The Kashmir Dispute—the FAULTLINES : By Dr M K Teng

[Joe Shearer]

The first chapter holds no value, you don't raise this argument officially too. Why should we waste time discussing a dead end. This debate would be hot if we were discussing this in 1947, accession is not in question now. Especially after the UN resolution.
And i have replied to the questions briefly too, while questioning Pakistan stance on accession of Jammu and Kashmir why isn't accession of Hyderabad, or Junagadh respected. It's hypocritical at its best, thus the reason Indian ruling elite has dragged it under the carpet, they know their case is a dead one.

Continuing to discuss dead ends will not lead to any result.

I agree with your last line. But accession is not out of the question at all, from the Indian point of view. If you take that point of time, the UN Resolution, then even that is not valid any longer because Bhutto gave it all away in Shimla. If you say that the UN Resolutions quench the accession question, any reasonably prepared Indian would then point out that the Shimla agreement quenches the UN Resolution.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

As far as Junagadh and Hyderabad are concerned, I hadn't replied to you, but I have replied enough times, elsewhere. If you like, I can explain why on these two issues also. Up to you. And no hypocrisy involved.

 

[Hellfire]

@WAJsal

If you will note, I have only asked questions setting up the stage of discussing the topic sequentially, dispassionately, logically, and comprehensively, as two mature and intelligent human beings would discuss anything. The questions have been precise, concise (I may like to think anyways) and to the point, not relying on any document, or hearsay or an opinionated account.


Mahraja didn't accede with what the people of the state wanted, Kashmir was a Muslim majority state and wanted to join Pakistan. Thus, UN resolution and pleblicite...With the resolution, it kills any debate of accession. Accession is not even part of the picture now.
Obviously the Indian state wants to highlight these points now as they are scared of any referendum. I was expecting better argument in reply.
Now compare this to what India's done in Junagadh, it accepts accession of Kahmiri Mahraja but it doesn't accept the wishes of Mahraja of Junagadh. Hypocrisy, you kill the accession debate anyway. Discussing it means you are looking for easy way out.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/the-kashmir-dispute—the-faultlines-by-dr-m-k-teng.440732/page-3#ixzz4HUtYasPv


That, dear @WAJsal, is not at all an answer to any of my questions so far put forth. Such an answer, indeed, is illogical and tangential to the aforementioned aim of having a logical discussion as can be made out from your statement as under:



Far from it, your logic makes no sense and is blinded by nationalism. I was expecting better... Your logic is flawed in many ways and is completely nonsense, something i never bothered countering first time around. Sounded like a joke.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/the-kashmir-dispute—the-faultlines-by-dr-m-k-teng.440732/page-2#ixzz4HUuoVwmh


A logical sequential study, will rely exclusively ONLY on facts. Hence, my questions posed were nothing but an attempt to establish facts and work ONLY on facts, sequentially and in a phase manner, to avoid too much of information and 'facts' from obfuscating a logical understanding and conclusion of the true picture at every stage.

When you asked me to discuss the topic at hand logically, I agreed. But also implored you to keep aside all feelings of patriotism, nationalism and religious/ethnic fidelity (if any) and discuss it. That is what I have tried.

It is disappointing to note that like another excellent member @Azlan Haider, you too, have chosen to side step few questions in order to have an actual logical discussion.

When I gave you a write up about cancer, it was to convey a point that you had inadvertently used cancer appropriately, albeit in your security scenario. That is all. No attempt to derail.

Anyways, since I see you are unwilling to go about it with a logical and sequential approach, a conclusion that there seems to be no use discussing it bereft of rants, mutual abuses and jingoism, in the process inflaming the scores of young and at times impressionable minds here and thereby propagating the hatred and mistrust that mars the relationship between two nations, can be assumed?

As always.

Thanks.

@PaklovesTurkiye as you can see, that is what my problem is. No one wants to answer me.

@Joe Shearer

What do I say sir?

