Syed Salahuddin Branded Global Terrorist By US Ahead Of Modi-Trump Meet

[KN-1]

India already has instrument of accession. Why should India care. The onus is on Pakistan.

View attachment 406726

despite that UN decleared it dispute. Now what? I was not expecting this joke of accession. Come to table with neutral refree. If not Pakistan have every right to support Kashmiri movement whether you call it terrorism we dont care.

 

[StraightShooter]

https://www.dawn.com/news/1341926/u...porters-of-kashmiri-struggle-as-terrorists-fo

What else can world expect from Pakistan?

 

[volatile]

lol US pleasing India to fight against China nothing new

A big win for India...US now realize that what is going in Kashmir is terrorism

Love was in Air for the mass murderer and most recently baned from entering US

https://www.facebook.com/

 

[StraightShooter]

despite that UN decleared it dispute. Now what? I was not expecting this joke of accession. Come to table with neutral refree. If not Pakistan have every right to support Kashmiri movement whether you call it terrorism we dont care.

If instrument of accession is a joke then legitimacy of Pakistan itself comes into play as Pakistan was formed on the same laid down process by the British. Which means we would need a "Neutral Observer" to decide the fate of Pakistan first before talking about Kashmir.

 

[war&peace]

As if Pakistan Cares about Trumps rants ....

Exactly, ....
Trump can blow the trumpet from his other end and no one will listen to it.
Syed Salahuddin was a freedom fighter, he is a freedom fighter and he will remain so till the end of this world... Though as per my info he is not active any more. So it is useless declaration untill and unless UNO declares him a terrorist so India should try her luck and resource to achieve that goal.

For us, he is a ghazi alive and will be a martyr and a legend after he departs the world however there are thousands to replace him.

 

[StraightShooter]

 

[M. Sarmad]

If instrument of accession is a joke then legitimacy of Pakistan itself comes into play as Pakistan was formed on the same laid down process by the British. Which means we would need a "Neutral Observer" to decide the fate of Pakistan first before talking about Kashmir.

The UN doesn't consider this "Instrument of accession" as legally valid and complete as is clear from the successive resolutions passed by the Security Council (in 1948 and 1949):

The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite;


--------

1) 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. Hence India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.


2) The legality of the Instrument of Accession may also be questioned on grounds that it was obtained under coercion. The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void."..... India’s military intervention in Kashmir was provisional upon the Maharaja’s signing of the Instrument of Accession. More importantly, however, the evidence suggests that Indian troops were pouring into Srinigar even before the Maharaja had signed the treaty. This fact would suggest that the treaty was signed under duress.


3) The Maharaja had no authority to sign the treaty, hence the Instrument of Accession can be considered without legal standing . The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was hardly in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Hari Singh was in flight from the state capital, Srinigar. And it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power .....



Thus, an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Instrument of Accession shows that the accession of Kashmir to India was neither complete nor legal, as Delhi has vociferously contended for over sixty years.

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 !!!

 

[StraightShooter]

 

[Jackdaws]

The UN doesn't consider this "Instrument of accession" as legally valid and complete as is clear from the successive resolutions passed by the Security Council (in 1948 and 1949):

The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite;


--------

1) 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. Hence India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.


2) The legality of the Instrument of Accession may also be questioned on grounds that it was obtained under coercion. The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void."..... India’s military intervention in Kashmir was provisional upon the Maharaja’s signing of the Instrument of Accession. More importantly, however, the evidence suggests that Indian troops were pouring into Srinigar even before the Maharaja had signed the treaty. This fact would suggest that the treaty was signed under duress.


3) The Maharaja had no authority to sign the treaty, hence the Instrument of Accession can be considered without legal standing . The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was hardly in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Hari Singh was in flight from the state capital, Srinigar. And it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power .....



Thus, an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Instrument of Accession shows that the accession of Kashmir to India was neither complete nor legal, as Delhi has vociferously contended for over sixty years.

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 !!!

Wrong.

1. The Maharaja had every right to sign the Treaty of Accession. All rulers of Princely States had that right.

2. Pakistan had signed a Standstill Agreement with Kashmir which was violated by Pakistan. So the only coercion was from Pakistan - forget coercion, it was more of an invasion. So the only party which forced the Maharaja's hand was Pakistan.

 

[KN-1]

If instrument of accession is a joke then legitimacy of Pakistan itself comes into play as Pakistan was formed on the same laid down process by the British. Which means we would need a "Neutral Observer" to decide the fate of Pakistan first before talking about Kashmir.

another low IQ joke, accession pappers are void after UN resolution which recognize jammu&Kashmir as disputed territory between Pakistan and india..

 

[mikkix]

Now what, nothing will happen, diplomatic victory.. Kashmir cannot and will not resolve till the world war...

 

[M. Sarmad]

Wrong.

1. The Maharaja had every right to sign the Treaty of Accession. All rulers of Princely States had that right.

2. Pakistan had signed a Standstill Agreement with Kashmir which was violated by Pakistan. So the only coercion was from Pakistan - forget coercion, it was more of an invasion. So the only party which forced the Maharaja's hand was Pakistan.

1. The Maharaja had lost control over J&K already and was in flight when he "allegedly" sign the Instrument of accession. The Maharaja didn't practice effective Sovereignty over J&K when he signed the Instrument of Accession (if he ever did)...

2. The Maharaja had signed Stand Still Agreement with Pakistan and him signing the Instrument of Accession was itself a violation of that Stand Still Agreement. That's why Pakistan never accepted the accession.


And anyways "the accession" has been placed before the UN Security Council for arranging a ratification or otherwise by the people of the State under the auspices of the United Nations. Therefore, the arrangement caused through the accession of 26 October 1947 has been taken over by the interests of 195 countries of the UN (including Pakistan as a member nation of UN and as a party). Pakistan as a party to the dispute administers two administrations of the State on its side of cease fire line.

 

[Jackdaws]

1. The Maharaja had lost control over J&K already and was in flight when he "allegedly" sign the Instrument of accession. The Maharaja didn't practice effective Sovereignty over J&K when he signed the Instrument of Accession (if he ever did)...

2. The Maharaja had signed Stand Still Agreement with Pakistan and him signing the Instrument of Accession was itself a violation of that Stand Still Agreement. That's why Pakistan never accepted the accession.


And anyways "the accession" has been placed before the UN Security Council for arranging a ratification or otherwise by the people of the State under the auspices of the United Nations. Therefore, the arrangement caused through the accession of 26 October 1947 has been taken over by the interests of 195 countries of the UN (including Pakistan as a member nation of UN and as a party). Pakistan as a party to the dispute administers two administrations of the State on its side of cease fire line.

1. Nope, the Pakistani forces never did get to Srinagar. Nor did the Kashmiri Head of State (The Maharaja) sign any Treaty of Surrender to the Pakistani forces. So, the Maharaja did have effective Sovereignty over J&K.

2. No one can be expected to honor an agreement which is already broken by the other side. Pakistan broke the Stand Still agreement, not the Maharaja.



2.

 

[M. Sarmad]

1. Nope, the Pakistani forces never did get to Srinagar. Nor did the Kashmiri Head of State (The Maharaja) sign any Treaty of Surrender to the Pakistani forces. So, the Maharaja did have effective Sovereignty over J&K.

2. No one can be expected to honor an agreement which is already broken by the other side. Pakistan broke the Stand Still agreement, not the Maharaja.

So, unfounded claims and baseless allegations is all you have got ? You are free to believe in whatever you want.


The Fact remains that The UN doesn't consider this "Instrument of accession" as legally valid and complete as is clear from the successive resolutions passed by the Security Council (in 1948 and 1949):

The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite;

And "the accession" has been placed before the UN Security Council for arranging a ratification or otherwise by the people of the State under the auspices of the United Nations. Therefore, the arrangement caused through the accession of 26 October 1947 has been taken over by the interests of 195 countries of the UN (including Pakistan as a member nation of UN and as a party). Pakistan as a party to the dispute administers two administrations of the State on its side of cease fire line.

 

[Jackdaws]

So, unfounded claims and baseless allegations is all you have got ? You are free to believe in whatever you want.


The Fact remains that The UN doesn't consider this "Instrument of accession" as legally valid and complete as is clear from the successive resolutions passed by the Security Council (in 1948 and 1949):

The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite;

And "the accession" has been placed before the UN Security Council for arranging a ratification or otherwise by the people of the State under the auspices of the United Nations. Therefore, the arrangement caused through the accession of 26 October 1947 has been taken over by the interests of 195 countries of the UN (including Pakistan as a member nation of UN and as a party). Pakistan as a party to the dispute administers two administrations of the State on its side of cease fire line.

Which claims of mine are unfounded?

Also, please show the source which states that the U.N. doesn't consider the "Instrument of Accession" as legally valid and complete.