Azad Kashmir claim on Gilgit Baltistan

[saiyan0321]

Azad Kashmir claim on Gilgit Baltistan
By
Saiyan0321​

There has been much hue and cry with the recent declaration by the Imran government to grant the region of Gilgit Baltistan a provincial status. Many have celebrated the step and have called it a positive reform that will surely help answer the growing grievances of the people of the Gilgit Baltistan whereas some have called it as a betrayal to the Kashmir cause and an illegal annexation of a territory that belongs to Kashmir. For this purpose it is prudent to study whether Azad Kashmir holds any strong claim to the region and these claims must be studied from a historical and legal aspect.

The modern day region of Gilgit Baltistan was not always so. It was home to various states and tribes that fiercely fought for their independent status and would fight armies coming from the vale and the western region. The current region itself was never such a Polity as it is right now. The region was home to three major areas that were known as the State of Hunza, State of Nagar and the areas of Gilgit. The region in itself saw local dynasties most notable of them being the Tarakhan Dynasty and the Raissiya Dynasty, both of whom are seen as historically being the drivers of the prosperity in Gilgit Baltistan and for a thousand years the tribes of the area, from Chitral to Haramosh ruled the region in genuine peace and prosperity. While region held separate identities, there was a sense of unity in defending the region and the dynasties themselves has tributary rule over the areas of Hunza and Nagar. This peace would last till the 1800s where conflict took birth from the conterminous region of Gilgit Baltistan and foreign invasions from Afghans to Sikh. Its most stunning example is in 1841, Sulaiman Shah, Raja of Yasin, conquered Gilgit. Then, Azad Khan, Raja of Punial, killed Sulaiman Shah, taking Gilgit; then Tahir Shah, Raja of Buroshall (Nagar), took Gilgit and killed Azad Khan. Tair Shah's son Shah Sakandar inherited, only to be killed by Gohar Aman, Raja of Yasin of the Khushwakhte Dynasty when he took Gilgit. Then in 1842, Shah Sakandar's brother, Karim Khan, expelled Yasin rulers with the support of a Sikh army from Kashmir which left a garrison over there to rule the region. Meanwhile Zarowar Singh captured the town of Skardu and with it the Balti region since after the fall of Skardu Fort, they went westward capturing the fort of Astor. A large part of the region came under the forceful occupation of the Sikh by 1842 however the rule was anything but peaceful. The tribes and the people rebelled repeatedly. The Sikh rule had been extended to Gilgit in 1842. The British transferred control of the territory to the Dogra rulers of Jammu and Kashmir by the Treaty of Amritsar of 1846. Six years later, a rebellion by local tribal leaders chafing under Dogra rule led to the ouster of the maharaja’s forces. In 1860, however, Ranbir Singh recaptured it and annexed it to the state of Jammu and Kashmir as the capital of the Gilgit Wazarat. Seizure of Dardistan’s geo-strategic potential, London agreed to give Ranbir Singh military aid in exchange for the stationing, in 1877, of a British agent in Gilgit to supervise the conduct of policy on this frontier. The existence of this agency, however, was short-lived, since relations between the maharaja and the political agent, Major John Biddulph, were strained. In 1881, the agency was withdrawn, freeing the maharaja of supervision. In 1889 Colonel Algernon Durand with his first challenge coming from the rulers of Hunza and Nagar who had joined forces with the tribes of Gilgit and Baltistan to fight against the Maharaja. The two states were quelled, under what would be known as the Hunza-Nagar campaign of 1891 and Hunza and Nagar were absorbed into Gilgit Agency by 1892-3. The aggression was another display of the imperialistic policies done by the British in the region. The war started when Durand decided to enhance the connectivity of the region by building roads and telecommunication networks to forts so that the area can be defended in case of any emergency. The rulers of Hunza and Nagar regarded this as a threat as the remoteness of the region was a major defense of the people that lived over there. In 1890 Durand started reinforcing the Chalt fort thinking that the mirs of Hunza and Nagar would attack. The mirs sent a warning to Durand to cease his activities on the fort and its road since the fort was on the Gilgit side of the border. Durand did not listen and started to finish the work in great haste. The mirs responded by closing their routes to the mail that came from the British residents that were posted in Chinese Turkestan and the British took this as an act of war and declared such and annexed the reason. Through this a historically diverse region with separate identities and separate statehood came under the control of the Dogra as the Gilgit Agency. The State of Hunza and State of Nagar always saw themselves as separate Princely States.

With the war in Kashmir at full swing by 24th October 1947 and the declaration of Azad government and the accession of the Maharaja to India, it was becoming perfectly clear that the Muslim dominated region and the Gilgit Scouts would not be willing to fight for the dogra nor for India and Major William Brown, the leader of the Gilgit Scouts was well aware of that and with the signing of the instrument, the people of Gilgit were inflamed including the scouts themselves and on 31st October 1947 Major Brown sent a platoon of Scouts to surround the residence of the maharaja’s governor of Gilgit Agency, Ghansara Singh. Other platoons took control of important locations in the city. On 1 November, Ghansara Singh surrendered, and a provisional government consisting of leaders of the victorious forces were brought to power with Raja Rais singh as President and MirzaHassan Khan as Commander in chief. There was great discussion on whether the state of Gilgit should announce its independence or should it join Pakistan. Major Brown had telegraphed Khan Abdul Qayyum asking Pakistan to take over the region since the region did not have the means to fight against the might of the Indian forces. Khan Muhammad Alam Khan reached the region and on 16th November he found them squabbling and arguing which angered him leading him to state openly;

"you are a crowd of fools led astray by a madman. I shall not tolerate this nonsense for one instance... And when the Indian Army starts invading you there will be no use screaming to Pakistan for help, because you won't get it."

This statement saw the provisional government disintegrate and join with Pakistan on 16th November 1947 and two days later the states of Hunza and Nagar followed. The region of modern day Gilgit Baltistan was now part of Pakistan.



Historically speaking the region was always distinct from the valley of Kashmir and was formed part of a larger conquests of Sikh and British and the people of Gilgit Baltistan never saw themselves as Kashmiri. The Central power of Kashmir never had historical claim to the region.

Now the Gilgit revolution could also be determined as a Revolutionary Constitutionalism however the important element of Revolutionary Constitutionalism, which is the introduction of constitutionalist system to the people, did not happen as the region became a black hole. Bangash, the raja orderly of Chilas stated that the entire region is pro-Pakistan and would never accept Indian rule and the only way to preserve the region would be through Independence of Kashmir rather than joining India. With the events of October 1947 happening, on 1st November the Gilgit scouts revolted and on 2nd November the flag of Pakistan was raised in different areas. The biggest problem was that although the fervor to join Pakistan was high, the entire operation was conducted by military scouts and the provisional government of an amalgamated agency formed through conquests done by the Sikh rulers, Afghan rulers and the British rulers, knew that it lacked the immediate consensus to create a proper representative government. Major Brown, by then had contacted Khan Abdul Qayoom who sent a political agent named Alam Khan to the region. The provisional government lacked effective control and knew that without proper support from the scouts and the Pakistani army, their position would not be stable in face of an Indian invasion. They tried to garner legitimacy but were refused immediately by Alam Khan who stated that they do not understand the gravity of the situation and joining Pakistan was the only way to keep India at bay. The 16 day provisional government decided to accede to Pakistan.

