Beijing think-tank links scrapping of Article 370 to LAC tensions

[fallstuff]

Interesting news. So who actually started moving soldiers and equipment in near LAC ?

 

[sinait]

Many posters from China but they never report on the Chinese coverage of the dispute ?
Where are the Chinese media articles on the ongoing dispute ?
Is the movement of so many troops on both sides being covered in Chinese newspapers or is the news being suppressed ?
Maybe post a few articles from the Chinese media , translated .

Most probably because Chinese media is NOT the BIG MOUTH and FAKE NEWS MONGER that the Indian media is.
PRESSTITUTE is what Indians popularly refer to their news media.
.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

that why they are kept in social reform camps ? indian muslims have become president , chief justice , chief minister, governors .they are free to practice their religion .

sorry but keeping bagwaans at home is not really a muslim thing.... ur ex muslim president had only muslim name and the rest about him was hindu...
for india the only good muslim who worships bagwaan.

Yea we all h saw the interview of uighyur lady telling how she was prisoned and raped for being a Muslim.

in india its a daily practice with everyone.

Many posters from China but they never report on the Chinese coverage of the dispute ?
Where are the Chinese media articles on the ongoing dispute ?
Is the movement of so many troops on both sides being covered in Chinese newspapers or is the news being suppressed ?
Maybe post a few articles from the Chinese media , translated .

china gets its job done first and then talks where as ur indian media talks first before anything is done.

 

[Shah_Deu]

The article described it as a joint challenge to China and Pakistan, saying the move had “posed a challenge to the sovereignty of Pakistan and China”. and that “Regardless of how confident India is and no matter how good it feels about itself,” he concluded, “its attempts to forcibly seize territory are doomed to fail.”

So basically the article suggests India to either voluntarily vacate all the occupied areas of Pakistan and China on goodwill or they will be snatched bit by bit just like Azad Kashmir and Galwan are!

 

[Dark1]

china gets its job done first and then talks where as ur indian media talks first before anything is done.

Thats not exactly correct . The English language version of the humour rag global times has been carrying daily stories on the impasse . But i am aware a normal citizen in china has no access to the English GT.
Why is it so difficult to just say , that the Chinese media is banned from covering the conflict ?
We know China is a dictatorship and the possibility of a setback has to be hidden from the aam janta.

 

[beijingwalker]

Thats not exactly correct . The English language version of the humour rag global times has been carrying daily stories on the impasse . But i am aware a normal citizen in china has no access to the English GT.
Why is it so difficult to just say , that the Chinese media is banned from covering the conflict ?
We know China is a dictatorship and the possibility of a setback has to be hidden from the aam janta.

You are making your daily joke again, who told your normal Chinese can't access English GT and Chinese media can't cover the conflict? You don't have to constantly remind us how ignorant you are.

https://www.baidu.com/s?wd=中印士兵发生肢体...%AD%E5%8D%B0&rsp=1&inputT=8428&rsv_sug4=11274

 

[Dalit]

What India can do, China can do a million times over and better.

 

[El Sidd]

What India can do, China can do a million times over and better.

bhai kuch maal e ghanimat mil jata to ghorib ka chuhla chal jata

 

[Osiris]

Its not rocket science.

India's unilateral decision to change demographics of disputed territories amounts to a legal war.

The question is if India can sustain her challenge to One China policy of Beijing.

What about Pakistan which had removed state subject rule in Gilgit Baltistan in 1970s(equivalent to India's article 370) and unilaterally changed the demography of UN recognised state of Jammu and Kashmir, long before India did anything.

 

[El Sidd]

What about Pakistan which had removed state subject rule in Gilgit Baltistan in 1970s(equivalent to India's article 370) and unilaterally changed the demography of UN recognised state of Jammu and Kashmir, long before India did anything.

You need to write cheques which you can cash.

Now provide any such evidence which implicates Pakistan by either Geneva convention or any other bilateral treaty she may have.

Grow up before Nepalese conquer you

 

[newb3e]

we already have kashmir in our control , let the chinese think tank talk about persecution of Uyghurs in china .

as long as bakhts have boobies to thump and babooni IQ they are rulers of the world not just kashmir!

 

[Osiris]

You need to write cheques which you can cash.

Now provide any such evidence which implicates Pakistan by either Geneva convention or any other bilateral treaty she may have.

Grow up before Nepalese conquer you

What nonsense are you talking about or do you not know, that Pakistan had repealed the kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir' s notorious state subject rule back in 1970s itself, there by allowing outsiders (especially Pashtuns) to settle in GB, thereby altering demography of the state of j&k.

 

[El Sidd]

What nonsense are you talking about or do you not know, that Pakistan had repealed the kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir' s notorious state subject rule back on 1970s itself, there by allowing outsiders (especially Pashtuns) to settle in GB, thereby altering demography of the state of j&k.

Baloney !!

 

[Osiris]

Baloney !!

