when the opportunity arose. 2000 Pakistani tribesmen were assisted by the Muslim elements of the Kashmir State Forces. By the second day the tribesmen swelled to 5000 and captured Baramula which was 35 miles west of Srinagar on 26th October 1947.

Where Pakistani army was concerned, the Pakistani GHQ had finally taken a decision to commit 7th Division in Kashmir in 1948. The 7th Division had three brigades i.e. 10 Brigade (Abbottabad area), 101 Brigade (Kohat) and the 25 Brigade (Rawalpindi). 25 Brigade was inducted in area Mirpur in May 1948. While 10 Brigade and 101 Brigade entered the war in Tithwal and Uri Sectors. This was followed by advance of the 163 Brigade which commenced from 18/19 May towards Tithwal.

Considering the above, the argument that most of all forces fighting in Kashmir in 1947-48 were local militia/Kashmiri tribesmen is ignorance of a high order.

https://archive.org/stream/The1947-...2996-The-1947-48-Kashmir-War-Revised_djvu.txt

 

[WAJsal]

That was an excellent riposte @Joe Shearer! You hit the nail on the head! Our Pakistani friends are clutching at straws!

Lol, easy there Mr.Trump...

The funniest part was about the NLI that @WAJsal mentioned, which he contends consisted of 85% of the invading forces! Huh? So, as you said, "creating a force - the NLI - some 24 years after independence, during the period 1971 to 1998, can hardly be slipped into the account. Only the Gilgit Scouts and the Chitral State Forces are legitimate presences."

It is still a local force, local personnel's will still remain in GB and AJK, like it or not. And that will include NLI, only Pakistani personnel's will have to leave AJK and GB. You can cry all you want. NLI is a local based force, and as per the resolution local forces will remain in the areas. Pakistan Army isn't losing this argument, Mr Trump.

There was no NLI then but a battalion strength of Gilgit scouts, which was the first battalion in 1948 to 'capture' an undefended Kargil and Batalik. The remaining personnel of the expanded Corps were designated as the Corps of Northern Scouts in November 1949.

The northern scouts were bifurcated on 1st January 1964, and Karakoram scouts were raised with its Head Quarters at Skardu. Gilgit scouts were converted into 1st and 2nd Northern Light Infantry Battalion. Gilgit scouts were later converted into 1st and 2nd Northern Light Infantry Battalion.

It is still a local force, only Pakistan army personals will have to be evacuated(who don't even exist in a large number, lol) .

There was no NLI then but a battalion strength of Gilgit scouts, which was the first battalion in 1948 to 'capture' an undefended Kargil and Batalik. The remaining personnel of the expanded Corps were designated as the Corps of Northern Scouts in November 1949.

That doesn't change the fact that it is not a local force. Please note: all Pakistani personnel's are to leave GB and AJK.

Considering the above, the argument that most of all forces fighting in Kashmir in 1947-48 were local militia/Kashmiri tribesmen is ignorance of a high order.

https://archive.org/stream/The1947-...2996-The-1947-48-Kashmir-War-Revised_djvu.txt

You can cry all you want but that wont change facts. Fact remains GB was liberated by Gilgit Scouts and later Baltistan and even AJK was liberated by local forces.
PA didn't exist in 1947-48, we only had tribesmen to fight against the Indian Army. We hardly had a functioning Army, or even a system.
This should be enough pain for one day:
https://defence.pk/threads/how-gilgit-baltistan-got-liberated.375789/

India lost the plot in Kashmir just because of its actions and colonial mindset.

Before anyone calls yo a false-flagger, let me make it clear that the member is genuine, and good to see a member from Jammu and Kashmir posting. Welcome to PDF. Brother on this side of the border, am from GB .

Anyways, since the whole issue is now a non-issue in the wake of ceding of territories by Pakistan to China, the construction of CPEC and the purported moves to integrate the territory into Pakistan under Chinese desires in order to give a sense of legitimacy to the CPEC project and the fact that after more than 65 years, the demography of the Pakistani Kashmir is no more pure 'Kashmiri'. The only option remains, which Musharraf tried and had MMS moved fast enough we could have achieved, is to convert the present LC into an IB and from there work towards enhancing trade links in order to bring a sense of normalcy to Kashmir and also to ensure that economic development of the region as also trade and commerce.

Check when we started trade with China, check when Karakoram highway was made. Check whether India raised any concern back then. Check to understand CPEC and what it really is. It's basically better infrastructure and increased volume of trade.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Initial mistake on our side was:
". Pakistan ignored the UN mandate, did not withdraw its troops and claimed the withdrawal of Indian forces was a prerequisite as per this resolution.[5]"
Actually i wouldn't call it a mistake, Our concerns were more than genuine don't you think so? but stated in my last post:

Yes, those were the initial mistakes. BUT there were a few more.