 

[WAJsal]

@WAJsal

If you will note, I have only asked questions setting up the stage of discussing the topic sequentially, dispassionately, logically, and comprehensively, as two mature and intelligent human beings would discuss anything. The questions have been precise, concise (I may like to think anyways) and to the point, not relying on any document, or hearsay or an opinionated account.

You are only going towards dead ends, i have already made my point clear on this subject in last few post. Please go through them.
Secondly, if you still insist on continuing this dead end i will be more happy to lead you to the dead end(debate will lead to no result).
And please reply point by point, quote point by point. You have missed my last two posts, try to counter point by point, you have skipped 95% of my post. Not cool man.

I agree with your last line. But accession is not out of the question at all, from the Indian point of view. If you take that point of time, the UN Resolution, then even that is not valid any longer because Bhutto gave it all away in Shimla. If you say that the UN Resolutions quench the accession question, any reasonably prepared Indian would then point out that the Shimla agreement quenches the UN Resolution.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

As far as Junagadh and Hyderabad are concerned, I hadn't replied to you, but I have replied enough times, elsewhere. If you like, I can explain why on these two issues also. Up to you. And no hypocrisy involved.

Ahh, joe....Bloody hell, i am just too good. Expecting this, anyway wait for my post, i'll make it when you reply to my questions.

 

[Hellfire]

@WAJsal

Your design of the study is itself flawed. The testing parameters of the study have been fixed by you to include only aspects you believe are in consonance to the pre-conditioned position held by you.

A classical Observer Bias is but a forgone conclusion!

I do not see any logical discussion, I merely see an intellectual discussion as a result, something, you may be comfortable at, with your grasp of the topic and nuances attached.


Cheers

 

[M. Sarmad]

The first chapter holds no value, you don't raise this argument officially too. Why should we waste time discussing a dead end. This debate would be hot if we were discussing this in 1947, accession is not in question now. Especially after the UN resolution.
.

They know there is no point in raising this argument officially. They had repeatedly raised this argument in the Security Council, and the Security Council had repeatedly rejected it.

For example, In 1957 Krishna Menon delivered an unprecedented eight-hour speech defending India's stand on Kashmir (concluding with Menon's collapse on the Security Council floor). To date, the speech is the longest ever delivered in the United Nations. The text of that speech is available online. No one has ever presented the Indian case on Kashmir better than him. He said everything the Indians say today. He blamed Pakistan and argued that Kashmir had acceded to India and the UN resolutions had become irrelevant and all other similar stuff we listen from the Indians every day. But the UN rejected the Indian position and passed another resolution reaffirming that the accession of Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through free and fair plebiscite.

India's best diplomats/delegates have failed in convincing the International Community (the UN) that Kashmir's accession to India is valid and complete. That is a dead end, for India ..

 

[WAJsal]

@hellfire , you are giving me a bloody headache. Please don't be insulted by my post, as these image do not apply to me in anyway.

Or even this...

Lets get our order of business correct first, or draw some logical boundaries....To say the least.

You made a claim questioning Pakistan's existence as a state and made a high claim too, and i quote...

An argument against accession can only be made if we accept the formation of Pakistan as a nation as null and void.

You have raised this point in other threads too, and special reference to Balochistan's accession was made by you(correct me if i am wrong).
You had a point which you believed to be facts.

can't help stating facts.

And i countered this point in this post, point-by-point...

So you question the very existence of Pakistan...? Hypothetically speaking say your flawed unrealistic argument is put into practicality(that is theoretically): so Baluchistan is not part of Pakistan it is an independent country, how would that stop East Pakistan and West Pakistan at the time of independence from being an independent state? Highly flawed logic. Correct or sensible thing to say would be that, 'An argument against accession can only be made if we accept the formation of Pakistan as a nation without Baluchistan as it's part.'
Second part of my post: Your logic cannot apply only to Pakistan, it is blinded by nationalism(which i can't blame you for); apply the same logic for India and check the case of princely states conquered by India(hy, what BS is this? something applies to us and it doesn't apply to India? maybe you forgot to mention.)