The Jammu and Kashmir Pakistan does not want to talk about

By Tilak Devasher | Updated: Aug 15, 2019 13:45 IST

New Delhi [India], Aug 15 (ANI): Amid all the focus on Jammu and Kashmir in recent times, the status of Pakistan Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (POJK) consisting of the so-called 'Azad' Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) has been largely ignored. Severe media restrictions, both local and international and even apathy has ensured that Pakistan has been able to act with impunity in this region.
Two of Pakistan's main arguments against the removal of Jammu and Kashmir's special status under Article 370 are that it would lead to changes in demography and that it is violative of the UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. Both these arguments are not only false and malicious but it is Pakistan that has been guilty on both these counts.
Thus, the state subject rule has been held in abeyance in GB since the 1970s. This was done to deliberately dilute the Shia/Ismaili character of the region by facilitating the migration of a large number of Sunnis from Pakistan. From 1998 to 2011, due to large-scale migration, it is estimated that the population in GB surged by 63 per cent, as against 22 per cent in so-called 'AJK', where the State Subject Rule was still in force. This kind of social engineering has led to severe sectarian strife, especially under General Zia and later on as in 2012, as well as dilution of the local culture and identity.
Among Pakistan's machinations that have been violative of the UNSC resolutions are the following:
(i) It manipulated letters of accession from the Mirs of Nagar and Hunza even though they had no power of accession since they were under the suzerainty of the Maharaja of J&K. Yet, it suppressed these letters from the UN hoping to include these areas in the plebiscite.
(iI) The Karachi Agreement of 28 April 1949, supposedly signed between a Minister in the Pak Government, the 'President' of so-called AJK and the President of the Muslim Conference under which the administrative control of GB was transferred to Pakistan. The travesty was that neither was anyone from GB a signatory to this agreement nor did the so-called AJK Government have any representation from or administrative control over GB and neither did the Muslim Conference have a political presence there. Subsequently, Ibrahim Khan, one of the supposed signatories denied publicly that he had actually signed the Agreement! Despite these dubious facts, Pakistan has been exercising control over the region and lecturing India on constitutionality.
(ii) On March 2, 1963, Pakistan further violated the UN resolutions, when it ceded about 1,868 square miles (5,180 square kms) of GB to China in the Shaksgam Valley even though it was accepted that the sovereignty of the region did not rest with it.
Following the Karachi Agreement Pakistan governed the area through the draconian colonial-era Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR) right up to the 1970s. The FCR, akin to martial law, did not allow any political activity and gave the authorities blanket powers to arrest and interrogate any person.
In 1974-75, the Northern Areas Council Legal Framework Order replaced the FCR, introduced rudimentary administrative and judicial reforms, but did not empower the people of G-B. In 1982, Zia-ul-Haq proclaimed that the people of G-B were not part of the State of J&K and extended martial law to GB declaring it 'Martial Law Zone-E' (A to D being the four Provinces). In 1994, Benazir Bhutto introduced the Northern Areas Legal Framework Order that vested all executive powers with a Federal Minister. The August 2009, Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment of Self-Governance Order changed the name of the region from Northern Areas to G-B. However, the elected Legislative Assembly was functional only in name as the unelected Legislative Council headed by the PM of Pakistan took all decisions.
In 2016, under pressure from China to elevate the constitutional status of GB to a province in order to provide legal cover for Chinese investments under the CPEC, Pakistan set up a high-level committee. This committee headed by Sartaj Aziz, then Adviser to the Pak PM on Foreign Affairs recommended that GB may be provisionally given the "special status" of a province, pending final settlement of the J&K issue. This led to the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018 in May 2018. However, the Government of Pakistan continued to retain exclusive powers to make laws in critical areas. The matter was taken up in the Supreme Court where an attempt was made to water down the powers of the PM of Pakistan but did not empower the local people.
Various legal judgments have underlined the constitutional ambiguity of the area, the denial of fundamental rights of the people and the fact that they have no recourse to an independent judiciary. Some of these include the 1993 Malik MuhammedMiskeen vs. Government of Pakistan judgment of the AJK High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan judgment in the 1999 Al Jehad Trust vs. Federation of Pakistan.
The lack of fundamental rights is graphically demonstrated in the case of Baba Jan, a political activist who was detained in 2011 for organizing a protest march of those who had been impacted by a devastating mountain landslide into the Hunza River. He was subsequently convicted for life under anti-Terrorism laws and this for leading a civic protest.
Ever since 1947, Pakistan has sought to treat so-called 'AJK'and GB as settled issues while shifting the spotlight on J&K and projecting that the 'dispute' is about the latter. The visit of Imran Khan to Muzaffarabad on 14 August, Pak Independence Day and his aggressive and threatening speech testifies to this. Pakistan has managed to do this by clamping a blanket of censorship on the areas under its control and fomenting terrorism in the Indian part. For long, the international community bought this narrative even as successive governments in India were focused on dealing with the consequences of terrorism.
The time has come to shift gears, make Pakistan accountable for keeping these regions suppressed for seven decades and also hold out hope to the people of the area that being a part of J&K, India has not forgotten or forsaken them.
(Tilak Devasher is a Member of the National Security Advisory Board and a former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India)
(Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column are strictly those of the author). (ANI)

 

[El Sidd]

(Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column are strictly those of the author). (ANI)

All that for this?