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

[Spectre]

It isn't, but they wouldn't recognise either Imperial Leather or Molton Brown, and in any case, I can't afford either of those any more. Now I use something from Khadi Bhandar which really freaks me out. I have been having two or three baths a day, just to use that SOP.

Such Elitist tastes..tch tch.. As MG said Poverty is expensive or something to that effect

What happened to good ol lifeboy hai jahan, tandoroosti hai wahan!

 

[Joe Shearer]

Such Elitist tastes..tch tch.. As MG said Poverty is expensive or something to that effect

What happened to good ol lifeboy hai jahan, tandoroosti hai wahan!

Tandoroosti? Ay ki cheez houndi ain?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Read UNMOGIP and it's mandate. Then stop posting crap like this (the bold portion) here. Or you will be dealt as a troll, with no quarters given.

Am sick of people like you spewing hatred and jingoism everywhere.

Sir, the very fact that UNMOGIP still has a mandate (and this mandate has always remained unchanged) invalidates the Indian claim that "UNMOGIP mandate has lapsed after the signing of the Simla Agreement". India has requested the withdrawal of UNMOGIP from the Indian side of the Line of Control. But the UN Secretary General determined that until the Security Council agreed to the withdrawal, the mission should remain in the area. There is no periodic review of UNMOGIP mandate, and it's mandate was not reviewed even after the signing of Simla Agreement in 1972.

Humor me. Answer them sequentially.

The questions are as under mentioned:

1. The formation of Dominions of India & Pakistan are governed by Indian Independence Act of 1947. The accession of the Princely States is specified by Para 3 sub-clause (a). Do you accept the validity of the act and the provisions it contains as being a legal basis wherein the Dominions are legalized as Nation States?

2. What, as per you, constituted a Sovereign authority in a Princely State in the period preceding August 1947?

3. If, as per you, the British recognized the Maharaja of J&K as the sovereign for the state, then under what clause or act of the aforementioned act as mentioned in 1. above was the Maharaja NOT the legal sovereign of the State?

4. If, as per you, the Maharaja was not a legal sovereign, then under which clause was any other ruler of any other state a legal sovereign?

5. Why, in your opinion, was a standstill agreement signed by Pakistan when India did not, with Maharaja of Kashmir, if he was not a legal sovereign if you contend to it?

6. Assuming you consider the aforementioned Maharaja as the legal sovereign, then was it not a fact that as of 15 August 1947 Jammu and Kashmir was an independent State in addition to the two Dominions formed, the sovereign of which was the said Maharaja, and being a legal nation, it was an independent state which derived it's legitimacy from the very Act wherein Pakistan derived it's own legitimacy?

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/the-kashmir-dispute—the-faultlines-by-dr-m-k-teng.440732/page-3#ixzz4HcBt5bXm

^^ Nothing much to disagree about....

 

[WAJsal]

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:

My god, how do you expect me to answer your questions when you do not reply to my posts in the first place.

Make the comparison. Please do remember Baluchistan is not disputed and please don't get desperate like PM Modi, discuss the topic on hand.

By topic on hand i meant you questioning Pakistans existence as a state. Which was the very part of the post i specifically quoted in the first place.

Please don't jump to different topic, i will reply to your posts once you reply to mine. That is point by point.
Here you go for more information as to what i am talking about:

@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.




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...

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.


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

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


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



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.

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

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.

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


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

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

Why are you hesitant in answering the first set of questions, which merely establishes the validity of the sovereign and of the Act? Instead of circumlocution, we would have been en-route on our discussion by now.

Why are you running away from by posts? You are only ignoring the first set of posts i made and have jumped to another topic. Get basic things right, when we are done with that subject i will more than gladly answer whatever questions you want answered. I deserve an answer first, don't you think.
And please use the Quote button. You ignore 90% of my post.

To be honest, @hellfire has the advantage of you there at the moment, although I doubt that anybody else on the forum has your thorough knowledge of the history.

