What's new

Beautiful Post : Kashmir - SarthakGanguly's Logical Comment

tell me about it...
AFAIK Mr. Nawaz Sharif had once dismissed Mr. Mumtaz Rathore... detained him and installed Sardar Qayyoom in "azad" Kashmir. But then I guess Pakistan is habitual to military coups...election rigging..isnt it??
Pakistan has prevented the creation of an independent media in the territory through bureaucratic restrictions and coercion. Before 2005 the only radio allowed to operate was the Azad Kashmir Radio which was a subsidiary of Radio Pakistan.
Till the earthquake happened somewhere in 2005 the limited number of telephone landlines in the region were controlled by Special Communications Organization which is a functional unit of the Pakistani army.Only after the earthquake did the government allow private mobile phone companies to operate in Azad Kashmir when it was pointed out that the loss of life could have been lessened had people and rescue workers had this technology as they did in affected areas in NWFP.Ergo all means of communication was controlled by either PA or Pak govt.
In this unique case of “self-rule” under the constitution the elected representatives 've to comply to the Kashmir Council controlled by Islamabad.....The High Court and Supreme Court Judges can only be appointed by approval of the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs in Islamabad.....The Minister of Kashmir Affairs can dismiss the Prime Minister as can the Chief Secretary who is another Islamabad appointee. where's the self rule in it???

Pakistan didn't have an Independent Media before the 2000s naturally neither did AJK - It wasn't something sinister...it was just something the rest of us went through as well !

You could've at least bothered to look at the links of Special Communications Organization before you copy-pasted the information from Wikipedia; most of them have been scratched because most don't work & the one that does work About Us | Special Communication Organization - Doesn't mention the Pakistan Army anywhere ! Additionally the rest of the links have been distorted to give information that the link don't talk about hence why they're scratched...just click on a couple to find out how the information contained within them is different to the information posted in Wiki.

Do you want me to post articles on censorship in Indian Occupied Kashmir ?

So far as the Kashmir Council is concerned do you know who sits on the Kashmir Council ? The President of AJK, PM of AJK & 6 AJK Assembly Members along with the PM of Pakistan & 5 MNAs. (Section 21)

Thats 8 votes to 6 !

The High Court & Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the PM of AJK ! (Section 42)

Neither the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs nor the Chief Secretary can dismiss either the PM or the President of AJK ! (Section 6 & 18)

The Federal Minister of State for Kashmir Affair only gets to sit on the Kashmir Council as one of the 5 Federal Ministers (Section 21 s.s 3 & 10) and thats the extent of his purpotedly draconian powers.

If you find something to the contrary in the http://www.ajkassembly.gok.pk/AJK_Interim_Constitution_Act_1974.pdf please enlighten me.

Trust me india is doing a favor by not letting 'em answer this question.The day we do it Pakistan will have to hang its head in shame...write it down on stone.

You do your bit & I'll worry about hanging my head in shame ! :tup:
 
.
- LOC as the International Border is not a solution,.
Why not?

HRK said:
- Accusations without evidence are for the consumption of local Junta, I would not comment on this.
I accused you of nothing!!
I demanded answers to my questions which you've been avoiding very cleverly.
 
.
FIRST ONE i wont treat it even as bullshit !! i have my doubts on the second source. but it may be possible that for Patel Hyderbad merger with India was more important that J&K. Specially when there was nothing much he can do about J&K due to direct interference form our Great Nehru.
"In this regard, the record of the foolishness of Muslim leaders is a long and sordid one. I will allude to just one aspect of this here. In 1947, when India was partitioned, Pakistani leaders adopted a completely stupid stance and staked their claim to two Hindu-majority Indian princely states: Junagadh and Hyderabad. Had the Pakistani leaders adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach and not demanded that Junagadh and Hyderabad, which were far from the Pakistani borders and deep inside Indian territory, should accede to Pakistan, the issue of Kashmir would never have become so serious as it soon did. The question of Kashmir could then have very easily been solved in favour of Pakistan. But the avarice of the Pakistani leaders resulted in Pakistan getting neither Junagadh nor Hyderabad, and, at the same time, they failed to acquire Kashmir as well.


