'Roof of the World' rebels against Pakistan

[Screambowl]

check my post again....



I have gone through you are just stating clauses & Article but what contradiction you are referring ..... not known ...

article 2 clause (D) of AJK constitution interim claims that they are part of greater Kashmir other side pakistan's constitution through article 257 says, no relation can be decided unless until plebiscite is given. On what Laws the agreements have been signed? These are illegal.

This is the Karachi Agreement..Please specify the point you are trying to make..and quote the specific text from agreement to back it up.

There are two types of Karachi agreement the other which is also known as Karachi pact was signed between Pak Gov and Azad Kashmir. But this agreement is illegal, why? I hame mentioned above. ^^

 

[Areesh]

article 2 clause (D) of AJK constitution interim claims that they are part of greater Kashmir other side pakistan's constitution through article 257 says, no relation can be decided unless until plebiscite is given. On what Laws the agreements have been signed? These are illegal.

Let me made it easy for you. @HRK wants link and not your interpretations of some clause of the constitution.


Hope you got it now and would provide the relevant links or pages. Thanks.

 

[HRK]

Karachi agreement contradicts many things.

So when article 257 is there, I dont understand how there are relations with AJK with article 2 clause(D). LOL

Excerpt from AJK constitution ......

The council has been assigned a specified field of activities and it has some of the functions assigned to the Central Government in Pakistan. The Defence, Security, Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Currency and coins are the responsibilities of the Government of Pakistan.

 

[Screambowl]

Excerpt from AJK constitution ......

but without plebiscite , there was no plebiscite, then how come such laws are made? LOL

as per Pakistani constitution article 257, such laws can only then be enforced in Azad Kashmir (AJK)when there is a plebiscite, in Kashmir.. where is the plebiscite?

 

[HRK]

article 2 clause (D) of AJK constitution interim claims that they are part of greater Kashmir other side pakistan's constitution through article 257 says, no relation can be decided unless until plebiscite is given. On what Laws the agreements have been signed? These are illegal.

plz state the Article 2clause 'D' with link .....

 

[Areesh]

plz state the Article 2clause 'D' with link .....

Found the so called contradiction. The boy was trying to be smart and though he could get away by repeating the same rant again and again. I can expose the so called contradiction now but let him present the proper clause along with the link.

 

[HRK]

he is saying that, karachi agreement between azad jammu kashmir(Azad Kashmir) is the tool under which pakistan has sent military.

plz don't interpret post wrongly ...... you and all other can read it .... its an agreement b/w India-Pakistan under the supervision of UN truce committee ......

but without plebiscite , there was no plebiscite, then how come such laws are made? LOL

as per Pakistani constitution article 257, such laws can only then be enforced in Azad Kashmir (AJK)when there is a plebiscite, in Kashmir.. where is the plebiscite?

My dear you interpretation hold no legal grounds ...... as current setup of AJK government is interim till the final settlement of Kashmir issue .... and for the plebiscite India neeed to fulfil some 'commitments' ....

 

[ares]

functions assigned to the Central Government in Pakistan. The Defence, Security, Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Currency and coins are the

hope you remember Karachi Agreement (link from UN website to download the full document)


View attachment 37698
View attachment 37699

Now you can understand why the presence of Pakistani troops in Kashmir is not the violation of any of UN resolution...... and 'Indian government is in agreement to this'

Your conclusions are totally baseless.

1. That the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, in its letter dated 2 July 1949, invited the Governments of India and Pakistan to send fully authorised military representatives to meet jointly in Karachi under the auspices of the Commission's Truce Sub-Committee to establish a cease-fire line in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, mutually agreed upon by the governments of India and Pakistan;

Military Personnel from both countries are meeting in Karachi to discuss cease fire line..so??

2. That the United Nationals Commission for India and Pakistan in its letter stated that "The meeting will be for military purposes; political issues will not be considered," and that "They will be conducted without prejudice to negotiations concerning the truce agreement";

Again what is your point here?

3. That in the same letter the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan further stated that "The cease-fire line is a complement of the suspension of hostilities, which falls within the provisions of Part I of the resolution of 13 August 1948 and can be considered separately from the questions relating to Part II of the same resolution";

Part 1 of 1948 agreement is ' CEASE-FIRE ORDER'..which pertains to cessation of hostilities.

Part 2 of the agreement is Truce agreement, what will be the subsequent steps taken(ie withdrawing Pakistani army) by Pakistani govt.(which they never did)

In Karachi agreement(which was done to draw up the ceasefire line), both the parties decided that determination of the ceasefire line is complement of suspension of hostilities(which had already happened) and not part two of agreement(which never happened. )

I still cant find any reference to how "Pakistani troops in Kashmir is not the violation of any of UN resolution" ??

 

[Jaanbaz]

Muslim terrorism...

There is no such thing as Muslim terrorism. Or you will have to call Gujrat riots Hindu terrorism.

 

[HRK]

This is the Karachi Agreement..Please specify the point you are trying to make..and quote the specific text from agreement to back it up.

In Karachi agreement(which was done to draw up the ceasefire line), both the parties decided that determination of the ceasefire line is complement of suspension of hostilities(which had already happened) and not part two of agreement(which never happened. )

I still cant find any reference to how "Pakistani troops in Kashmir is not the violation of any of UN resolution" ??

You government by signing the agreement under the supervision of UN truce committee with Pakistan has legally accepted the presence of Pakistani troops .....

hope you remember Karachi Agreement (link from UN website to download the full document)

Now you can understand why the presence of Pakistani troops in Kashmir is not the violation of any of UN resolution...... and 'Indian government is in agreement to this'

 

[ares]

You government by signing the agreement under the supervision of UN truce committee with Pakistan has legally accepted the presence of Pakistani troops .....

Already rebutted..look up.

 

[HRK]

Already rebutted..look up.

dear read it again ......

3. That in the same letter the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan further stated that "The cease-fire line is a complement of the suspension of hostilities, which falls within the provisions of Part I of the resolution of 13 August 1948 and can be considered separately from the questions relating to Part II of the same resolution";

Pakistan never denied talking for the final settlement of the issue under UN resolutions ...... its the other side which running off from the commitments in UN .....

 

[ares]

dear read it again ......


Pakistan never denied talking for the final settlement of the issue under UN resolutions ...... its the other side which running off from the commitments in UN .....

Karachi agreement was done to establish a cease fire line, which was requirement of Part 1 of UN resolution.

After establishment of part 1 of UN resolution, Pakistan was suppose to follow up with part 2 UN resolutions.
.i.e Pakistan was suppose to remove its troop from Kashmir after cesefire line was established, any Pakistani presence in Kashmir there on was violation of UN resolution.

Part 3 pertained to India holding a referendum in Kashmir, provided fulfillment of conditions of part 1 and part 2 , which unfortunately Pakistan never did

 

[American Pakistani]

Who cares what an Indian has to say. Sooner or later Kashmir will be liberated from the nasty clutches of Indian Occupier terrorists.

 

[HRK]

After establishment of part 1 of UN resolution, Pakistan was suppose to follow up with part 2 UN resolutions.
.i.e Pakistan was suppose to remove its troop from Kashmir after cesefire line was established, and any Pakistani presence in Kashmir there on was violation of UN resolution.

My dear UN Resolution passed & Karachi Agreement reached dated 13 Aug, 1948 and 29 July, 1949 respectively which mean when the resolution was passed Pakistan agreed (& in agreement till today) to withdraw its troop but in 1949 in Karachi Agreement bot India & Pakistan under the supervision of truce committee appointed by UN (which mean this agreement is backed by UN so it could not be the violation of any UN resolution) agreed to establish the cease-fire line and considering the question of withdrawal of troops separately now dear could you plz tell how cloud Pakistan withdraw all its troops unilaterally in the presence of the Indian troops (India has also agreed to withdraw its troops in UN).

for this matter either a 'multilateral or bilateral mechanism is needed under the supervision of UN' but plz tell me which side has adopted the stance of "Integral Part" and maintaining the larger number of troops (larger than the total regular Army of Pakistan)