Last thing, what hypocracy is this? you accept the accession of Mahraja of Jammu and Kashmir and don't accept or apply the same logic in case of Junagadh. Now this is what i call sheer hypocrisy. I wonder how Indian members can even defend/justify this stupidity.

Please, before making such posts making huge claims just be a little careful. It sounds a bit crazy.
Something to cheer you...

And i got not as much as a reply and then you are the one saying this?

That, dear @WAJsal, is not at all an answer to any of my questions so far put forth. Such an answer, indeed, is illogical and tangential to the aforementioned aim of having a logical discussion as can be made out from your statement as under:

@PaklovesTurkiye as you can see, that is what my problem is. No one wants to answer me.

When was i answered?
Hypocrisy, and i wonder why. Disappointing and hurting for me, no offence intended in anyway.

A logical sequential study, will rely exclusively ONLY on facts. Hence, my questions posed were nothing but an attempt to establish facts and work ONLY on facts, sequentially and in a phase manner, to avoid too much of information and 'facts' from obfuscating a logical understanding and conclusion of the true picture at every stage.

When you asked me to discuss the topic at hand logically, I agreed.

The post i quoted from your first post i quoted was the chosen topic at hand. Jumping from questioning Pakistan's existence to accession of Kashmir is illogical. We can do it in phases, i don't get why you have to ignore my posts and make a new posts asking questions? don't i deserve the right to have my posts answered.

GoI has made it the policy. You will be hearing about this line too, shortly. There has been a shift, I was pointing it out since long. I intend to write up as soon as I have time on what next from GoI and Indian POV.

Secondly, you were taking pride in GOI making it a policy. This part i answered here in this post:

Why is Indian state so late on this, waking up after 70 years. Bit odd? come on...i feel sorry here. Good tactics to diverts and mislead the Indian masses and watch how Indian state chickens out in coming months.

Secondly, i feel sorry for Indians. This is shameless and ludicrous beyond comprehension, i am surprised as to how you stand by these points and call them a policy while you should protest and raise your voice against them. Modi pretty much confessed to terrorism in Balochistan. I know he forgot to mention KPK, FATA and Karachi, i bet he had 'thank you' letters being sent to him by Mullah Radio.
Forget about Modi, i mean how is Indian masses taking this crap? you justify the killings of 80 odd people in Kashmir by comparing it to Blaochistan and FATA, wow. While the world and more importantly the Indian public is looking for a explanation on whats happening in Kashmir.

It reminds me of Indian posters on PDF, best defense: Pakistan is doing this and that in KPK, FATA. Maybe i am right in my assumption that majority of Indian public don't sympathize with Kashmiris, in fact they are quite happy with getting rid of them. 80 odd people dead is nothing. Maybe i need to be proven wrong.

I was never answered. If you take pride in this being your policy, please reply to my post at least.

This is why i previously said you need to answer my posts first point-by-point. And say if you realized you were incorrect in your analogy of questioning Pakistan's existence(theoretically speaking), it's not a must that you quote my post....You can simply quote one part of it and even accept your mistake.
And then you have simply jumped to asking me questions about Kashmirs accession , and even then i didn't bother to remind you that you have missed my posts.

Last thing, take your time. If you feel you are incorrect on some point, don't really have to say you were wrong; but please don't jump to giving incorrect judgments. I am still more than happy to reply to any questions you might have. But don't i deserve to get answered first? This is a bit hypocritical, sorry to say.

Your design of the study is itself flawed. The testing parameters of the study have been fixed by you to include only aspects you believe are in consonance to the pre-conditioned position held by you.

Far from correct, you do not get my point and Joe's got in last few posts, go through them.
regards

They know there is no point in raising this argument officially.

And rightly so, it would be a great display of hypocrisy.