Therefore in 1949 Pakistan faced a major challenge. With the war over, Pakistan now had a region that was 6 times larger than Azad Kashmir, wanted no amalgamation with Kashmir and had acceded to Pakistan in a separate manner. The Azad government legally claimed legitimacy over all of the state of Kashmir which included the Gilgit agency and with the condition of the war, losing the Gilgit agency would mean giving up an area of 72,971 km2 away. The biggest legal question in mind was that if such act was legal then the same argument could be used by Dogra which could claim a separate region away from the rule of Azad government, like the Gilgit agency, which drew its legitimacy from its separation and had thus acceded to a power like the Gilgit agency. Such an argument would complicate an already complicated situation and would weaken the legitimacy of the Azad government which claimed administrative right over all of Kashmir and was presented as such in front of the world. If Gilgit Baltistan could accede simply because there was no writ of the Azad government and they had their own provisional government then how could the very same action for the Dogra, be considered as illegitimate? This needed answer thus for a small period Pakistan saw the Gilgit agency as a legal part of Azad Kashmir but the region could not be administratively handed over to Azad Kashmir. Pakistan saw an inevitable rebellion if the region that had acceded to Pakistan was simply gifted to Azad Kashmir. For this purpose Pakistan recognized the Azad government as the successor government and the rightful authority of the Princely State of Kashmir and the Muslim Conference as the sole political party that represented the people of Kashmir and with them signed the Karachi Agreement 1949 where the leaders conceded to Pakistan the region of conterminous Gilgit Baltistan and Conterminous Ladakh. To legitimize the merger without weakening the claim of the Azad government, Pakistan needed the consent of the Azad government. If Pakistan would go ahead without consulting or giving the Azad government of an equal state, as a legal merger then it would weaken the position of Pakistan at the United Nations since such a merger would lead credence to the Dogra merger. The idea that the regions outside the writ of Azad government were free to merge with areas they felt as such would give legitimize the acceding of the state of Kashmir to India. Pakistan could not allow such thus the only way to solve the problem was to see the Azad government as the legitimate ruler of Gilgit Baltistan which, considering the aspirations of the people of Gilgit Baltistan and Ladakh and their existence as a separate nation which has always fought for freedom, would respect their wishes and have them join Pakistan as a separate entity. The approval needed to be perfect thus the Muslim Conference must also provide its consent so that there could be no loophole in this process. Lastly Pakistan took control of all affairs concerning Gilgit Baltistan and Ladakh. This was definitely something that Pakistan had to secure since as mentioned above that constitutional and legal balance was key here and the union of the area with Pakistan could not be established without the consent of the Azad government which was recognized by Pakistan as ruler of all of Kashmir. Now the most interesting thing is that despite the rebellion being in Gilgit, Pakistan also took control of the affairs of Ladakh which meant that Pakistan declared that the provisional government in Gilgit to have sufficient relevance in the affairs of Ladakh as well and their union with Pakistan included the areas of Ladakh too. This is a very interesting aspect of the agreement since this meant that concerning Ladakh, Pakistan declares itself as the sovereign ruler and not Kashmir and considers the dispute to be personal in that region. Although the events of the future, stopped Pakistan stopped from claiming Ladakh separate as a Pakistani territory occupied by a hostile power rather than a Kashmiri territory occupied by a hostile power, however it does determine this fact that Pakistan, at one time, thought along the lines of the former

The impact of this was that the region became a separate entity for Pakistan and the Azad government lost all sovereignty over the region itself. Through this Pakistan was able to keep the region in the dispute whilst establishing its separate nature of Azad Kashmir. Through this we can safely assume that Azad Kashmir conceded its claim on the region in 1949 and did not contest that said claim till 1970s. Now for some time the courts of Azad Kashmir and Pakistan treated each other as Foreign Courts and separate states and this was made through a number of precedents. In 1972 the Azad Kashmir government passed a resolution for the return of Gilgit Baltistan to the administration of Muzaffarabad but Pakistan did not heed and saw it as interference of the region in the internal affairs of Pakistan. There came upon another famous landmark judgment that would remain a major bone of contention between the two countries. As mentioned in the previous chapters that Azad Kashmir declared itself as the revolutionary government and the true representative of the people of Azad Kashmir and this was highlighted by the courts of Azad Kashmir in several judgments which I have mentioned above. Now in 1949 the Azad government under such authority had signed the Karachi Agreement where the state of Azad Kashmir had conceded the region of Gilgit Baltistan and Ladakh to Pakistan with all its affairs. Pakistan had thus continued to recognize Azad government to legitimize the Karachi Agreement and its revolutionary nature and since 1949 had treated Gilgit Baltistan as a separate territory from Azad Kashmir. Yet despite signing the courts of Azad Kashmir went one step further and declared the region as part of Gilgit Baltistan. The petition was filed in the High Court of Azad Kashmir in 1993 in the case titled Malik Muhammad Miskeen and 2 others vs The Federation of Pakistan and the case was based on the growing calls for autonomy and governance issues that were rising in the region of Gilgit Baltistan which were largely ignored. They had filed the petition asking to be recognized as citizens of Azad Kashmir and for their grievances to be answered. The court passed a stunning judgment that shocked Pakistan. The Court held that there was no legitimate cause to keep the Northern Areas and their residents detached from Azad Jammu and Kashmir and their residents are State Subjects thus validly citizens of Azad Kashmir. The judgment passed by Chief Justice Abdul Majeed Malik, directed Pakistan government in providing maximum support in amalgamation of the region with Azad Kashmir and in extension of the writ of the Azad government over the region, establishment of a legal system that is connected to the Azad Kashmir legal system and the forward implementation of the Interim Constitution 1974 over the region. The judgment was seen by many in Gilgit Baltistan to be an attempt to balance out the Shia-Sunni demographic in the region since the petitioners were Sunni and were from the Sunni dominated Diamer region and the Shia of Gilgit Baltistan did not look at the judgment kindly especially after the 1988 sectarian riots that shook the region. They were not alone in this since Pakistan also saw this with horror as the region, which was historically seen by Pakistan as its own territory and had went through hell and forth to make sure the territory would be part of the Kashmir dispute but not part of Azad Kashmir. The judgment was immediately appealed by the Government of Pakistan and the appealed case titled The Federation of Pakistan vs Malik Muhammad Miskeen and 2 others and the case was decided on 14th September 1994 where the courts declared that the High Court of Azad Kashmir had acted beyond its powers and the order was declared null and void. The court observed that while Gilgit Baltistan was indeed part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, however that was not the case for Azad Kashmir which had its territorial limits prescribed within the Interim Constitution 1974 Act and the courts of Azad Kashmir could not go beyond the constitutional limits that were set upon it and the government of Azad Kashmir could not establish constitutional administration over the region like that. Pakistan presented the Karachi Agreement to both the High Court and the Supreme Court however despite its perusal the former declared it a temporary arrangement whereas the former declared it as evidence of the fact that Gilgit Baltistan was not part of Azad Kashmir. While the judgment of the Superior Court did not mention to whom the region belonged, it did provide sufficient cause for Pakistan to declare its extremely controversial stance that while the region was part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, it was not part of Azad Kashmir. While the government of Azad Kashmir would pass resolutions on this however the legal chapter on the status of Gilgit Baltistan and the limitations of Azad Kashmir was now closed. This was cemented immediately in a landmark case titled ‘Al-Jehad Trust versus The Federation of Pakistan’ In May 1999, the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered a landmark judgement on the constitutional status of the Northern Areas in response to Constitutional Petition 17 of 1994, which sought the following remedies:

• Enforcement of fundamental rights under the constitution of Pakistan;
• Declaration of the Northern Areas’ constitutional status;
• Declaration of the people of the Northern Areas as full citizens of Pakistan, with the right fully to participate in the affairs of the federation; and
• Granting of provincial status.

Declaring that Pakistan exercised de facto as well as de jure administrative control over the Northern Areas, the Supreme Court ruled that the people of the Northern Areas were “citizens of Pakistan, for all intents and purposes… and their Fundamental Rights were protected within this very court”. Azad Kashmir did not file any response to the order nor contest the order itself.

The claim of Azad Kashmir over the region of Gilgit Baltistan is non-existent as by all intents and purposes the region is a separate entity from Azad Kashmir and this has been well established by the courts and actions of Azad Kashmir itself. The people of Azad Kashmir see any attempts of merger with Azad Kashmir as an attempt to weaken the Shia Majority status of the region by increasing the Sunni hold. The sectarian factor is another important element in the Azad Kashmir claim. The people historically see themselves as extremely different from the people of Azad Kashmir as well and trace their history with separate links. The entity of the Princely State of Kashmir was formed through blood and conquests and anything less than a separate status for the people of Gilgit Baltistan would be a great injustice to their history and identity.

@Joe Shearer @PanzerKiel @WAJsal @Jungibaaz @niaz @Arsalan @jaibi @AgNoStiC MuSliM @HRK

So how do you guys see the legal and historic claim of Azad Kashmir over Gilgit Baltistan and the claim of the Princely State of Kashmir over thje region

 

[HRK]

Azad Kashmir claim on Gilgit Baltistan
By
Saiyan0321​

There has been much hue and cry with the recent declaration by the Imran government to grant the region of Gilgit Baltistan a provincial status. Many have celebrated the step and have called it a positive reform that will surely help answer the growing grievances of the people of the Gilgit Baltistan whereas some have called it as a betrayal to the Kashmir cause and an illegal annexation of a territory that belongs to Kashmir. For this purpose it is prudent to study whether Azad Kashmir holds any strong claim to the region and these claims must be studied from a historical and legal aspect.