My point is that the Commission was not the place to try and amend what the main body had resolved. How did Pakistan make this 'mistake'? Is it difficult to understand that from another point of view, not a particularly friendly one, this looks like and sounds like an attempt to haggle a way to victory?

The two parties should have resolved the issue. I would still say that it's good to have not taken the risk.

The two parties COULD NOT have resolved the issue. There was no way to put the toothpaste back in the tube. You will appreciate that one cannot go around re-arranging the terms of an international settlement or advisory by doing what J. Pierpont Morgan famously suggested to the President of the United States: "You send your man, and I'll send my man, and let the two of them settle matters between them."

Dear, opinion of the mentioned Brigadier in my last post. Only mentioning the ground realities and opinion of the two sides, obviously you will not publicly mention these grievances as it makes your case weak.

But how on earth did he come to the conclusion, nearly seventy years afterwards, that this was the opinion of the Indian side? There is not a single mention of this, either in the memoirs of the generals concerned, or in the annals of the Commission. Do you seriously propose that what a Pakistani soldier of today thought MIGHT have been in the minds of the Indians involved should be taken as a fact?

And knowingly too, only stating the present ground realities...

Fair enough. You then assume that we roll back everything that we have done. both states, to the conditions of 1947-48. If so, that has to be done systematically, and within the rule of law. After all, we went through enormous effort to find constitutional solutions to the Kashmir issue from our side. You will agree that suddenly jumping into the middle of things and suggesting that everything turn back 69 years is a little unreasonable.

Even then it doesn't change the fact that NLI is a local force, NLI was formed later and GB scouts was made part of it. GB scouts are still present BTW, as a para-military force. Only Pakistani personals are to be withdrawn, technically NLI force and the locals will still remain.

You must understand, @WAJsal , why I made that point, and in such detail. I made that point because there are far too many cheeky and impertinent people claiming that X, Y or Z is making a statement, or making a case, with less than complete knowledge. When you and somebody I detest, @Jonah Arthur , made statements about the actual circumstances and events in your respective areas, do you recall that I took your accounts on board, amended my information, wherever it was wrong, and tried to present the fairest, clearest picture of things. And yet land up being accused of inaccuracy. Like this piece of impertinence, for instance:

& plz before to make any claim that you don't post without proper research ... plz go & research what military assets & resources were available to Pakistan in 1947 & 1948 ... only after that make any comment about the 'actions' of Pakistan .... in Kashmir ....

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/reality-...-truth-is-bitter.434598/page-11#ixzz4DFxbBHj9

Am I to stand for this cheek?

And the blame game continues...

I think you are being VERY unfair. No hard feelings, none from my side, but that remark was not fair.

Actually some of the Indian intellectuals such as yourself do not have a problem with the locals deciding their fate.

Let me explain my position clearly.

Given neutral conditions, I do wish and hope that the people of the Vale will be allowed their wish, and that their choices are widened to include what the Pakistani delegate got erased - independence.

This freedom cannot be misused to drag along the people of Ladakh, or the people of Jammu.

Majority of the Pakistanis do not have a problem with Kashmiris deciding. On the contrary a good number of Indians want the LOC to be declared International border and want nothing to do with a plebiscite, quite ironically India claims GB and AJK, which is again contrary to their opinion. And then there is a good number of Indians who want this, i think we have forgotten the British rule on subcontinent quite fast. We don't have a problem with being the occupiers in our case.

Actually, we have remembered the British rule on the sub-continent only too well.

I actually challenge you to put yourself in our position, would you go forward with the demands in those times? We would be stupid to have basically handed over Kashmir to India.

Here lies the difference.

It is not a question of stupidity or smartness. It is a question of sticking to the rules.

Nobody on either the Pakistani side or the Indian side agrees with me on this issue of constitutionalism and the rule of law. So it is with perfect freedom from feeling or being aligned with either side that I say that I WOULD do - I would have done - exactly what the UN Resolution said.

 

[HRK]

The Karachi Agreement was a cease-fire agreement signed by Military Representatives Its has No relevance Against UNSC Decision

If Your Following Karchi Agreement You should Also Follow Simla Agreement


Before Reading what India's Guidelines According To UN Resolution 47 First you Should Dictate What Pakistan Guidelines according to Same Resolution Mentioned Above in Charter

Source
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unmogip/documents.shtml
View attachment 315307

View attachment 315308
View attachment 315309

Not interested in this debate go to the link quoted in my post ..... all of these what you have mention in your post are already answered

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer @Syama Ayas @SarthakGanguly @Didact

A fine detail.......

https://defence.pk/threads/the-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.7904/page-11

@OrionHunter made a really interesting point in the above thread (link above)

Kashmir resolutions were passed under chapter VI of UN charter, and any resolution passed under chapter VI of UN charter are considered "non-binding".