For example, In 1957 Krishna Menon delivered an unprecedented eight-hour speech defending India's stand on Kashmir (concluding with Menon's collapse on the Security Council floor). To date, the speech is the longest ever delivered in the United Nations. The text of that speech is available online. No one has ever presented the Indian case on Kashmir better than him. He said everything the Indians say today. He blamed Pakistan and argued that Kashmir had acceded to India and the UN resolutions had become irrelevant and all other similar stuff we listen from the Indians every day. But the UN rejected the Indian position and passed another resolution reaffirming that the accession of Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through free and fair plebiscite.

India's best diplomats/delegates have failed in convincing the International Community (the UN) that Kashmir's accession to India is valid and complete. That is a dead end, for India ..

@hellfire ,@Joe Shearer , great information...

 

[Tameem]

They know there is no point in raising this argument officially. They had repeatedly raised this argument in the Security Council, and the Security Council had repeatedly rejected it.

For example, In 1957 Krishna Menon delivered an unprecedented eight-hour speech defending India's stand on Kashmir (concluding with Menon's collapse on the Security Council floor). To date, the speech is the longest ever delivered in the United Nations. The text of that speech is available online. No one has ever presented the Indian case on Kashmir better than him. He said everything the Indians say today. He blamed Pakistan and argued that Kashmir had acceded to India and the UN resolutions had become irrelevant and all other similar stuff we listen from the Indians every day. But the UN rejected the Indian position and passed another resolution reaffirming that the accession of Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through free and fair plebiscite.

India's best diplomats/delegates have failed in convincing the International Community (the UN) that Kashmir's accession to India is valid and complete. That is a dead end, for India ..

Your posts always piece of information and history, Keep it up Buddy, the pack only wants to annoyed you to a point where you resign from the debate by yourself, don't falls to their schemes. You are doing a great job.

 

[M. Sarmad]

@hellfire

The Instrument of Accession

Indian position: Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, on 26 October 1947 executed the Instrument of Accession under the provisions of the Indian Independence Act 1947 and acceded his state to the Dominion of India. India claims that the accession is unconditional and final.


Pakistan's position: Pakistan rejected this accession as this accession was predicated on fraud and violence. Pakistan claimed that the Maharaja had no authority to sign the Instrument of Accession as he had lost the confidence of his people. Moreover, regarding the signing of the Instrument of Accession, its timing, terms and conditions, the timing of the landing of Indian troops, and even the very existence of such a document are controversial.


The UN position: The UN holds that while the accession of Kashmir to India may not be invalid, it's incomplete. Many Security Council members held that Lord Mountbatten’s letter regarding accession (which stated that the question of State’s accession should be settled by the reference to the people) was an integral part of the terms of accession.

The Security Council passed Resolutions that established self-determination as the governing principal for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute. It explicitly and by implications, rejected India's claim that Kashmir was legally Indian territory.

It is also pertinent to mention that the UN through its resolutions 91 (March 1951) and 122 (January 1957) also repudiated Indian stance that the issue of accession of Kashmir had been resolved by the constituent assembly of Kashmir. These resolutions reiterated that the question of accession could not be resolved by any means other than enunciated in the UN resolutions on the subject.

The UN Resolutions are still valid.


@hellfire ... Please tell us what is it that You want to discuss here ? Pakistani Position, Indian Position or the position that actually matters (i.e The UN Position) ?

I agree with your last line. But accession is not out of the question at all, from the Indian point of view. If you take that point of time, the UN Resolution, then even that is not valid any longer because Bhutto gave it all away in Shimla. If you say that the UN Resolutions quench the accession question, any reasonably prepared Indian would then point out that the Shimla agreement quenches the UN Resolution.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Sir, The UN resolutions on Kashmir are still valid, even though India has made many efforts to declare them
‘dead’, particularly after the signing of the Simla Agreement.


This Indian claim has been refuted by various UN representatives who, on several occasions, have clarified that, only a bilateral agreement, which solves the problem, would legally supersede the numerous existing UN resolutions on that dispute. Also, in the absence of any fundamental change in the circumstances, the UN resolutions can become invalid only when the UN Security Council declares them null and void.