The modern day region of Gilgit Baltistan was not always so. It was home to various states and tribes that fiercely fought for their independent status and would fight armies coming from the vale and the western region. The current region itself was never such a Polity as it is right now. The region was home to three major areas that were known as the State of Hunza, State of Nagar and the areas of Gilgit. The region in itself saw local dynasties most notable of them being the Tarakhan Dynasty and the Raissiya Dynasty, both of whom are seen as historically being the drivers of the prosperity in Gilgit Baltistan and for a thousand years the tribes of the area, from Chitral to Haramosh ruled the region in genuine peace and prosperity. While region held separate identities, there was a sense of unity in defending the region and the dynasties themselves has tributary rule over the areas of Hunza and Nagar. This peace would last till the 1800s where conflict took birth from the conterminous region of Gilgit Baltistan and foreign invasions from Afghans to Sikh. Its most stunning example is in 1841, Sulaiman Shah, Raja of Yasin, conquered Gilgit. Then, Azad Khan, Raja of Punial, killed Sulaiman Shah, taking Gilgit; then Tahir Shah, Raja of Buroshall (Nagar), took Gilgit and killed Azad Khan. Tair Shah's son Shah Sakandar inherited, only to be killed by Gohar Aman, Raja of Yasin of the Khushwakhte Dynasty when he took Gilgit. Then in 1842, Shah Sakandar's brother, Karim Khan, expelled Yasin rulers with the support of a Sikh army from Kashmir which left a garrison over there to rule the region. Meanwhile Zarowar Singh captured the town of Skardu and with it the Balti region since after the fall of Skardu Fort, they went westward capturing the fort of Astor. A large part of the region came under the forceful occupation of the Sikh by 1842 however the rule was anything but peaceful. The tribes and the people rebelled repeatedly. The Sikh rule had been extended to Gilgit in 1842. The British transferred control of the territory to the Dogra rulers of Jammu and Kashmir by the Treaty of Amritsar of 1846. Six years later, a rebellion by local tribal leaders chafing under Dogra rule led to the ouster of the maharaja’s forces. In 1860, however, Ranbir Singh recaptured it and annexed it to the state of Jammu and Kashmir as the capital of the Gilgit Wazarat. Seizure of Dardistan’s geo-strategic potential, London agreed to give Ranbir Singh military aid in exchange for the stationing, in 1877, of a British agent in Gilgit to supervise the conduct of policy on this frontier. The existence of this agency, however, was short-lived, since relations between the maharaja and the political agent, Major John Biddulph, were strained. In 1881, the agency was withdrawn, freeing the maharaja of supervision. In 1889 Colonel Algernon Durand with his first challenge coming from the rulers of Hunza and Nagar who had joined forces with the tribes of Gilgit and Baltistan to fight against the Maharaja. The two states were quelled, under what would be known as the Hunza-Nagar campaign of 1891 and Hunza and Nagar were absorbed into Gilgit Agency by 1892-3. The aggression was another display of the imperialistic policies done by the British in the region. The war started when Durand decided to enhance the connectivity of the region by building roads and telecommunication networks to forts so that the area can be defended in case of any emergency. The rulers of Hunza and Nagar regarded this as a threat as the remoteness of the region was a major defense of the people that lived over there. In 1890 Durand started reinforcing the Chalt fort thinking that the mirs of Hunza and Nagar would attack. The mirs sent a warning to Durand to cease his activities on the fort and its road since the fort was on the Gilgit side of the border. Durand did not listen and started to finish the work in great haste. The mirs responded by closing their routes to the mail that came from the British residents that were posted in Chinese Turkestan and the British took this as an act of war and declared such and annexed the reason. Through this a historically diverse region with separate identities and separate statehood came under the control of the Dogra as the Gilgit Agency. The State of Hunza and State of Nagar always saw themselves as separate Princely States.

With the war in Kashmir at full swing by 24th October 1947 and the declaration of Azad government and the accession of the Maharaja to India, it was becoming perfectly clear that the Muslim dominated region and the Gilgit Scouts would not be willing to fight for the dogra nor for India and Major William Brown, the leader of the Gilgit Scouts was well aware of that and with the signing of the instrument, the people of Gilgit were inflamed including the scouts themselves and on 31st October 1947 Major Brown sent a platoon of Scouts to surround the residence of the maharaja’s governor of Gilgit Agency, Ghansara Singh. Other platoons took control of important locations in the city. On 1 November, Ghansara Singh surrendered, and a provisional government consisting of leaders of the victorious forces were brought to power with Raja Rais singh as President and MirzaHassan Khan as Commander in chief. There was great discussion on whether the state of Gilgit should announce its independence or should it join Pakistan. Major Brown had telegraphed Khan Abdul Qayyum asking Pakistan to take over the region since the region did not have the means to fight against the might of the Indian forces. Khan Muhammad Alam Khan reached the region and on 16th November he found them squabbling and arguing which angered him leading him to state openly;

"you are a crowd of fools led astray by a madman. I shall not tolerate this nonsense for one instance... And when the Indian Army starts invading you there will be no use screaming to Pakistan for help, because you won't get it."

This statement saw the provisional government disintegrate and join with Pakistan on 16th November 1947 and two days later the states of Hunza and Nagar followed. The region of modern day Gilgit Baltistan was now part of Pakistan.



Historically speaking the region was always distinct from the valley of Kashmir and was formed part of a larger conquests of Sikh and British and the people of Gilgit Baltistan never saw themselves as Kashmiri. The Central power of Kashmir never had historical claim to the region.

Now the Gilgit revolution could also be determined as a Revolutionary Constitutionalism however the important element of Revolutionary Constitutionalism, which is the introduction of constitutionalist system to the people, did not happen as the region became a black hole. Bangash, the raja orderly of Chilas stated that the entire region is pro-Pakistan and would never accept Indian rule and the only way to preserve the region would be through Independence of Kashmir rather than joining India. With the events of October 1947 happening, on 1st November the Gilgit scouts revolted and on 2nd November the flag of Pakistan was raised in different areas. The biggest problem was that although the fervor to join Pakistan was high, the entire operation was conducted by military scouts and the provisional government of an amalgamated agency formed through conquests done by the Sikh rulers, Afghan rulers and the British rulers, knew that it lacked the immediate consensus to create a proper representative government. Major Brown, by then had contacted Khan Abdul Qayoom who sent a political agent named Alam Khan to the region. The provisional government lacked effective control and knew that without proper support from the scouts and the Pakistani army, their position would not be stable in face of an Indian invasion. They tried to garner legitimacy but were refused immediately by Alam Khan who stated that they do not understand the gravity of the situation and joining Pakistan was the only way to keep India at bay. The 16 day provisional government decided to accede to Pakistan.

Therefore in 1949 Pakistan faced a major challenge. With the war over, Pakistan now had a region that was 6 times larger than Azad Kashmir, wanted no amalgamation with Kashmir and had acceded to Pakistan in a separate manner. The Azad government legally claimed legitimacy over all of the state of Kashmir which included the Gilgit agency and with the condition of the war, losing the Gilgit agency would mean giving up an area of 72,971 km2 away. The biggest legal question in mind was that if such act was legal then the same argument could be used by Dogra which could claim a separate region away from the rule of Azad government, like the Gilgit agency, which drew its legitimacy from its separation and had thus acceded to a power like the Gilgit agency. Such an argument would complicate an already complicated situation and would weaken the legitimacy of the Azad government which claimed administrative right over all of Kashmir and was presented as such in front of the world. If Gilgit Baltistan could accede simply because there was no writ of the Azad government and they had their own provisional government then how could the very same action for the Dogra, be considered as illegitimate? This needed answer thus for a small period Pakistan saw the Gilgit agency as a legal part of Azad Kashmir but the region could not be administratively handed over to Azad Kashmir. Pakistan saw an inevitable rebellion if the region that had acceded to Pakistan was simply gifted to Azad Kashmir. For this purpose Pakistan recognized the Azad government as the successor government and the rightful authority of the Princely State of Kashmir and the Muslim Conference as the sole political party that represented the people of Kashmir and with them signed the Karachi Agreement 1949 where the leaders conceded to Pakistan the region of conterminous Gilgit Baltistan and Conterminous Ladakh. To legitimize the merger without weakening the claim of the Azad government, Pakistan needed the consent of the Azad government. If Pakistan would go ahead without consulting or giving the Azad government of an equal state, as a legal merger then it would weaken the position of Pakistan at the United Nations since such a merger would lead credence to the Dogra merger. The idea that the regions outside the writ of Azad government were free to merge with areas they felt as such would give legitimize the acceding of the state of Kashmir to India. Pakistan could not allow such thus the only way to solve the problem was to see the Azad government as the legitimate ruler of Gilgit Baltistan which, considering the aspirations of the people of Gilgit Baltistan and Ladakh and their existence as a separate nation which has always fought for freedom, would respect their wishes and have them join Pakistan as a separate entity. The approval needed to be perfect thus the Muslim Conference must also provide its consent so that there could be no loophole in this process. Lastly Pakistan took control of all affairs concerning Gilgit Baltistan and Ladakh. This was definitely something that Pakistan had to secure since as mentioned above that constitutional and legal balance was key here and the union of the area with Pakistan could not be established without the consent of the Azad government which was recognized by Pakistan as ruler of all of Kashmir. Now the most interesting thing is that despite the rebellion being in Gilgit, Pakistan also took control of the affairs of Ladakh which meant that Pakistan declared that the provisional government in Gilgit to have sufficient relevance in the affairs of Ladakh as well and their union with Pakistan included the areas of Ladakh too. This is a very interesting aspect of the agreement since this meant that concerning Ladakh, Pakistan declares itself as the sovereign ruler and not Kashmir and considers the dispute to be personal in that region. Although the events of the future, stopped Pakistan stopped from claiming Ladakh separate as a Pakistani territory occupied by a hostile power rather than a Kashmiri territory occupied by a hostile power, however it does determine this fact that Pakistan, at one time, thought along the lines of the former