Let me cite some facts to confirm my point. Chaudhry Muhamnmad Ali was the Prime Minister of Pakistan in the period 1955-1957. Prior to this, he had been a senior minister in the cabinet of Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan. In his voluminous book Emergence of Pakistan he relates that shortly after the Partition, the Muslim ruler of the Hindu-majority princely state of Junagadh declared that his state would accede to Pakistan. India refused to accept this decision and sent in its armed forces that took over the state and incorporated it into India. After this, a meeting was held in Delhi, attended by Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, from the Indian side, and Liaqat Ali Khan and Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, from the Pakistani side. Chaudhry Muhammad Ali writes:


‘Sardar Patel, although a bitter enemy of Pakistan, was a greater realist than Nehru. In one of the discussions between the two Prime Ministers, at which Patel and I were also present, Liaqat Ali Khan dwelt on the inconsistency of the Indian stand with regard to Junagadh and Kashmir. If Junagadh, despite its Muslim ruler’s accession to Pakistan, belonged to India because of its Hindu majority, how could Kashmir, with its Muslim majority, be a part of India simply by virtue of its Hindu ruler having signed a conditional instrument of accession to India? If the instrument of accession signed by the Muslim ruler of Junagadh was of no validity, the instrument of accession signed by the Hindu ruler of Kashmir was also invalid. If the will of the people was to prevail in Junagadh, it must prevail in Kashmir as well. India could not claim both Junagadh and Kashmir.
‘When Liaqat made these incontrovertible points, Patel could not contain himself and burst out: “Why do you compare Junagadh with Kashmir? Talk of Hyderabad and Kashmir, and we could reach an agreement.” Patel’s view at this time, and even later, was that India’s efforts to retain Muslim-majority areas against the will of the people were a source not of strength but of weakness to India. He felt that if India and Pakistan agreed to let Kashmir go to Pakistan and Hyderabad to India, the problems of Kashmir and of Hyderabad could be solved peacefully and to the mutual advantage of India and Pakistan.’


If what Chaudhry Muhammad Ali says is true, it is incontrovertible evidence that the conflict over Kashmir is a creation of the Pakistani leaders themselves, and not of India.


Further proof of this is available in another book by an important Pakistani leader, Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan. This book was originally written in Urdu under the title Gumgashta Qaum. Its English title is The Nation That Lost Its Soul. In this book, Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan reveals:


‘When Mountbatten arrived in Lahore when fighting broke out in Kashmir, he addressed an important dinner meeting which was attended by the Pakistani Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan, the Governor of the Punjab, and four Ministers from the Punjab, where he delivered a message from Patel. In his message, Patel suggested that India and Pakistan should abide by the principles that had been agreed upon between the Congress and the Muslim League with regard to the political future of the princely states, according to which the states would accede to India or Pakistan depending on the religion of the majority of their inhabitants as well as their contiguity to either of the two countries. Accordingly, Patel suggested that Pakistan should take Kashmir and renounce its claims to Hyderabad Deccan, which had a Hindu majority and which had no land or sea border with Pakistan. After delivering this message, Mountbatten retired to the Government House to rest.’


Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan further relates:


‘I was in-charge of Pakistan’s operations in Kashmir. I went to see Liaqat Ali Khan, and pointed out that Indian forces had entered Kashmir and that Pakistan could not succeed in driving them out using the tribal raiders to ensure that Kashmir became part of Pakistan. I even said that it seemed unlikely that the Pakistani Army could succeed in doing so. Hence, I insisted, we must not reject Patel’s offer.But Liaqat Ali Khan turned to me and said, “Sardar Sahib! Have I gone mad that I should leave the state of Hyderabad Deccan, which is even larger than the Punjab, in exchange for the mountains and peaks of Kashmir?”


‘I was stunned at Liaqat Ali Khan’s reaction, shocked that our Prime Minister was so ignorant of geography, and at his preferring Hyderabad Deccan over Kashmir. This was nothing but living in a fool’s paradise. To acquire Hyderabad was clearly impossible, and we were rejecting an opportunity that would have given us Kashmir. Yet, Liaqat was totally unaware of the importance of Kashmir for Pakistan. That is why I resigned in protest as in-charge of Kashmir operations.’"

It was posted in a different thread by @Bang Galore. I am just posting it here for reference. May be it's far more authentic and reliable to you.
 
.
It was posted in a different thread by @Bang Galore. I am just posting it here for reference. May be it's far more authentic and reliable to you.
as i guessed. The issue of An Independent Hyderabad or part of Pakistan bang in middle of India was an issue with importance many times greater than Kashmir. It can not be compared with our *** hole PM bringing the issue in front of UN and agreeing to plebiscite.
 
.
plz read clause I (i), addition to this

Kashmir is not a bilateral matter as India & Pakistan is in agreement that Kashmir is a dispute of International gravity in the form of UN resolutions.