In April 1990, the UN Representative, Francis Guiliani, clarified: ‘a bilateral agreement, which solved the problem, would supersede the resolution aimed at solving the issue. However, as long as the problem remained, the resolutions would remain in effect regardless of when they were adopted

 

[VCheng]

In April 1990, the UN Representative, Francis Guiliani, clarified: ‘a bilateral agreement, which solved the problem, would supersede the resolution aimed at solving the issue. However, as long as the problem remained, the resolutions would remain in effect regardless of when they were adopted

Any verifiable source for that claim?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Any verifiable source for that claim?

The Pakistan Times, April 30, 1990

http://issi.org.pk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/1295853266_28991011.pdf

 

[VCheng]

The Pakistan Times, April 30, 1990

http://issi.org.pk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/1295853266_28991011.pdf

There is no verifiable UN record of that Pakistani newspaper report, Sir.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Reference #69, and a few more are from 1966. The quote is from 1990. There are no UN records to verify this quote.

There is no verifiable UN record of that Pakistani newspaper report, Sir.

Kashmir still remains as an unresolved international dispute on the agenda of the United Nations Security Council, and the UNMOGIP is still present in India and Pakistan (44 years after the signing of Simla Agreement) ... Easily verifiable ... No ?


The first team of unarmed military observers, who eventually formed the nucleus of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), arrived in the mission area in January 1949 to supervise, in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the ceasefire between India and Pakistan; and to assist the Military Adviser to the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), established in 1948 by Security Council resolutions 39 (1948)

and 47 (1948)

.

Following the India-Pakistan hostilities at the end of 1971 and a subsequent ceasefire agreement of 17 December of that year, the tasks of UNMOGIP have been to observe, to the extent possible, developments pertaining to the strict observance of the ceasefire of 17 December 1971 and to report thereon to the Secretary-General.

Given the disagreement between India and Pakistan about UNMOGIP’s mandate and functions, the Secretary-General’s position has been that UNMOGIP can only be terminated by a decision of the Security Council. In the absence of such a decision, UNMOGIP has been maintained with those same arrangements since then.


http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unmogip/mandate.shtml

 

[Tameem]

Kashmir still remains as an unresolved international dispute on the agenda of the United Nations Security Council, and the UNMOGIP is still present in India and Pakistan (44 years after the signing of Simla Agreement) ... Easily verifiable ... No ?

Good, If Shimla agreement solves everything on Kashmir, what exactly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Military_Observer still doing In Pakistan and India controlled Kashmir?

 

[VCheng]

Kashmir still remains as an unresolved international dispute on the agenda of the United Nations Security Council, and the UNMOGIP is still present in India and Pakistan (44 years after the signing of Simla Agreement) ... Easily verifiable ... No ?

That is only Pakistan's view of this issue, yes.

 

[M. Sarmad]

That is only Pakistan's view of this issue, yes.

What is it that you deny ? Presence of UNMOGIP in India and Pakistan ? or the fact that the Kashmir dispute still remains on the agenda of the SC ?

@Azlan Haider Have posted a series of 6 questions now. (And had posted 03 earlier, which you had sidestepped; now can be relegated to a later stage). An answer to same would be a good start, only facts. No opinions or personal interpretation. That's how, a logical discussion proceeds. It needs to be absolutely slow, the point dissected limiting to the point and then next point needs to be taken; 70 years can not be deciphered in 25 posts.

My contention remains, I intend to understand what is your stand and the basis for it, something I am yet to find.

Also, when I keep harping on Baluchistan, I do so to underscore the absurdity of positions today. Of trying to unravel the past, whereas the point of discussion should be where next from today, which, unfortunately ,the present situation between the two nations has rendered a moot question.

We have discussed this before:

https://defence.pk/threads/autonomy...cipe-for-disaster.440287/page-12#post-8509588