The impact of this was that the region became a separate entity for Pakistan and the Azad government lost all sovereignty over the region itself. Through this Pakistan was able to keep the region in the dispute whilst establishing its separate nature of Azad Kashmir. Through this we can safely assume that Azad Kashmir conceded its claim on the region in 1949 and did not contest that said claim till 1970s. Now for some time the courts of Azad Kashmir and Pakistan treated each other as Foreign Courts and separate states and this was made through a number of precedents. In 1972 the Azad Kashmir government passed a resolution for the return of Gilgit Baltistan to the administration of Muzaffarabad but Pakistan did not heed and saw it as interference of the region in the internal affairs of Pakistan. There came upon another famous landmark judgment that would remain a major bone of contention between the two countries. As mentioned in the previous chapters that Azad Kashmir declared itself as the revolutionary government and the true representative of the people of Azad Kashmir and this was highlighted by the courts of Azad Kashmir in several judgments which I have mentioned above. Now in 1949 the Azad government under such authority had signed the Karachi Agreement where the state of Azad Kashmir had conceded the region of Gilgit Baltistan and Ladakh to Pakistan with all its affairs. Pakistan had thus continued to recognize Azad government to legitimize the Karachi Agreement and its revolutionary nature and since 1949 had treated Gilgit Baltistan as a separate territory from Azad Kashmir. Yet despite signing the courts of Azad Kashmir went one step further and declared the region as part of Gilgit Baltistan. The petition was filed in the High Court of Azad Kashmir in 1993 in the case titled Malik Muhammad Miskeen and 2 others vs The Federation of Pakistan and the case was based on the growing calls for autonomy and governance issues that were rising in the region of Gilgit Baltistan which were largely ignored. They had filed the petition asking to be recognized as citizens of Azad Kashmir and for their grievances to be answered. The court passed a stunning judgment that shocked Pakistan. The Court held that there was no legitimate cause to keep the Northern Areas and their residents detached from Azad Jammu and Kashmir and their residents are State Subjects thus validly citizens of Azad Kashmir. The judgment passed by Chief Justice Abdul Majeed Malik, directed Pakistan government in providing maximum support in amalgamation of the region with Azad Kashmir and in extension of the writ of the Azad government over the region, establishment of a legal system that is connected to the Azad Kashmir legal system and the forward implementation of the Interim Constitution 1974 over the region. The judgment was seen by many in Gilgit Baltistan to be an attempt to balance out the Shia-Sunni demographic in the region since the petitioners were Sunni and were from the Sunni dominated Diamer region and the Shia of Gilgit Baltistan did not look at the judgment kindly especially after the 1988 sectarian riots that shook the region. They were not alone in this since Pakistan also saw this with horror as the region, which was historically seen by Pakistan as its own territory and had went through hell and forth to make sure the territory would be part of the Kashmir dispute but not part of Azad Kashmir. The judgment was immediately appealed by the Government of Pakistan and the appealed case titled The Federation of Pakistan vs Malik Muhammad Miskeen and 2 others and the case was decided on 14th September 1994 where the courts declared that the High Court of Azad Kashmir had acted beyond its powers and the order was declared null and void. The court observed that while Gilgit Baltistan was indeed part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, however that was not the case for Azad Kashmir which had its territorial limits prescribed within the Interim Constitution 1974 Act and the courts of Azad Kashmir could not go beyond the constitutional limits that were set upon it and the government of Azad Kashmir could not establish constitutional administration over the region like that. Pakistan presented the Karachi Agreement to both the High Court and the Supreme Court however despite its perusal the former declared it a temporary arrangement whereas the former declared it as evidence of the fact that Gilgit Baltistan was not part of Azad Kashmir. While the judgment of the Superior Court did not mention to whom the region belonged, it did provide sufficient cause for Pakistan to declare its extremely controversial stance that while the region was part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, it was not part of Azad Kashmir. While the government of Azad Kashmir would pass resolutions on this however the legal chapter on the status of Gilgit Baltistan and the limitations of Azad Kashmir was now closed. This was cemented immediately in a landmark case titled ‘Al-Jehad Trust versus The Federation of Pakistan’ In May 1999, the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered a landmark judgement on the constitutional status of the Northern Areas in response to Constitutional Petition 17 of 1994, which sought the following remedies:

• Enforcement of fundamental rights under the constitution of Pakistan;
• Declaration of the Northern Areas’ constitutional status;
• Declaration of the people of the Northern Areas as full citizens of Pakistan, with the right fully to participate in the affairs of the federation; and
• Granting of provincial status.

Declaring that Pakistan exercised de facto as well as de jure administrative control over the Northern Areas, the Supreme Court ruled that the people of the Northern Areas were “citizens of Pakistan, for all intents and purposes… and their Fundamental Rights were protected within this very court”. Azad Kashmir did not file any response to the order nor contest the order itself.

The claim of Azad Kashmir over the region of Gilgit Baltistan is non-existent as by all intents and purposes the region is a separate entity from Azad Kashmir and this has been well established by the courts and actions of Azad Kashmir itself. The people of Azad Kashmir see any attempts of merger with Azad Kashmir as an attempt to weaken the Shia Majority status of the region by increasing the Sunni hold. The sectarian factor is another important element in the Azad Kashmir claim. The people historically see themselves as extremely different from the people of Azad Kashmir as well and trace their history with separate links. The entity of the Princely State of Kashmir was formed through blood and conquests and anything less than a separate status for the people of Gilgit Baltistan would be a great injustice to their history and identity.

@Joe Shearer @PanzerKiel @WAJsal @Jungibaaz @niaz @Arsalan @jaibi @AgNoStiC MuSliM @HRK

So how do you guys see the legal and historic claim of Azad Kashmir over Gilgit Baltistan and the claim of the Princely State of Kashmir over thje region

I have not study this matter in detail therefore would refrain myself to comment on this issue .... but want to see a fruitful and detail debate over this issue ....

 

[niaz]

Historically the region we know as Gilt/Batista was never part of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Ethnically the indigenous population is related to the Tibetans and not with the population of the Kashmir. Also, I could not find any reference to it in the Rajatarangini, the legendary history of Kashmir & northwest India

According to the best of my info, it was Wasir Lakhpat, a Dogra Commander in service of the Sikh army who captured and annexed the Baltistan region into the state of Kashmir in 1842, and after the Sikhs defeat in 1846 the region along with Kashmir was sold by the British to Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu. It was leased back by the British gov’t from the Raja of Jammu & Kashmir 1n 1935. Unlike Azad Kashmir, it was the local population who ousted the Dogras without outside help and asked the Pakistan army to assume control.

I, therefore, cannot see the rationale behind Azad Kashmir's gov’t claim on Gilgit - Baltistan.

 

[saiyan0321]

I, therefore, cannot see the rationale behind Azad Kashmir's gov’t claim on Gilgit - Baltistan.

what i have understood of their claim is that it is due to it being a part of the Princely State of Kashmir and since Azad Kashmir sees itself as the successor government of the Dogra Regime thus it sees itself as the rightful owner of the territory and while the government of Azad Kashmir, recently has been less vocal about such claims ( but vocal never the less. The recent speech by Masood where he talked of speaking with parties ofg Gilgit Baltistan, he mentioned that the State of Kashmir would accede to Pakistan as whole and not in parts as a reference to GB being part of State of KAshmir). Parties like the JKLF, Muslim Conference, JKNC and JKPDP as well as the Hurriyat and other parties especially those that are based in Indian Held Kashmir, are even more so vigorous about the claim.
The thing is that this must be countered because the impression that is being given is that Pakistan broke a whole kashmir and is annexing it illegally whereas this is simply not true and the circumstances are completely different. It must be set that the region was as much part of Kashmir as Kabul was for the Delhi Sultanate. Conquests may have brought it under the map of an empire but the region never assimilated to it nor accepted such a cruel fate.

 

[Joe Shearer]

what i have understood of their claim is that it is due to it being a part of the Princely State of Kashmir and since Azad Kashmir sees itself as the successor government of the Dogra Regime thus it sees itself as the rightful owner of the territory and while the government of Azad Kashmir, recently has been less vocal about such claims ( but vocal never the less. The recent speech by Masood where he talked of speaking with parties ofg Gilgit Baltistan, he mentioned that the State of Kashmir would accede to Pakistan as whole and not in parts as a reference to GB being part of State of KAshmir). Parties like the JKLF, Muslim Conference, JKNC and JKPDP as well as the Hurriyat and other parties especially those that are based in Indian Held Kashmir, are even more so vigorous about the claim.
The thing is that this must be countered because the impression that is being given is that Pakistan broke a whole kashmir and is annexing it illegally whereas this is simply not true and the circumstances are completely different. It must be set that the region was as much part of Kashmir as Kabul was for the Delhi Sultanate. Conquests may have brought it under the map of an empire but the region never assimilated to it nor accepted such a cruel fate.

The elephant in the room is that the princely state of J&K was a construction, an artificial construction like many other states, of the Dogra rulers of Jammu. Therefore to claim at one stroke both that the authority of the Maharaja was superseded by the Azad Kashmir government, and that the authority of that government, without any background, extended to, severally, Gilgit, Baltistan, Ladakh, and Jammu, is a piece of legal and constitutional piety that will convince nobody, not even the residents of the several portions named. Once the authority of the Maharajas is denied, there is no other legal justification for a continuation of the entity known as the personal domain of these Maharajas; there was no link between them before the Dogras, and what stares us all in the face is that there is no link between them after the Dogras.

Pakistan's discomfort is easy to understand; it may prove impossible to resolve.

What our blindingly stupid political rulers of the moment in Delhi have not realised is that the writ of the Maharaja was the only binding thread between these territories, and by their cavalier dismissal of the constitutional framework set up by their successors, the J&K Constituent Assembly, to whom they had voluntarily relegated the sovereignty in this regard, they have effectively nullified J&K, the princely state. It may be remembered that the Maharaja had only handed over three specific rights to the Dominion of India, and its successor, the Union of India. By doing that, they justify the Chinese who effectively claim whatever they do as the rights of conquest, and they effectively encourage all the adventurism that we have witnessed from the west these last seven decades. Brilliant.

Good luck to Pakistan in its efforts to square the circle.

Good luck, also, in tiptoeing around the rude reality that the cis-Pamir rulers had been tributary to the Khan of Kashgar. A little browsing will explain why it would seem to an external observer that Pakistan has with great panache and dash jumped into a rather deep hole. Marcus Curtius is alive and well, it would appear, and has imbued an entire nation with his spirit. The external observer is happy to stand and applaud the patriotic spirit and the elan on display. From a safe distance.

 

[saiyan0321]

Now i remember you once telling @M. Sarmad that the aggressor is using great legal arguments to justify his position in a legal manner. You dont like it when we do that but we have a history of Constitutionalism and when there was fighting for Kashmir, K. Khurshid had already stated that the Azad government had revolutionary constitutionalism to gain a legitimate status in the eyes of Pakistan and they are the evidence that the maharaja had lost the mandate of the people and the people have chosen the Azad government and the muslim conference as the sole representative of the people of Kashmir. 'Mandate of the people'. its a very interesting subject isnt it. One phrase and it can shake the very foundation of the state. Are you aware that it was considered extremely improper for an elected president to declare that it had the 'Mandate of the People' within the United states and i think it was jhonson who used it for the first time in Congress and received a backlash that he uttered such words. Why? this is the most democratic of the statements. Well it was the center of the trichotomy of power. Is that wrench that is thrown because the very phase 'mandate of the people' is a declaration that i have the power of supremacy over all since that power which is given to the people has been handed to me and not to the courts nor to the congress but to me. The one who has the mandate. Anyway this is offtopic. We were talking about Kashmir. So coming to Kashmir.

The elephant in the room is that the princely state of J&K was a construction, an artificial construction like many other states, of the Dogra rulers of Jammu. Therefore to claim at one stroke both that the authority of the Maharaja was superseded by the Azad Kashmir government, and that the authority of that government, without any background, extended to, severally, Gilgit, Baltistan, Ladakh, and Jammu, is a piece of legal and constitutional piety that will convince nobody, not even the residents of the several portions named. Once the authority of the Maharajas is denied, there is no other legal justification for a continuation of the entity known as the personal domain of these Maharajas; there was no link between them before the Dogras, and what stares us all in the face is that there is no link between them after the Dogras.

Pakistan's discomfort is easy to understand; it may prove impossible to resolve.

Indeed it was and it is not constitutional piety but the role of successor government and Ofcourse this was was brought forth that whether being the successor government of the princely state was synonmous with the princely state in the legal evolution of Azad Kashmir and it was held by the courts of Azad Kashmir that it was not and Azad Kashmir, whilst being the successor state to the princely state of Kashmir is not synonymous to the Princely state and the Azad Kashmir is governed under the limitations imposed by the 1974 interim constitution which are territorial in nature and this was held in multiple cases and that is where the AJK claim falls short. They claim based on them being successor state to the Princely state but their own courts and legal minds have held that Azad Kashmir is now a separate entity and whilst a portion of it may be occupied, it does not have the territorial limits of the Princely state itself.

I understand the point that the Princely state was extremely artificial however the legal loophole is its continuation as a separate state and if the suzerainty of the British had ceased to exist by 15th August 1947 then was the state of Kashmir an independent country till 27th October. If it was recognized as such then that means the territories so mentioned were recognized as part of the Princely state which means that only the government of Kashmir whether the Maharaja, as recognized legitimate by India or the Azad government as recognized by Pakistan as legitimate, held the power to concede its territory or accede to a region. This is where the problem comes in.

Hey we are trying our best. Cut us some slack. Do you think its easy? The legal minds of our founding fathers deserve some praise because a mess was raised in 1949 and we needed a solution. Let me give you an excerpt of the book i am writing 'constitutional Governance of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan'

In 1949 Pakistan faced a major challenge. With the war over, Pakistan now had a region that was 6 times larger than Azad Kashmir, wanted no amalgamation with Kashmir and had acceded to Pakistan in a separate manner. The Azad government legally claimed legitimacy over all of the state of Kashmir which included the Gilgit agency and with the condition of the war, losing the Gilgit agency would mean giving up an area of 72,971 km2 away. The biggest legal question in mind was that if such act was legal then the same argument could be used by Dogra which could claim a separate region away from the rule of Azad government, like the Gilgit agency, which drew its legitimacy from its separation and had thus acceded to a power like the Gilgit agency. Such an argument would complicate an already complicated situation and would weaken the legitimacy of the Azad government which claimed administrative right over all of Kashmir and was presented as such in front of the world. If Gilgit Baltistan could accede simply because there was no writ of the Azad government and they had their own provisional government then how could the very same action for the Dogra, be considered as illegitimate? This needed answer thus for a small period Pakistan saw the Gilgit agency as a legal part of Azad Kashmir.....................................

Pakistan had to assure two things out of this agreement. Firstly that the areas of Gilgit Baltistan would be given to Pakistan and secondly that Pakistan would have maximum control on Azad Kashmir. The reason behind the former is discussed above as the area had merged with Pakistan separately and saw itself a separate entity from both Dogra and from the Azad government. The fact that the people of the region felt no affiliation with the Kashmiris and repeatedly fought against the Kashmiri rule along with the moment they felt that they could be independent, they started a rebellion and created their own provisional government. While the legitimacy of the government can be argued, but it doesn’t change the fact that it was formed immediately and no matter how thinly it may have felt its rule, it was not contested by anybody. In fact the merger with Pakistan was met with jubilation and unlike areas of Indian held Kashmir, which fought against the tribal Lashkar, Azad army and Pakistani army, they did not resist anywhere and played an important role in the securing of the region by taking Skardu.

To legitimize the merger without weakening the claim of the Azad government, Pakistan needed the consent of the Azad government. If Pakistan would go ahead without consulting or giving the Azad government of an equal state, as a legal merger then it would weaken the position of Pakistan at the United Nations since such a merger would lead credence to the Dogra merger. The idea that the regions outside the writ of Azad government were free to merge with areas they felt as such would give legitimize the acceding of the state of Kashmir to India. Pakistan could not allow such thus the only way to solve the problem was to see the Azad government as the legitimate ruler of Gilgit Baltistan which, considering the aspirations of the people of Gilgit Baltistan and Ladakh and their existence as a separate nation which has always fought for freedom, would respect their wishes and have them join Pakistan as a separate entity. The approval needed to be perfect thus the Muslim Conference must also provide its consent so that there could be no loophole in this process.

So this was a legal problem that we immediately faced as how to secure the region without breaking the princely state of Kashmir. Declare it an artificial construct and you have gifted India its piece. So we had this problem and we had to solve it thus this was the way. Declare Azad Kashmir the revolutionary government and the successor government and then have it agree to the separation of the region. Legally speaking, its not half bad.

What our blindingly stupid political rulers of the moment in Delhi have not realised is that the writ of the Maharaja was the only binding thread between these territories, and by their cavalier dismissal of the constitutional framework set up by their successors, the J&K Constituent Assembly, to whom they had voluntarily relegated the sovereignty in this regard, they have effectively nullified J&K, the princely state. It may be remembered that the Maharaja had only handed over three specific rights to the Dominion of India, and its successor, the Union of India. By doing that, they justify the Chinese who effectively claim whatever they do as the rights of conquest, and they effectively encourage all the adventurism that we have witnessed from the west these last seven decades. Brilliant.

Good luck to Pakistan in its efforts to square the circle.

Yeah that was a major and crude thing that they did and they didnt bother with the slow legal path that we tried to pave. It was very crude and it impacted the indian position greatly. You see India had done the same thing we had done. A recognized government as the successor to the Dogra thus the successor to the Princely state of Kashmir. The entire state and by doing so they would keep the dispute alive that the region in name was a legal sovereign nation that acceded to us on such points and thus the successor government lays claim to all the territory that its previous successor held. The difference was that we actually got the successor government that we recognized to declare a large body as not part of its government. By throwing all norms aside, India basically did what we feared to do above. We can talk more on this .

Good luck, also, in tiptoeing around the rude reality that the cis-Pamir rulers had been tributary to the Khan of Kashgar. A little browsing will explain why it would seem to an external observer that Pakistan has with great panache and dash jumped into a rather deep hole. Marcus Curtius is alive and well, it would appear, and has imbued an entire nation with his spirit. The external observer is happy to stand and applaud the patriotic spirit and the elan on display. From a safe distance.

Are you talking about the Sino-Pak Treaty 1963 and the fear that they would incorporate the area under them like they are doing for India. You didnt read my book 'Sino-Pak Treaty 1963; a Legal Study' did you?

 

[Cherub786]

It shows what identities that the population of these provinces primarily identify as.

I see, although I don't know the source of the data, according to it the people of Punjab are the most religiously conscious Muslims of all Pakistan, which I think is generally true. Over 50% of Punjabis identify as Muslims before Pakistanis. That definitely includes me. Muslim identity is stronger and more important than Pakistani identity. Pakistan was created to preserve Muslim identity so that's natural. Pakistan is not the objective itself, it is only the means, the vehicle, to strengthen Muslim identity and consciousness. The people of other provinces have never had a strong Muslim identity which is why they are so prone to ethnic separatism. According to your graph, they may identify as Pakistani, but that could easily change, because national identities aren't as durable as religious identity. It can change quickly depending on the political and social situation. If you really want the people of those provinces to remain committed and loyal to Pakistan the long term solution is to Islamize them further and nurture a strong Muslim identity among them. Why do you think Punjab has never had an ethnic separatist tendency unlike other provinces? Because we always identify as Muslim before Punjabi. Heck, most of us don't even call ourselves "Punjabi", when we say "Punjabi" we are actually referring to Sikhs. Punjabi is simply our language, it's not our identity.
How do you think the Baluchistan separatist insurgency was neutralized? The deep state policy was to flood the province with fundamentalist Islamic groups originating in Punjab, like Sipahe Sahabah. The Pakistani deep state loves to use militant Islamic groups as its proxy to undermine ethnic separatist movements in Baluchistan, NWFP and Sindh because those separatist movements are always leftist, antinomian, secularist, and skeptical of religious fundamentalism.
In short, Pakistan cannot survive as a coherent and united society without strong Islamic identity, like it or not.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Now i remember you once telling @M. Sarmad that the aggressor is using great legal arguments to justify his position in a legal manner. You dont like it when we do that but we have a history of Constitutionalism and when there was fighting for Kashmir, K. Khurshid had already stated that the Azad government had revolutionary constitutionalism to gain a legitimate status in the eyes of Pakistan and they are the evidence that the maharaja had lost the mandate of the people and the people have chosen the Azad government and the muslim conference as the sole representative of the people of Kashmir. 'Mandate of the people'. its a very interesting subject isnt it. One phrase and it can shake the very foundation of the state. Are you aware that it was considered extremely improper for an elected president to declare that it had the 'Mandate of the People' within the United states and i think it was jhonson who used it for the first time in Congress and received a backlash that he uttered such words. Why? this is the most democratic of the statements. Well it was the center of the trichotomy of power. Is that wrench that is thrown because the very phase 'mandate of the people' is a declaration that i have the power of supremacy over all since that power which is given to the people has been handed to me and not to the courts nor to the congress but to me. The one who has the mandate. Anyway this is offtopic. We were talking about Kashmir. So coming to Kashmir.



Indeed it was and it is not constitutional piety but the role of successor government and Ofcourse this was was brought forth that whether being the successor government of the princely state was synonmous with the princely state in the legal evolution of Azad Kashmir and it was held by the courts of Azad Kashmir that it was not and Azad Kashmir, whilst being the successor state to the princely state of Kashmir is not synonymous to the Princely state and the Azad Kashmir is governed under the limitations imposed by the 1974 interim constitution which are territorial in nature and this was held in multiple cases and that is where the AJK claim falls short. They claim based on them being successor state to the Princely state but their own courts and legal minds have held that Azad Kashmir is now a separate entity and whilst a portion of it may be occupied, it does not have the territorial limits of the Princely state itself.

I understand the point that the Princely state was extremely artificial however the legal loophole is its continuation as a separate state and if the suzerainty of the British had ceased to exist by 15th August 1947 then was the state of Kashmir an independent country till 27th October. If it was recognized as such then that means the territories so mentioned were recognized as part of the Princely state which means that only the government of Kashmir whether the Maharaja, as recognized legitimate by India or the Azad government as recognized by Pakistan as legitimate, held the power to concede its territory or accede to a region. This is where the problem comes in.

Hey we are trying our best. Cut us some slack. Do you think its easy? The legal minds of our founding fathers deserve some praise because a mess was raised in 1949 and we needed a solution. Let me give you an excerpt of the book i am writing 'constitutional Governance of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan'

In 1949 Pakistan faced a major challenge. With the war over, Pakistan now had a region that was 6 times larger than Azad Kashmir, wanted no amalgamation with Kashmir and had acceded to Pakistan in a separate manner. The Azad government legally claimed legitimacy over all of the state of Kashmir which included the Gilgit agency and with the condition of the war, losing the Gilgit agency would mean giving up an area of 72,971 km2 away. The biggest legal question in mind was that if such act was legal then the same argument could be used by Dogra which could claim a separate region away from the rule of Azad government, like the Gilgit agency, which drew its legitimacy from its separation and had thus acceded to a power like the Gilgit agency. Such an argument would complicate an already complicated situation and would weaken the legitimacy of the Azad government which claimed administrative right over all of Kashmir and was presented as such in front of the world. If Gilgit Baltistan could accede simply because there was no writ of the Azad government and they had their own provisional government then how could the very same action for the Dogra, be considered as illegitimate? This needed answer thus for a small period Pakistan saw the Gilgit agency as a legal part of Azad Kashmir.....................................

