Sino-Pakistan Frontier Agreement - 1963

[roadrunner]

There is a point you also are missing. Lets forget Indians for a moment and lets consider the noble attitudes of the Chinese for kashmiris ? Why give them the land under lease. Why not just give it to Kashmiris to decide whom they want to give the land on lease to ?

Regards

Look, who are the Kashmiris to control the Pak Army? Pak Army can give Kashmir to the UN to secure. It does not have to secure Kashmir. If it can't be bothered or doesn't want to or doesn't have the resources to secure the border bit, but China can secure it, then Pak Army can just pull out at anytime and let the Chinese move in, but only after they've signed an agreement to move out once Kashmir is resolved. Kashmiris cannot tell Pak Army to secure this bit and that, as Pak Army is not under obligation to them. I hope this very simple point is clear.

 

[cactuslily58]

But this is the point your consistently missing! Pakistan has not taken any ground or pieces from Kashmir, neither has China. Both Pakistan and China have agreed to give back that piece of land to the final owners of Kashmir. Only India has permanently taken a piece of Kashmir.

India has not "taken " Jammu & Kashmir ( not Kashmir ), Hari Singh ACEEDED to India. Azad ( ?!) Kashmir was taken by force. I wonder how many choose to understand this not so subtle difference.

Once acceded, India is well within its rights to make it a state of the union like other states who acceded to the Union of India.

The larger issue is that is Pakistan within its rights to lease out part of J&K to China ? From what I have read few feel that it is. We are aware of the intent with which this was done and the strategic nature of that piece of land to China. Having invested in it China will never part with it.

This issue is best laid to rest by accepting realities & moving on.

 

[roadrunner]

Why are you even allowed on this forum to post misinformation? That's the question in my head right now?

India has not "taken " Jammu & Kashmir ( not Kashmir ), Hari Singh ACEEDED to India. Azad ( ?!) Kashmir was taken by force. I wonder how many choose to understand this not so subtle difference.

Hari Singh's accession to India was conditional on plebiscite being implemented in J & K, once peace was restored. Peace was restored, but then India prevented the demilitarization of J & K. After this, it permanently incorporated J&K into its constitution. Therefore the accession is nullified, since India has not lived up to its bargain.

Azad Kashmir was taken by force? Hardly. Azad Kashmir currently has its own government. Nobody is fighting Pak troops stationed there.

Once acceded, India is well within its rights to make it a state of the union like other states who acceded to the Union of India.

The accession was conditional. That means it was only acceded under a condition being fulfilled. Otherwise, the accession is nullified. In this case, the accession is nullified because the condition was not fulfilled.

The larger issue is that is Pakistan within its rights to lease out part of J&K to China ? From what I have read few feel that it is. We are aware of the intent with which this was done and the strategic nature of that piece of land to China. Having invested in it China will never part with it.

This issue is best laid to rest by accepting realities & moving on.

The issue of whether it was right of Pakistan to lease out a bit of land it occupied has been discussed. Pakistan does not own any part of Kashmir, it only stations troops there as the Kashmiris want this. The Kashmiris cannot tell Pakistan where to station its troops. If Pakistan wants it could vacate the whole of Kashmir, and let Chinese troops provide security for it until plebiscite is carried out and the rightful owners of Kashmir have been found. Nothing has been taken away from the Kashmiris. The Chinese are just helping out with security.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The issue of whether it was right of Pakistan to lease out a bit of land it occupied has been discussed. Pakistan does not own any part of Kashmir, it only stations troops there as the Kashmiris want this. The Kashmiris cannot tell Pakistan where to station its troops. If Pakistan wants it could vacate the whole of Kashmir, and let Chinese troops provide security for it until plebiscite is carried out and the rightful owners of Kashmir have been found. Nothing has been taken away from the Kashmiris. The Chinese are just helping out with security.

What a lame justification.

At that rate, you would even say that Paksitan would abdicate its right to Pakistan, just to crank in the weirdest of justification.

Next, you would even justify Bahadur Khan's demand of Pakhtoonistan, just to give any old justification you have trotted out to for Pakistan gifting a part of Kashmir to China!

 

[Neo]

India has not "taken " Jammu & Kashmir ( not Kashmir ), Hari Singh ACEEDED to India. Azad ( ?!) Kashmir was taken by force. I wonder how many choose to understand this not so subtle difference.