Actually, if you look at the first set of this conversation @hellfire claims to be questioning the very existence of Pakistan as a state. And takes pride in India making it a policy of raising Baluchistan and etc,etc. When he was replied he never bothered to reply to my posts, which is quite ludicrous. And even then being a senior member, i didn't bother mentioning it...As i thought he might not have a reply to my post and once he jumped to a different topic, going from questioning Pakistan's existence to Kashmir accession i didn't show any interest in the subject. Though i still assured him that i'd reply if he wishes to hear on this dead topic. What is get in reply is quite hilarious and you can look it up yourself, i am being accused of running away. Mind you, i never did run away from any argument.

That being said, i think we should refrain from hidden cheap attacks in our posts.

 

[Hellfire]

@WAJsal

All the best

Farewell

@Joe Shearer

Sir offline for a pretty long time

Thanks for all the effort

 

[WAJsal]

@WAJsal

All the best

Farewell

Sorry to be harsh, i hate being a bit harsh. You try to be a bit calm, sorry if i was a bit hurting in my posts.

Secondly, you might have misunderstood me. I meant stay on topic which we were discussing, not the topic of the thread. Sometimes a discussion can go off-topic at times and if it does, it doesn't have to mean that we are going off-topic. I answered to a claim you made and i was expecting an answer to that in reply. You might have misunderstood me.

And if you still want any discussion on Kashmir subject, please ask any questions in Kashmir related thread i made. It's sticky.

 

[Hellfire]

Sorry to be harsh, i hate being a bit harsh. You try to be a bit calm, sorry if i was a bit hurting in my posts.

Yikes! Said farewell as moving. Intermittent presence on net. Hence the farewell. Told you after 30 Sep can engage with you. You are highly recommended by @Joe Shearer and hence, I am aware of your grasp of knowledge. But also am aware of the youth I face (not that I am OLD) who I face. A knowledgeable, self-assured and confident bordering on arrogant for those who cant appreciate these qualities, young man. I am indeed tickled to see my own 'arrogant' self about a decade and a half back ... wish I could tell you my specialisations!

Secondly, you might have misunderstood me. I meant stay on topic which we were discussing, not the topic of the thread. Sometimes a discussion can go off-topic at times and if it does, it doesn't have to mean that we are going off-topic. I answered to a claim you made and i was expecting an answer to that in reply. You might have misunderstood me.

And if you still want any discussion on Kashmir subject, please ask any questions in Kashmir related thread i made. It's sticky.

Have not misunderstood you. Your eagerness and enthusiasm to debunk me has been the reason for us going in circles.

When you have quoted me on my association of Pakistan and Kashmir, by posing the questions I have posed, I have tried to give you the logic of what I am saying.

If you attempt to humour me and answer the questions as they have been sequentially laid out, only as per your view, not of GoP/UN/Mars/Andromeda et al, will be able to guide you sequentially to why i said what I did.

Additionally, while you have been quite piqued at my emphasising the shift of policy, you have failed to appreciate the fact that I was able to analyse correctly. Now until and unless I am Modi sitting here chatting with you, or someone of the cabinet, it should give you enough indicator that I am not someone who is simply jerking around and not open to listen to a counter point.

You ask @Joe Shearer a bit about my base in private mode, he will tell you.


And sorry, will be intermittent. May I suggest we start in Oct? No one, neither GoP nor GoI is bothered a squat about you and I

Cheers and good luck

catch you later.

 

[The Eagle]

 

[Tameem]

Once Again, This Secretary General Letter is a clear proof that India had a very strong case on Kashmir, that's why Pakistani establishment is on the back foot, while Indian diplomacy is roaring at UN. That, Kashmir Dispute already settled under Shimla Agreement (ofc minus poor drafting mistake) and UNMOGIP will be packing their bags out of the area very soon. @Azlan Haider

 

[Spring Onion]

Tandoroosti? Ay ki cheez houndi ain?

hun pokhey awam nu ki pata tandrusti ki cheez hondi aa