Pakistan had to assure two things out of this agreement. Firstly that the areas of Gilgit Baltistan would be given to Pakistan and secondly that Pakistan would have maximum control on Azad Kashmir. The reason behind the former is discussed above as the area had merged with Pakistan separately and saw itself a separate entity from both Dogra and from the Azad government. The fact that the people of the region felt no affiliation with the Kashmiris and repeatedly fought against the Kashmiri rule along with the moment they felt that they could be independent, they started a rebellion and created their own provisional government. While the legitimacy of the government can be argued, but it doesn’t change the fact that it was formed immediately and no matter how thinly it may have felt its rule, it was not contested by anybody. In fact the merger with Pakistan was met with jubilation and unlike areas of Indian held Kashmir, which fought against the tribal Lashkar, Azad army and Pakistani army, they did not resist anywhere and played an important role in the securing of the region by taking Skardu.

To legitimize the merger without weakening the claim of the Azad government, Pakistan needed the consent of the Azad government. If Pakistan would go ahead without consulting or giving the Azad government of an equal state, as a legal merger then it would weaken the position of Pakistan at the United Nations since such a merger would lead credence to the Dogra merger. The idea that the regions outside the writ of Azad government were free to merge with areas they felt as such would give legitimize the acceding of the state of Kashmir to India. Pakistan could not allow such thus the only way to solve the problem was to see the Azad government as the legitimate ruler of Gilgit Baltistan which, considering the aspirations of the people of Gilgit Baltistan and Ladakh and their existence as a separate nation which has always fought for freedom, would respect their wishes and have them join Pakistan as a separate entity. The approval needed to be perfect thus the Muslim Conference must also provide its consent so that there could be no loophole in this process.

So this was a legal problem that we immediately faced as how to secure the region without breaking the princely state of Kashmir. Declare it an artificial construct and you have gifted India its piece. So we had this problem and we had to solve it thus this was the way. Declare Azad Kashmir the revolutionary government and the successor government and then have it agree to the separation of the region. Legally speaking, its not half bad.


Yeah that was a major and crude thing that they did and they didnt bother with the slow legal path that we tried to pave. It was very crude and it impacted the indian position greatly. You see India had done the same thing we had done. A recognized government as the successor to the Dogra thus the successor to the Princely state of Kashmir. The entire state and by doing so they would keep the dispute alive that the region in name was a legal sovereign nation that acceded to us on such points and thus the successor government lays claim to all the territory that its previous successor held. The difference was that we actually got the successor government that we recognized to declare a large body as not part of its government. By throwing all norms aside, India basically did what we feared to do above. We can talk more on this .


Are you talking about the Sino-Pak Treaty 1963 and the fear that they would incorporate the area under them like they are doing for India. You didnt read my book 'Sino-Pak Treaty 1963; a Legal Study' did you?

Oh dear.

I will have to reproduce my responses from other places to fit the discussion here. Eftsoons, m'Lud.

 

[peagle]

Sino-Pak Treaty 1963; a Legal Study

Is that an actual book, or a private comment between the two of you?

I googled it, but no results showed.

 

[peagle]

I see, although I don't know the source of the data, according to it the people of Punjab are the most religiously conscious Muslims of all Pakistan, which I think is generally true. Over 50% of Punjabis identify as Muslims before Pakistanis. That definitely includes me. Muslim identity is stronger and more important than Pakistani identity. Pakistan was created to preserve Muslim identity so that's natural. Pakistan is not the objective itself, it is only the means, the vehicle, to strengthen Muslim identity and consciousness. The people of other provinces have never had a strong Muslim identity which is why they are so prone to ethnic separatism. According to your graph, they may identify as Pakistani, but that could easily change, because national identities aren't as durable as religious identity. It can change quickly depending on the political and social situation. If you really want the people of those provinces to remain committed and loyal to Pakistan the long term solution is to Islamize them further and nurture a strong Muslim identity among them. Why do you think Punjab has never had an ethnic separatist tendency unlike other provinces? Because we always identify as Muslim before Punjabi. Heck, most of us don't even call ourselves "Punjabi", when we say "Punjabi" we are actually referring to Sikhs. Punjabi is simply our language, it's not our identity.
How do you think the Baluchistan separatist insurgency was neutralized? The deep state policy was to flood the province with fundamentalist Islamic groups originating in Punjab, like Sipahe Sahabah. The Pakistani deep state loves to use militant Islamic groups as its proxy to undermine ethnic separatist movements in Baluchistan, NWFP and Sindh because those separatist movements are always leftist, antinomian, secularist, and skeptical of religious fundamentalism.
In short, Pakistan cannot survive as a coherent and united society without strong Islamic identity, like it or not.

I enjoyed reading your answer, but wont expand my reply because I would rather see where the discussion between the two of you concludes, keep going, its interesting.

I would however add one thing, you lean too heavily on a single aspect to identity, in your case religion. Don't forget, even after a long period of secular identity and secular politics in Europe, the ethnic and religious convergence in defining a European and a sub European identity is still very much there.

In the case of Pakistan, and I would say most countries around the world, religion is an essential part of defining the national identity, but other aspect, ethnicity, language and history also play an important part. Those aspect also play an important part in Pakistan's national identify that you failed to sufficiently recognise.

The centrality of Urdu as a Pakistani language is very impressive, considering it does not have its origin in the region, but it acceptance is what matters, and it has been accepted through ownership. The Indus Valley Civilisation heritage is recognised among a certain group, the only reason it has not gained a wider traction is because it has not been explored fully, but one cannot ignore the fact there is an ancient link between the ethnic groups of Pakistan. Furthermore, I think it is important to remember that all ethnic groups of Pakistan melt into each other very comfortably, more so then other areas of the world, this also has played a part in creating a solid self.

Sorry, I've added more then I wanted to, but it just flowed out.

 

[CatSultan]

Gilgit Baltistan is part of Pakistan. The other areas are negotiable but Gilgit Baltistan is not

 

[saiyan0321]

Is that an actual book, or a private comment between the two of you?

I googled it, but no results showed.

An actual book.

Amazon.com

It takes a legal outlook to the treaty and answers the myths that surround the treaty through international law and precedents.

 

[Cherub786]

I enjoyed reading your answer, but wont expand my reply because I would rather see where the discussion between the two of you concludes, keep going, its interesting.

I would however add one thing, you lean too heavily on a single aspect to identity, in your case religion. Don't forget, even after a long period of secular identity and secular politics in Europe, the ethnic and religious convergence in defining a European and a sub European identity is still very much there.

In the case of Pakistan, and I would say most countries around the world, religion is an essential part of defining the national identity, but other aspect, ethnicity, language and history also play an important part. Those aspect also play an important part in Pakistan's national identify that you failed to sufficiently recognise.

The centrality of Urdu as a Pakistani language is very impressive, considering it does not have its origin in the region, but it acceptance is what matters, and it has been accepted through ownership. The Indus Valley Civilisation heritage is recognised among a certain group, the only reason it has not gained a wider traction is because it has not been explored fully, but one cannot ignore the fact there is an ancient link between the ethnic groups of Pakistan. Furthermore, I think it is important to remember that all ethnic groups of Pakistan melt into each other very comfortably, more so then other areas of the world, this also has played a part in creating a solid self.

Sorry, I've added more then I wanted to, but it just flowed out.

It's not right to compare Pakistan to Europe. Pakistan is a unique nation in that its foundation is religious identity, unlike any European country. Israel is somewhat comparable to Pakistan in this respect, the only difference is Pakistan is limited to Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, whereas Israel is universally a homeland for Jews.
Ever since Pakistan democratized beginning with the 1970 elections, however, the various civilian governments, especially PPP and Bhuttos, tried to create a regional nationalism in Pakistan. Note that the dog and traitor Bhutto and his disgusting political party introduced the quota system, blocked serious attempts to repatriate stranded Pakistanis (Biharis) from Bangladesh, closed Pakistan for continued migration of Indian Muslims to it, and began promoting provincialism, whereas Quaid-e-Azam famously said "for God's sake give up this provincialism".
The Indus Valley civilization has nothing to do with large segments of Pakistan's population, like the Muhajirs, the Baluch, the Pakhtuns, and other ethnic groups. Indus Valley civilization can only conceivably be regarded as the heritage of Sindhis and some (not all) populations present in Punjab.
Since the Protestant Reformation, Europe's self-identification as Christendom began to decline, until today Christian identity is completely undermined and meaningless for most of Europe. The same is not true for Pakistan, and hopefully, never will be, certainly not for the foreseeable future. Europeans have never been united behind their religious identity. Even during the Crusades, go back to the First Crusade, the western Catholics first slaughtered their Eastern Orthodox fellow Christians before they even reached a single Muslim.
Although Pakistan has a multiplicity of various brands and sects of Islam, perhaps more than any other part of the Muslim world, sectarian violence within Pakistan has never and conceivably can never reach the levels of intra-Christian warfare that ravaged Europe for centuries. Sunnis and Shi'ah, Deobandis and Barelawis, Hanafis and Ahl al-Hadith, may at times be at loggerheads with each other, but at the end of the day the ordinary laity among them have no appetite to ever commit violence against each other, no matter how much the extremist clergy of these various sects spew venomous hatred against each other.