Hari Singh indeed aceeded to India, under what circumstances is to be determined after reading the following article:

How Mahatma Gandhi Stalled Kashmir’s Independence.​

M. K. Gandhi, pioneer and perfector of Satyagraha - the resistance of tyranny through mass civil disobedience, played a very shadowy role in the politics of Kashmir. He was successful in preventing the Maharaja of Kashmir from declaring independence and thus paved the way for a forceful accession of Kashmir.

The events of the summer of 1947 reveal astonishing facts about Gandhi and thus his role in the present conflict of Kashmir, a conflict that has the potential of sparking a nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

Hari Singh, the Maharaja (King) of Kashmir, loathed the Indian National Congress and wanted to stay independent of both India and Pakistan. He asked for a standstill agreement from India and Pakistan so as to be able to pursue his goal of an independent Kashmir. Pakistan signed the standstill agreement but India did not, giving an indication of India’s intentions on Kashmir.

Nehru acutely aware of these facts wanted to visit Kashmir to be able to pressurize the Maharaja to accede to India. Nehru claimed that he wanted to visit Kashmir to obtain the release of Sheikh Abdullah, who was put under arrest by the Maharaja. However, Joseph Korbel gives us matter for thought:

But, one wonders whether Nehru was interested in Abdullah’s personal welfare - devoid of political implications - at a time when the Subcontinent boiled with insurrection and thousands of people were being killed.

Joseph Korbel, Danger in Kashmir, p. 60

Lord Mountbatten, the Viceroy of India, did not approve of Nehru’s visit and offered to visit himself. He visited Kashmir on 18th June 1947, and stayed there for four days. Lord Mountbatten was unable to have a proper discussion with the Maharaja, as the Maharaja did not wish to be influenced and advised about the fate of his land and people. It is strange that the Dogra King, whose reign was one of the cruelest, did not accede to India immediately, based on his religion, but tried to stay independent. Was this an attempt to give back something good to his people? or were his intentions purely selfish?

Lord Mountbatten’s visit was followed by the visit of Lord Haslings Ismay, who was the Chief of Staff to Lord Mountbatten. Both of these proved an utter failure as far as obtaining a surety from the Maharaja that he would not declare independence. This upset Nehru and he wanted to visit Kashmir himself. Sardar Patel strongly disapproved of this visit but on Nehru’s insistence, he agreed to let Gandhi visit Kashmir, which he thought would be ‘lesser of the two evils.’ Mistrust of Gandhi was already on the rise among the Muslims of India.

As Campbell Johnson noted:

Both Nehru and Gandhi have been very anxious that the maharaja of Kashmir should make no declaration of independence.

Campbell Johnson, Mission with Mountbatten, p. 117

To clear this anxiety Gandhi visited Kashmir by the end of July, 1947. The windows of his car were shattered in Baramullah, where an angry crowd protested his visit. Nevertheless, he was to go ahead and obtain a cure for his and Nehru’s anxiety: a guarantee of Maharaja’s accession to India.

The Times, London, reported:

“… But the Union of India has been taking a lively interest in the subject and indications are that the Hindu Maharaja of Kashmir, Sir Hari Singh, has lately been much influenced by representations made by Gandhi who visited Kashmir three months ago and by other congress leaders.”

The Times, London, October 25th 1947

What exactly did Gandhi tell the Maharaja? We will never know, but the chain of events that followed his visit is an indicator of what must have happened. After his visit, the Prime Minister of Kashmir, Ram Chandar Kak, who had no inclination towards India was replaced by Janak Singh and then by the Indian loyalist, Mehr Chand Mahajan. The British officers in the Kashmir Army and Police were dismissed including the Inspector General of Police and the Chief of the General Staff. Orders for construction of a bridge over the Ravi River, near Pathankot, to allow connectivity between India and Jammu and Kashmir were issued. The road between Jammu and Kathua was improved and a telegraph line was constructed between Jammu and the valley. This was all possible because of assistance from India.

Gandhi obtained the cure for his anxiety, but the people of Kashmir have suffered anxiety ever since. Gandhi, the man of peace, brought misery to the men of Kashmir. It is interesting that after all this lobbying; the Maharaja still did not sign the instrument of accession. The British Historian Alistair Lamb, in his book, falsifies the Indian claim of the signing of the instrument accession by the Maharaja.

How Mahatma Gandhi Stalled Kashmir’s Independence. « ~ Kashmir ~

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Neo,

That's OK.

The Times was a conservative party mouthpiece of those days and maybe now too.