"The resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council under chapter VI of UN Charter.[1]Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII.[2][3][4]"

"In March 2001, the then Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan during his visit to India and Pakistan,remarked that Kashmir resolutions are only advisory recommendations and comparing with those on East Timor and Iraq was like comparing apples and oranges, since those resolutions were passed under chapter VII, which make it enforceable by UNSC."

http://gutenberg.us/articles/united_nations_security_council_resolution_47


"Chapter VI establishes the appropriate methods of settling international disputes and the Security Council’s powers in relation to them. It is generally agreed that resolutions under Chapter VI are advisory rather than binding. "

http://hir.harvard.edu/sovereigntycollective-insecurities/


If the resolutions were passed under Chapter VII, it would have been enforceable and binding, meaning that non-implementation of it would mean violation of resolutions by India. But it is not, the Kashmir resolutions were never meant to be implemented, they were mere recommendations, as stated by secretary general of UN-Kofi Anan-during his time in UN.

whether Pakistanis pull out their army or not, we are not obliged to implement the Kashmir resolutions.

And all the pompous talk by Pakistanis and their politicians that India is violating UN resolutions is one load of horse crap propaganda. In reality, we never violated any resolution, because resolutions passed concerning Kashmir were never enforceable nor legally binding and were a mere recommendations, nothing more......

You are perfectly right, as far as the legality of it goes.

The fact that it is under Chapter VI has never really registered with Pakistan, because Pakistanis are seriously under the impression that they have the rights of it. That they were right to invade, that they were right to fool the UN regarding the presence of the Pakistan Army, an illegal presence, in J&K. That they were right to recruit, arm and lead irregulars to try and achieve through the back door what they could not through the front. That they imposed a plebiscite on India, or that India had one imposed on it by the UN. That they obeyed all the rules, rather than having flouted all the rules. That they wanted plebiscite, but India blocked it. For all these reasons, they ignored the fundamental fact that Chapter VI is advisory.

Here, however, the question arises: should we allow a reluctant population with a theocratic twist in them which has been nurtured and nourished with the utmost care by a vindictive, revanchist enemy to walk away or not?

On the one hand, we should not have to deal with reluctant Indians.

On the other hand, allowing them to secede purely because of communal reasons defeats the entire purpose of India as a nation-state. Only the Pakistanis and the Sangh Parivar would like to see that.

 

[Hellfire]

@Joe Shearer

Oh, I strongly second your statement - we should have enforced the UN resolution and deployed forces to enforce the same in face of hesitancy from Pakistani side. We lost the moral and political ground by our singular act of doing something which we ourselves wanted to do.

There is an alternative wherein the Indian Government will have to get off it's high horse and deal in a pragmatic approach - the freedom for those who want to be part of Pakistan to be given an opportunity to migrate across with adequate monetary incentive to do so. That shall address the issue of the minority who demand a merger with Pakistan, reduce the burden of idiocy which has paralysed the Kashmiri development (and I am talking of Kashmir specific as Jammu and Ladakh are well enroute to thriving trade and commercial activities) and also degrade the support base for anti-India posturing.

As for those who want independence ... they can be the next step in the resolution of the mess after pro-Pak elements as the route to deal with them is different involving pragmatic and realist resolution thorugh dialogue keeping in mind the geopolitic realities which endanger their 'independent' state.

Interesting read

https://pakpotpourri2.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/coup-of-1951part-iii/

From the above, if Gilgit had indeed voted for being a part of NWFP then the locus standii of Pakistani claim of fighting for state of J&K to decide its future is already on a shaky ground as clearly from the above one can make out that the Pakistani flag was unfurled at Governor's house and rest is all hogwash. It also brings into focus the aggression by Pakistani/Pakistani backed forces which, in contravention to the binding agreements predating 1947 wherein Gilgit was on lease from Maharaja of Kashmir to be reverted to his control on completion of the period of lease, acted actively in interest of Pakistan as opposed to the claimed interests of Kashmiris.

Confounds me!

Their present hesitancy and antithetical posturing over Gilgit till date is laughable!

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer

Oh, I strongly second your statement - we should have enforced the UN resolution and deployed forces to enforce the same in face of hesitancy from Pakistani side. We lost the moral and political ground by our singular act of doing something which we ourselves wanted to do.

There is an alternative wherein the Indian Government will have to get off it's high horse and deal in a pragmatic approach - the freedom for those who want to be part of Pakistan to be given an opportunity to migrate across with adequate monetary incentive to do so. That shall address the issue of the minority who demand a merger with Pakistan, reduce the burden of idiocy which has paralysed the Kashmiri development (and I am talking of Kashmir specific as Jammu and Ladakh are well enroute to thriving trade and commercial activities) and also degrade the support base for anti-India posturing.

As for those who want independence ... they can be the next step in the resolution of the mess after pro-Pak elements as the route to deal with them is different involving pragmatic and realist resolution thorugh dialogue keeping in mind the geopolitic realities which endanger their 'independent' state.

Interesting read

https://pakpotpourri2.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/coup-of-1951part-iii/

From the above, if Gilgit had indeed voted for being a part of NWFP then the locus standii of Pakistani claim of fighting for state of J&K to decide its future is already on a shaky ground as clearly from the above one can make out that the Pakistani flag was unfurled at Governor's house and rest is all hogwash. It also brings into focus the aggression by Pakistani/Pakistani backed forces which, in contravention to the binding agreements predating 1947 wherein Gilgit was on lease from Maharaja of Kashmir to be reverted to his control on completion of the period of lease, acted actively in interest of Pakistan as opposed to the claimed interests of Kashmiris.

Confounds me!

Their present hesitancy and antithetical posturing over Gilgit till date is laughable!

Well, yes and no.

The princely state of J&K was put together like a patchwork quilt; in a strange way, it is rather like the British success itself. There is a presentation that I have that puts together the whole narrative one step at a time. Very briefly, first they gained those areas around the Vale; then they bought up the Vale, and finally, they took over Gilgit. The taking over of Gilgit was a bloody affair; the Dogras used inhuman methods to take over the Pamir principalities, although the foundation was their superior military power compared to the individual power of the principalities: @WAJsal will explain to you the topography, in which each principality largely consisted of a valley with its arable area, orchards, one or two towns and a citadel. They were taken over piecemeal.

When the state dissolved, due to the action taken by the Mirpuris, specially by the people of Sudhnutti or Sudhnauti, and then the action taken by the people of Gilgit, the whole patchwork came apart piece by piece.

You referred to a blog.

It has interesting information. However, the writer is unaware of the legal situation and spends a lot of unnecessary time berating the hapless Liaqat Ali Khan. When the Gilgit Agency was separated from the J&K State, it was not in 1935, but much earlier, soon after the conquest of Gilgit, by the Dogras and the British combined (various actions were fought, some of which involved the British, some of which did not.), in the year 1877. It was for the administrative convenience of the British that the affairs of this part of J&K State were controlled from NWFP, and for no other reason.

Why the blogger expresses regret that the territory was not left with NWFP is not at all clear. There was no legal or constitutional connection with the NWFP of the Gilgit Agency, in either phase, 1877 to 1935 or 1935 to 1947. Quite correctly, on the British leaving, they surrendered control to the sovereign ruler, the Maharaja of Kashmir.

The other striking part of the blog is the complete excision of the role of Major Brown of the Gilgit Scouts. Very petty.

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

Is it script of new Bollywood movie?

I was thinking the same....

 

[Hellfire]

@Joe Shearer Exactly. The points you have highlighted, since having been covered already, were of no use repeating. It is exactly the reason why even Indian claims to Aksai Chin are untenable as even Maharaja's claim over the areas were tenous at best. The history of Kashmir, I remain aware of, the topographic nature of advent of inhabitation as described by you above, is a hallmark of the general areas north-northeast-northwest of Kashmir valley proper, as most of the vales are deep with steep ascending mountains on either side and limited axis for movement. s

Since you have referred @WAJsal as a source, will spend next few days pouring over his posts to gain insights which may add to my residual knowledge of things in general and that portion of Kashmir in particular. Thanks for referring him.

@WAJsal Sorry if I bother you with a few clarifications, will be grateful for your indulgence in case of the same.

The blog I referred to was to highlight the confusion amongst the common Pakistani and the cycle of perpetuation of misconceptions as to their role in Kashmir imbroglio. Whereas the control of Gilgit was placed in NWFP due to the ease of administration, it can not be construed as being a part thereof, something which the author was trying to drive at. And the hesitancy I talk on part of Pakistan above, is in incorporating Gilgit region for the CPEC project into Pakistan based on their popular belief as above. They have even more confusion than India on the matter.