 

[peagle]

You have raised a host of different topics. I hope you wont mind if I address them paragraph by paragraph.

It's not right to compare Pakistan to Europe. Pakistan is a unique nation in that its foundation is religious identity, unlike any European country. Israel is somewhat comparable to Pakistan in this respect, the only difference is Pakistan is limited to Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, whereas Israel is universally a homeland for Jews.

Any comparison can be made, if it is relevant to the topic, it would be incorrect if the comparison was for example, made between living standards of people in Europe and Pakistan, for obvious reasons. But, the topic here is identity, no matter what the major foundational argument for Pakistan was, it is not set in stone, the basis of that argument was identity, so it is important to touch upon other examples of identity, if they are relevant, and my arguments were relevant to the discussion on hand.

The foundational argument for Pakistan was indeed for the rights of the Muslims of South Asia. But, there were other opinions within that framework, the name Pakistan is derived from the ethnic groups of the region that constitutes Pakistan today, not a pan-South Asian name, but a Pan-Indus name. Also, at the time of independence from the British raj, it was recognised that it would be better to create a third state in the east, A Bangla nation, but the idea was torpedoed by the Congress and Nehru, but had the approval of Jinnah and Muslim League, with only 10 weeks, there was not enough time for this idea to mature so it was dead or killed, take your pick.

No matter what the original argument was, that argument developed and evolved over time, that needs to be recognised, and I think it is often forgotten, we have this idea of a state for Muslims of South Asia and we seem to limit ourselves to that reality, whilst ignoring all other realities that existed in that timeframe, and the how it has evolved over the past 70 years. A fair analysis is important if an issue is to be discussed with fairness.

Ever since Pakistan democratized beginning with the 1970 elections, however, the various civilian governments, especially PPP and Bhuttos, tried to create a regional nationalism in Pakistan. Note that the dog and traitor Bhutto and his disgusting political party introduced the quota system, blocked serious attempts to repatriate stranded Pakistanis (Biharis) from Bangladesh, closed Pakistan for continued migration of Indian Muslims to it, and began promoting provincialism, whereas Quaid-e-Azam famously said "for God's sake give up this provincialism".

I prefer not to call people traitors, although some do fall into that category, I am not a fan of Bhutto, in fact I dislike him intensely, but he also did lot of good things too, it would be unfair to ignore that, that's for another discussion. I couldn't agree with you more on the Bihari issue, we should be ashamed. But, you seem to be stuck on provincialism a bit too much.

It goes back to identity, for everyone, identity is and will always be important, identity is not a simple sponge cake, rather, it is a cake with layers. I believe, we, in Pakistan are very comfortable with our identities. As a new nation, and with much of our founding leadership having died, we really only had two, Jinnah sahib and Liaquat Sahib, we faced lot of difficulties, those included provincialism. But we overcame and moved on, time to let go.

If you take India as an example, after the initial state reorganisation in 1956, which was possible under the heavy weight leadership of Nehru, and other heavy weights, who were very much alive and in power. After that, all creations of new states have generally been created after massive movement for linguistic identity politics, and mass protests that have led to loss of lives. People will always care about their identity. Even today, Americans recognise their individual historical European national identities. it is important to recognise that identity, in all its form, shall always remain a part of nation building.

I think Pakistan has managed this discourse very well, there is always room for improvement and adjustments. But on balance, we are mostly very comfortable with our ethnic, linguistic and religious identities that form a part of our national identity, which I think is a great achievement.

The Indus Valley civilization has nothing to do with large segments of Pakistan's population, like the Muhajirs, the Baluch, the Pakhtuns, and other ethnic groups. Indus Valley civilization can only conceivably be regarded as the heritage of Sindhis and some (not all) populations present in Punjab.

In 1947, the population of Pakistan was just over 32 million, between 5-6 million people left and nearly 7 million arrived in what is today Pakistan. Let me point out what a great achievement it was to absorb such a vast number as new nation. These refuges included Punjabis, who came from East Punjab so ethnic owners of local history, the rest from other parts of South Asia.
So, over 80% of Pakistanis were, and are still ethnically local. First and foremost history belongs to the land and those who inhabit that land, it is part of their blood. And, with each passing generation the immigrant groups can also claim a greater and greater share of that heritage.

Now, the Indus Valley Civilisation, it is important to recognise that any civilisation does not grow out of thin air, or at a fixed point in time. There were precursor developments that led to the Indus Valley Civilisation, then it's mature phase and then decline. If you look at the Indus Valley civilisation, its centre and core was the Indus river and it tributaries, just because Harappa and Mohenjo-daro are the most well known, that is not the Indus Valley Civilisation. It's sites are spread throughout Pakistan, in all regions, Baluchistan, KPK, Punjab, Sind, Kashmir(I need to check this again), and in Indian parts adjacent to the Pakistan region.

All ethnic groups of Pakistan can lay a strong claim to the IVC as their heritage civilisation, just because it has not been taught, it does not make it untrue. Recently there were DNA studies that have proved this direct link, there was also a forum on PDF proving that fact. Sorry I am new to online forums so you'll have to do your own research, I'm sure you'll find it.

Since the Protestant Reformation, Europe's self-identification as Christendom began to decline, until today Christian identity is completely undermined and meaningless for most of Europe. The same is not true for Pakistan, and hopefully, never will be, certainly not for the foreseeable future. Europeans have never been united behind their religious identity. Even during the Crusades, go back to the First Crusade, the western Catholics first slaughtered their Eastern Orthodox fellow Christians before they even reached a single Muslim.

I fear you are confusing identity with various individual events, most of the people killed by Muslims groups such as the ISIS and the likes, are also Muslim, Events are important in a narrative, but they have to stand the test of reason for those arguments. In Europe secularism has eroded the role of religion in public life and religious practice is very minimal, but it does not mean they do not view Christianity as part of their historical and cultural heritage. Recognising religion from a religious aspect is different from recognising it as a cultural identity, it is an extremely important differentiation to recognise. I find most religious people, and people with conservative leanings in all parts of the world find it difficult to grasp the difference, but, a difference there is. and it does exist.

Without going too deeply into it, I'll give some examples, and there are plenty. Muslim refugees from Syria were rejected in many parts of Europe because they were not Christian, Turkey was not accepted into the European Union because they were afraid of 90 millions Turk Muslims having the freedom to go where they want in Europe. They themselves state pride in the shared European values, that are derived from Greek philosophical culture and Christian heritage and principles.

Up till recently and I think some still do, many states collected taxes for the Church, in England the clergy has seats in the house of lords (upper house of parliament), after communism the Russian state has renewed its link with the Church, the examples are just endless, it is just a case of how they are recognised, outwardly association with religion has diminished, but they have not rejected their links with their Christian heritage. Recognising how an identity is defined is important, that definition can change through time. But, religion has always been a part of that identify, and still is, throughout the world, that was part of my original point.

Although Pakistan has a multiplicity of various brands and sects of Islam, perhaps more than any other part of the Muslim world, sectarian violence within Pakistan has never and conceivably can never reach the levels of intra-Christian warfare that ravaged Europe for centuries. Sunnis and Shi'ah, Deobandis and Barelawis, Hanafis and Ahl al-Hadith, may at times be at loggerheads with each other, but at the end of the day the ordinary laity among them have no appetite to ever commit violence against each other, no matter how much the extremist clergy of these various sects spew venomous hatred against each other.

I agree.

 

[SecularNationalist]

They are two different ethic group.
Period...
As someone who travelled overthere many times I can assure except the religion gilgitis have nothing in common with Azad kashmiris.