They were no bedfellows of Prime Minister Atlee of the Labour Party and were not really too pleased that the Crown Jewel of the British Empire slipped away!

In fact, the British felt that India and Pakistan would not be able to govern themselves and it would be a chaos. They wanted to delay the Independence!

But it in no way comes into play with the leasing of a part Kashmir to China, especially when Pakistan claims it to be disputed.

 

[Neo]

Sir, the case of the Pot and the Kettle indeed, as adversaries we'll continue to apply same rhetoric till the issue is solved.

RR's posts make sense since from our (and UN's) point of view Kashmir is a disputed territory, so a temporary 'lease of land' to China should not be India's concern. The Instrument of Accession holds no ground in Kashmirs case for the reasons explained above.

Otoh India 'lost' Aksai Chin to China in 1962, a land that you don't own according to various UN resolutions.
China is obliged to release the 'leased territory' from Kashmir under article 6, Aksai Chin is lost permanently.

I wonder which is worse....

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Sir, the case of the Pot and the Kettle indeed, as adversaries we'll continue to apply same rhetoric till the issue is solved.

RR's posts make sense since from our (and UN's) point of view Kashmir is a disputed territory, so a temporary 'lease of land' to China should not be India's concern. The Instrument of Accession holds no ground in Kashmirs case for the reasons explained above.

Otoh India 'lost' Aksai Chin to China in 1962, a land that you don't own according to various UN resolutions.
China is obliged to release the 'leased territory' from Kashmir under article 6, Aksai Chin is lost permanently.

I wonder which is worse....

Yes, it will be a case of round and round the mulberry bush, the monkey chased the weasel.

But, the issue as is current, as per you, is Disputed.

Therefore, purely from that standpoint, it cannot be sold, lent, leased or mortgaged!!

India did not lose Aksai Chin. It was captured by China. Now, if a disputed land between India and Pakistan is wrested out of India's hand and she loses the war, one can't hold India to blame. Aksai Chin maybe in China's hand, but we have not given up our claim. In fact, both India and Pakistan should join hands and get back the territory, obtain status quo and go back fighting over the issue of Kashmir!

Catch China releasing anything!

And catch Pakistan being overtly bothered on the return of Shia territory, when the gains otherwise is stupendous!

You attempted to capture Kashmir and you couldn't. Apply the same logic to Aksai Chin.

 

[UnitedPak]

Something I posted a while back. Still relevant since certain people didnt read it.

- Letter of Accession

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), based in Geneva, recently passed a resolution proclaiming Kashmir's accession to India as null and void.

IHRC - Briefing: The Killing in Kashmir and the Terrorism Act 2000

Moreover, further shedding doubt on the treaty’s validity, in 1995 Indian authorities claimed that the original copy of the treaty (letter of accession) was either stolen or lost.

SJIR: The Fate of Kashmir : International Law or Lawlessness?

Alastair Lamb (in his book, Kashmir - A disputed legacy 1846-1990) points out that the Instrument of Accession could not have been signed by the Mahrajah on 26th October as he was travelling by road to Jammu (a distance of over 350 Km). There is no evidence to suggest that a meeting or communication of any kind took place on 26th October 1947. In fact it was on 27th October 1947 that the Mahrajah was informed by his MC Mahajan and VP Menon (who had flown into Srinagar), the the Instrument of Accession had already been negotiated in Dehli. The Mahrajah did not in fact sign the Instrument of Accession, if at all, until 27th October 1947. This sheds doubts on the actions of the Indian regime.

India's False Claim on Kashmir

Its a well known fact, the Maharaja of J&K was barely in control of the state. At best, he was in control of Jammu and Ladakh. (Link) So signing the Letter of Accession on behalf of the state that he barely controls is not recognized.

Finally, there is some doubt as to whether the treaty was ever signed. International law clearly states that every treaty entered into by a member of the United Nations must be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations. The Instrument of Accession was neither presented to the United Nations nor to Pakistan. While this does not void the treaty, it does mean that India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.

SJIR: The Fate of Kashmir : International Law or Lawlessness?

In his broadcast to the nation over All India Radio on 2nd November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said, "We are anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide ------ And let me make it clear that it has been our policy that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that state. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir".

http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/misc/pledges.htm

Another blow to the Letter of Accession theory. So actually letter of accession validates Pakistan's stand that the people should be left to decide their fate.

Therefore, letter of accession is lost, if not lost, null (declared by ICJ, UN Resolutions and PM Jawaharlal Nehru), if not null, void by the very people its supposed to serve. Even if its not void, the provision of the letter of accession lets the people of J&K decide their fate (according to PM Jawaharlal Nehru).

- UN Resolutions

Before I discuss this, common sense says, both parties need to firstly, admit that they bind by the resolutions and are willing to implement it. Pakistan, wants a UN sponsored plebiscite. India does not, as yet. So there is violation by India in the first step itself.

- Acceptance of UN resolutions on J&K by India & Pakistan
- Implementation on the modalities of resolutions by India & Pakistan

The London Economist stated that "the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [the Kashmiri people]...has been obstructing a holding of an internationally supervised plebis-cite."32

http://parep.org.sg/dangerinkashmir/unreps.htm

Sir Owen Dixon, the United Nations Representative to the UNCIP, reported to the Security Council that,

In the end, I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled.

SJIR: The Fate of Kashmir : International Law or Lawlessness?

This is the opinion of top UN officials on how serious is India in implementing UN resolutions.

Once India, agrees to adopt UN resolutions on J&K, Pakistan will remove its troops, while India needs to do the same.

Please look up, the beginning of the UN Resolution 38 (1948) adopted by the Security Council at its 229th Meeting held on 17 January 1948.

RESOLUTION 39 (1948) SUBMITTED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF BELGIUM AND ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL AT ITS 230TH MEETING HELD ON 20 JANUARY, 1948. (DOCUMENT NO. S/654, DATED THE 20TH JANUARY, 1948)

A. A Commission of the Security Council is hereby established, composed of representatives of three Members of the United Nations, one to be selected by India, one to be selected by Pakistan, and the third to be designated by the two so selected.Each representative on the Commission shall be entitled to select his alternates and assistants.

http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc20jan48.htm

Here is the second resolution in J&K, as the first resolution contains nothing worthwhile. Has India adopted that resolution? This is just the first clause. There's no point getting to a second clause when the first one is not agreed to.

To sum it up:

In his telegram to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Indian Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said, "I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the state to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or state must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view". (Telegram 402 Primin-2227 dated 27th October, 1947 to PM of Pakistan repeating telegram addressed to PM of UK).

http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/misc/pledges.htm

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

And does it change the situation?

 

[Neo]

But, the issue as is current, as per you, is Disputed.

Therefore, purely from that standpoint, it cannot be sold, lent, leased or mortgaged!!

Sir,

You and I can sit comfortably in our study rooms behind our PC or laptop passing judgements but why not let the Kashmiri's be the judge of that...the long delayed pleb that we've been waiting for more than 60 years would be a good start.

According to many Indian members in varius fora Kashmiris love India to death and will prove to be loyal, so whats stopping you there? Wouldn't it be the perfect humiliation for Pakistan (from Indian pov) if Kashmir opted for India?

 

[Neo]

Btw, technically speaking the territory belongs to Baltsitan, not Kashmir.
Just an observation.

 

[UnitedPak]

The plebiscite is the only realistic solution left.
It simply make so much more sense to ask the Kashmiris what they want to do. Its their land, full stop.
Not to mention this is what the UN suggested, this is what the Kashmiris want, this is what Nehru suggested, this is what Jinnah agreed to, and this is the proposal Pakistan is putting forward to end this conflict once and for all.

What exactly is stopping India from giving an example of the shiny democracy it brags about so often?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Sir,

You and I can sit comfortably in our study rooms behind our PC or laptop passing judgements but why not let the Kashmiri's be the judge of that...the long delayed pleb that we've been waiting for more than 60 years would be a good start.

According to many Indian members in varius fora Kashmiris love India to death and will prove to be loyal, so whats stopping you there? Wouldn't it be the perfect humiliation for Pakistan (from Indian pov) if Kashmir opted for India?

On the Plebiscite I have reproduced the UN resolutions and indicated where Pakistan has not done its bit and which is what is creating the hassle. If Pakistan meets that, there will be no way the Plebiscite can be avoided and the truth will emerge. And if Pakistan is really confident of itself, then they should do their part. Indeed, Plebiscite is the answer since it will show how far the propaganda is false.

But the lines have calcified to such an extent that nothing seems to work.

 

[Neo]

Sir,

If you're referring to reduction of troops stationed in Kashmir in ratio 1:3 both India and Pakistan have failed, more India than Pakistan since Delhi deferred from the resolution to reduce troops to 18.000.

I'm curious to learn about your findings, please do share!