1(i) only means that the UN Principles (of equality between nations etc) apply and it does not mention any Resolutions. ALL disputes were converted into BILATERAL issues after Simla.
 
.
Only if you have read the UN charter (link is in your own post)
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
  1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
So?
I would advise you to read the said clause agin not just first line which says "or by any other mean mutually agreed (India and Pakistan both are in agreement with UN resolution regarding Kashmir) upon between them" additionally read Clause 4(ii) & Clause 6

if the situation is otherwise as you stated then prove it, otherwise its just another rant nothing els.
You have a serious comprehension problem.

plz post any single document to support your claim, even Indian government till to date has not interpreted UN resolution this way ......
Read the minutes of UN meetings. Its freely available.

Not even Indian government termed Pakistan as the aggressor in UN, again I would ask you to support your claim with the official document, or I should consider it as another Indian myth regarding Kashmir.
As I said, you have serious comprehension issue. The very basis of proceedings at UN was India's complaint against Pakistan. What do you thing we were doing there? Playing kabadi?

The Government of India request the Security Council to call upon Pakistan to put an end immediately to the giving of such assistance which is an act of aggression against India. [Link]​
 
.

Do "You have a serious comprehension problem." .... ??

You have a serious comprehension problem.

You are free to believe anything, I would not comment on this.

Read the minutes of UN meetings. Its freely available.

Oh plz feel freel to share .....

As I said, you have serious comprehension issue. The very basis of proceedings at UN was India's complaint against Pakistan. What do you thing we were doing there? Playing kabadi?

The Government of India request the Security Council to call upon Pakistan to put an end immediately to the giving of such assistance which is an act of aggression against India. [Link]​

Dear read it again, rather to term Pakistan as an aggressor Gov. of India was complaining about the non-cooperative behaviour of Pakistan with India, further India filled its case under the chapter VI of UN charter which deals with the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, not with under the chapter VII of UN which specifically deal with the ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION so in short, India accepted that Kashmir is a Disputed matter & denied the Kashmir uprising as act of aggression.
 
Last edited:
.
1(i) only means that the UN Principles (of equality between nations etc) apply and it does not mention any Resolutions. ALL disputes were converted into BILATERAL issues after Simla.

You have all the right to believe what so ever you want to believe, but I would only say that all the chapters of UN Charter are basically the Principles of UN under which its works to achieve its core purpose, i.e.
  1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
So the Shimla agreement is not against the UN resolutions which are passed under the chapter VI: Pacific solution of the the dispute, according to clause (1) of Chapter-VI
  1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
and Article 36 clause(1)

1-The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.

& According to clause (3)

3- If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.

In the end plz read the Article 37 sub clause (1)
  1. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.
 
Last edited:
.
You have all the right to believe what so ever you want to believe, but I would only say that all the chapters of UN Charter are basically the Principles of UN under which its works to achieve its core purpose, i.e.
  1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
So the Shimla agreement is not against the UN resolutions which are passed under the chapter VI: Pacific solution of the the dispute, according to clause (1) of Chapter-VI
  1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
and Article 36 clause(1)

1-The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.

& According to clause (3)

3- If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.

In the end plz read the Article 37 sub clause (1)
  1. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.

Bhaijan, tussi jinni marzi eh gallaan bana lau, mein jo kehyaye eh ohooee theek hey.

All matters including Kashmir are bilateral after Simla, and no third party can intervene without both Indian and Pakistani consent. None.
 
.
Bhaijan, tussi jinni marzi eh gallaan bana lau, mein jo kehyaye eh ohooee theek hey.

All matters including Kashmir are bilateral after Simla, and no third party can intervene without both Indian and Pakistani consent. None.

your opinion ....
 
. . .
cant be ruled those statements more than 'their opinion' ..... :azn:

Their opinion carries the weight of the United Nations and the world's only superpower behind it. Pretty robust, I would say. :D
 
.
Their opinion carries the weight of the United Nations and the world's only superpower behind it. Pretty robust, I would say. :D

and its according to the clause one of Chapter VI of UN charter .... :P

We just need to wait some more time so they can move towards the Article 37 sub (1) Chapter VI .....:cheers:
 
.
and its according to the clause one of Chapter VI of UN charter .... :P

We just need to wait some more time so they can move towards the Article 37 sub (1) Chapter VI .....:cheers:

Wait all you want. No third party can get involved in Kashmir without both India and Pakistan agreeing to it as stipulated in the Simla Agreement. It just ain't gonna happen.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom