Cabinet orders removal of Mohsin Dawar, Ali Wazir's names from ECL

[Joe Shearer]

On Kashmir, you sure do toe the Indian official line, on other matters, maybe you don't

If I form an opinion and express it, independent of what others say, and that happens to coincide with the official line, it doesn't mean that I toe the official line. In fact, my views on Kashmir have nothing to do with the official line, either the Indian official line or the Pakistani official line.

And there is nothing as Indian Kashmir ... It's Indian Occupied Kashmir.

Noted. That is merely a statement, with nothing to validate it. It is merely an iteration of the Pakistani official line. How ironic.

We have cultural, religious, lingual, geographical, social and blood bonds with Kashmiris ... It's you guys who have a pathological obsession with Kashmir (and Pakistan) despite not having anything in common with the people of the valley.

Only religious. Nothing else.

Kashmiris don't want to identify themselves as Indians. They have a right to self-determination fully protected under UN Resolutions and International law. You cannot take away from them what is legitimately theirs. What most of the Indians fail to realize is that forcing people to be a part of your "nation" against their will is a mockery of the idea of Nation.

I have a completely different impression, based on individual interactions with individual Kashmiris, not Punjabi carpetbaggers, over more than three decades. Thank you for your extremely interesting impressionistic views, which I shall treasure in their own right as works of art, but they don't really reflect the views of ordinary Kashmiris, only of those extraordinary ones who have grown fat on the proceeds of Mr. Cheema's subventions from your Kathmandu outpost.

As for your live relations in Kashmir, you yourself have said that you avoid discussing controversial topics with those Kashmiri friends who support Azadi, so, your argument falls flat.

....and it springs up again after my discussions of controversial topics with the vast majority of friends who are not supporters of Azadi.

And as for you denying civilian killings, mass rape and other human rights violations by IA in Occupied Kashmir, there are hundreds of reports by neutral reputed international as well as local Kashmiri organizations out there detailing those atrocities, which I will post shortly. You, of course, are free to continue living in your denial, distortion and delusion.

Admirable and lyrical, but with little connection to the real world. May I reiterate my great admiration for you and your views? However wrong they are, they are presented with a fervour and passion that do you great credit.

 

[gangsta_rap]

ali wazir can go live in israel

how is that an insult? how would living in a city like jerusalem for example be an insult?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Only religious. Nothing else.

Well, Islam as a religion is unique as it has a central cultural theme that is common among all Muslims no matter where they live.

Kashmiri is a Dardic language. Dardic languages are spoken only in Gilgit Baltistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces of Pakistan besides J&K. Almost all Gojari speakers live in J&K and Northern Pakistan (esp. Hazara Division). Gojari speakers of J&K (i.e Gujjars and Bakarwals), also the third largest ethnic group, are exclusively Muslims. Moreover, Urdu is the official language of both, IOK and Pakistan.

We have so much in common with Kashmiris that I don't know where to begin... But we will discuss it some other time ... and on a different thread

I have a completely different impression, based on individual interactions with individual Kashmiris, not Punjabi carpetbaggers, over more than three decades. Thank you for your extremely interesting impressionistic views, which I shall treasure in their own right as works of art, but they don't really reflect the views of ordinary Kashmiris, only of those extraordinary ones who have grown fat on the proceeds of Mr. Cheema's subventions from your Kathmandu outpost.



....and it springs up again after my discussions of controversial topics with the vast majority of friends who are not supporters of Azadi.

That's just your personal opinion, or I might say, your wish ... Let me remind you that it's India, not Pakistan, which refuses to hold a referendum in Kashmir (on different pretexts) and put an end to this discussion, once and for all, that what do the Kashmiris want.... Reminds me of Joseph Korbel when he pointed out what the English press was saying: “But the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of the majority people of Kashmir have been obstructing the holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite.”

Noted. That is merely a statement, with nothing to validate it. It is merely an iteration of the Pakistani official line. How ironic.

Again, let me remind you that under International Law Kashmir is not a part of India but a disputed territory whose final accession to Pakistan or India is yet to be decided in accordance with the will of people of Kashmir. Indian admission into the State of Jammu and Kashmir is provisional. India has taken over under the UNCIP Resolutions ONLY to assist in establishing a representative provisional administration at Srinagar, to work for creating a conducive atmosphere for holding a free and fair Plebiscite.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Well, Islam as a religion is unique as it has a central cultural theme that is common among all Muslims no matter where they live.

Kashmiri is a Dardic language. Dardic languages are spoken only in Gilgit Baltistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces of Pakistan besides J&K. Almost all Gojari speakers live in J&K and Northern Pakistan (esp. Hazara Division). Gojari speakers of J&K (i.e Gujjars and Bakarwals), also the third largest ethnic group, are exclusively Muslims. Moreover, Urdu is the official language of both, IOK and Pakistan.

We have so much in common with Kashmiris that I don't know where to begin... But we will discuss it some other time ... and on a different thread



That's just your personal opinion, or I might say, your wish ... Let me remind you that it's India, not Pakistan, which refuses to hold a referendum in Kashmir (on different pretexts) and put an end to this discussion, once and for all, that what do the Kashmiris want.... Reminds me of Joseph Korbel when he pointed out what the English press was saying: “But the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of the majority people of Kashmir have been obstructing the holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite.”



Again, let me remind you that under International Law Kashmir is not a part of India but a disputed territory whose final accession to Pakistan or India is yet to be decided in accordance with the will of people of Kashmir. Indian admission into the State of Jammu and Kashmir is provisional

You seem to be under some confusion about the status of Kashmir. It nowhere comes under international law; what you have cited is an interim conclusion by the UN. Such conclusions of the UN do not constitute international law; they provide for actions to be taken that protect the actors from the consequences of international law.

You also fail to remember, perhaps a spontaneous and unforced failure of that delicate and politically afflicted human faculty of memory, that India approached the UN and sought for relief from aggression, that Pakistan never denied aggression, that an offer of plebiscite included by India in her acceptance of the accession of the sovereign ruler of the state was expanded - progressively, under repeated attacks by the aggressor, and the repeated acquiescence of those elements in the UN willing and enthusiastic to quell opposition to its allies against the Red Peril - into a plebiscite before the cessation of aggression. Those are, I submit to that part of you that is not committed to the time-expired goals and objectives of what was then the coalition of powers that formed NATO, CENTO and SEATO, two entirely different things.

If you look at the record of the various representations made by one side to the UN, they consist of repeating the same untruth over and over again, exactly when in a parallel process massive sums of money that the transgressor could not afford to pay without fundamental damage to its own economy were being pumped into a territory that was sought to be converted into a disputed territory. It is over time, due to these infusions, which I hope will no longer be denied in the face of the overwhelming admissions of officials in Pakistan itself, and due to selective murder - Sajjad Lone and the Mirwaiz should be the first to stand and accuse the killers - of anyone and everyone who sought to take an independent stand.

It is sad that a seemingly sensitive and well-informed opinion chooses to quarry for supportive evidence of all the elements in the chargesheet that is now being sought to be justified section by section, and at the same time denies the brutal killings that exactly parallel what was done by terrorists in its own territories, in Swat, in Waziristan and in Balochistan, acts of terror and selective assassination that the Pakistan Army has fought long and hard to neutralise when they occur on its own soil. Acts that it sanctifies as 'diplomatic support' when they are sponsored on other soil.

Is this the official line, @hellfire? I am now supposed to be parroting it, and that must come as a huge surprise to those who might know if there is indeed such a line, and if so, what it is. You are being tagged with a request to enquire among those who might know what the line is and share it with us in the ignorigentsia for our education.

 

[M. Sarmad]

You seem to be under some confusion about the status of Kashmir. It nowhere comes under international law; what you have cited is an interim conclusion by the UN. Such conclusions of the UN do not constitute international law; they provide for actions to be taken that protect the actors from the consequences of international law.

You also fail to remember, perhaps a spontaneous and unforced failure of that delicate and politically afflicted human faculty of memory, that India approached the UN and sought for relief from aggression, that Pakistan never denied aggression, that an offer of plebiscite included by India in her acceptance of the accession of the sovereign ruler of the state was expanded - progressively, under repeated attacks by the aggressor, and the repeated acquiescence of those elements in the UN willing and enthusiastic to quell opposition to its allies against the Red Peril - into a plebiscite before the cessation of aggression. Those are, I submit to that part of you that is not committed to the time-expired goals and objectives of what was then the coalition of powers that formed NATO, CENTO and SEATO, two entirely different things.

If you look at the record of the various representations made by one side to the UN, they consist of repeating the same untruth over and over again, exactly when in a parallel process massive sums of money that the transgressor could not afford to pay without fundamental damage to its own economy were being pumped into a territory that was sought to be converted into a disputed territory. It is over time, due to these infusions, which I hope will no longer be denied in the face of the overwhelming admissions of officials in Pakistan itself, and due to selective murder - Sajjad Lone and the Mirwaiz should be the first to stand and accuse the killers - of anyone and everyone who sought to take an independent stand.

It is sad that a seemingly sensitive and well-informed opinion chooses to quarry for supportive evidence of all the elements in the chargesheet that is now being sought to be justified section by section, and at the same time denies the brutal killings that exactly parallel what was done by terrorists in its own territories, in Swat, in Waziristan and in Balochistan, acts of terror and selective assassination that the Pakistan Army has fought long and hard to neutralise when they occur on its own soil. Acts that it sanctifies as 'diplomatic support' when they are sponsored on other soil.

Is this the official line, @hellfire? I am now supposed to be parroting it, and that must come as a huge surprise to those who might know if there is indeed such a line, and if so, what it is. You are being tagged with a request to enquire among those who might know what the line is and share it with us in the ignorigentsia for our education.

Your entire argument is based on the premises that Pakistan was an aggressor state in Kashmir. But the UN didn't declare Pakistan an aggressor. We have discussed this before:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/kash...nnel-4-documentary.442260/page-3#post-8527495

 

[Joe Shearer]

Your entire argument is based on the premises that Pakistan was an aggressor state in Kashmir. But the UN didn't declare Pakistan an aggressor. We have discussed this before:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/kash...nnel-4-documentary.442260/page-3#post-8527495

Certainly.

Have you changed your position since then?

Well, Islam as a religion is unique as it has a central cultural theme that is common among all Muslims no matter where they live.

Kashmiri is a Dardic language. Dardic languages are spoken only in Gilgit Baltistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces of Pakistan besides J&K. Almost all Gojari speakers live in J&K and Northern Pakistan (esp. Hazara Division). Gojari speakers of J&K (i.e Gujjars and Bakarwals), also the third largest ethnic group, are exclusively Muslims. Moreover, Urdu is the official language of both, IOK and Pakistan.

We have so much in common with Kashmiris that I don't know where to begin... But we will discuss it some other time ... and on a different thread

I acknowledge the strength of your powerful argument that the similarity of Koshur and Sindhi, or Baloch, makes it inevitable that they should wish to huddle together in the same nation-state. It is noted that in your view, Pakistan is apparently rooted in affinities, as distinct from other options, such as a union rooted in constitutional law.

That's just your personal opinion, or I might say, your wish ... Let me remind you that it's India, not Pakistan, which refuses to hold a referendum in Kashmir (on different pretexts) and put an end to this discussion, once and for all, that what do the Kashmiris want.... Reminds me of Joseph Korbel when he pointed out what the English press was saying: “But the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of the majority people of Kashmir have been obstructing the holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite.”



Again, let me remind you that under International Law Kashmir is not a part of India but a disputed territory whose final accession to Pakistan or India is yet to be decided in accordance with the will of people of Kashmir. Indian admission into the State of Jammu and Kashmir is provisional. India has taken over under the UNCIP Resolutions ONLY to assist in establishing a representative provisional administration at Srinagar, to work for creating a conducive atmosphere for holding a free and fair Plebiscite.

Am I being too hard on you? There are too many bullies in green chaddis on your tail already; you should not have to fight a battle on two fronts, with this old fool in ragged white chaddis forming the second front.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I acknowledge the strength of your powerful argument that the similarity of Koshur and Sindhi, or Baloch, makes it inevitable that they should wish to huddle together in the same nation-state. It is noted that in your view, Pakistan is apparently rooted in affinities, as distinct from other options, such as a union rooted in constitutional law.

Pakistan is not just Sindh and Baluchistan. I mentioned GB, KP (esp. Hazara division) and Punjab that probably share more in common with Kashmir (linguistically and culturally) than they share in common with each other. And we were talking about our bonds with Kashmiris ... We, of course, are a nation-state already rooted in constitutional law but PAKISTAN is incomplete without K...

Am I being too hard on you? There are too many bullies in green chaddis on your tail already; you should not have to fight a battle on two fronts, with this old fool in ragged white chaddis forming the second front.

Always learn from you ... It's worth the effort ... As for green chaddis, they are irritating and annoying usually... But chalta hai

 

[Joe Shearer]

Pakistan is not just Sindh and Baluchistan. I mentioned GB, KP (esp. Hazara division) and Punjab that probably share more in common with Kashmir (linguistically and culturally) than they share in common with each other.

And we were talking about our bonds with Kashmiris ... We, of course, are a nation-state already rooted in constitutional law but PAKISTAN is incomplete without K...

Point taken.

And if some mad mullah issues a fatwa that the land is to be known henceforth as PET, standing for Pakistan and East Turkestan, do you then get a prescriptive right to Xinjiang? Think of the similarities between the East Turkestanis and your good selves.

Always learn from you ... It's worth the effort ... As for green chaddis, they are irritating and annoying usually... But I don't care much

 

[M. Sarmad]

And if some mad mullah issues a fatwa that the land is to be known henceforth as PET, standing for Pakistan and East Turkestan, do you then get a prescriptive right to Xinjiang? Think of the similarities between the East Turkestanis and your good selves.

Firstly, Pakistan was not some "Fatwa" but a democratic demand of the Muslims of British India, faulty comparison.

And secondly, We don't have anything in common with Xinjiang Uygurs other than religion, but then there are over 50 Muslim countries in the world

 

[Joe Shearer]

Firstly, Pakistan was not some "Fatwa" but a democratic demand of the Muslims of British India, faulty comparison.

And secondly, We don't have anything in common with Xinjiang Uygurs other than religion, but then there are over 50 Muslim countries in the world

Do you think I could be annoying and make a realistic comparison? I don't quarrel with people, I point out possible points of difference usually through argumentum ad absurdum.

I could have pointed to the transmutation of the 'democratic demand' of the Muslims of British India to what finally constituted the Dominion of Pakistan, but chose not to.

The second point, about the Xinjiang Uyghurs, was intended to show you the hollowness of any argument for inclusion OR exclusion based on naming, or on supposed commonality; commonality can be twisted and defined in so many thousands of ways that it would be perfectly possible to have utterly absurd combinations.

 

[Path-Finder]

how is that an insult? how would living in a city like jerusalem for example be an insult?

I think you are not updated on this character he likes saying israel zindabad and nothing to do with Jerusalem!! If he likes israel so much then why is he a mna Pakistan???

 

[Hellfire]

You seem to be under some confusion about the status of Kashmir. It nowhere comes under international law; what you have cited is an interim conclusion by the UN. Such conclusions of the UN do not constitute international law; they provide for actions to be taken that protect the actors from the consequences of international law.

You also fail to remember, perhaps a spontaneous and unforced failure of that delicate and politically afflicted human faculty of memory, that India approached the UN and sought for relief from aggression, that Pakistan never denied aggression, that an offer of plebiscite included by India in her acceptance of the accession of the sovereign ruler of the state was expanded - progressively, under repeated attacks by the aggressor, and the repeated acquiescence of those elements in the UN willing and enthusiastic to quell opposition to its allies against the Red Peril - into a plebiscite before the cessation of aggression. Those are, I submit to that part of you that is not committed to the time-expired goals and objectives of what was then the coalition of powers that formed NATO, CENTO and SEATO, two entirely different things.

If you look at the record of the various representations made by one side to the UN, they consist of repeating the same untruth over and over again, exactly when in a parallel process massive sums of money that the transgressor could not afford to pay without fundamental damage to its own economy were being pumped into a territory that was sought to be converted into a disputed territory. It is over time, due to these infusions, which I hope will no longer be denied in the face of the overwhelming admissions of officials in Pakistan itself, and due to selective murder - Sajjad Lone and the Mirwaiz should be the first to stand and accuse the killers - of anyone and everyone who sought to take an independent stand.

It is sad that a seemingly sensitive and well-informed opinion chooses to quarry for supportive evidence of all the elements in the chargesheet that is now being sought to be justified section by section, and at the same time denies the brutal killings that exactly parallel what was done by terrorists in its own territories, in Swat, in Waziristan and in Balochistan, acts of terror and selective assassination that the Pakistan Army has fought long and hard to neutralise when they occur on its own soil. Acts that it sanctifies as 'diplomatic support' when they are sponsored on other soil.

Is this the official line, @hellfire? I am now supposed to be parroting it, and that must come as a huge surprise to those who might know if there is indeed such a line, and if so, what it is. You are being tagged with a request to enquire among those who might know what the line is and share it with us in the ignorigentsia for our education.

Why are you engaging Azlan Haider ? I will respond to his posts only once I have adequate time on my hand!

 

[Joe Shearer]

Why are you engaging Azlan Haider ? I will respond to his posts only once I have adequate time on my hand!

You have to accept that he is good. Far above the ruck. But yes, engaging with him takes time and a very good grip of the facts.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I could have pointed to the transmutation of the 'democratic demand' of the Muslims of British India to what finally constituted the Dominion of Pakistan, but chose not to.

When Pakistan was established in August 1947, it was constitutionally composed of only those areas of British India which had opted for it.

The British allowed the Muslims to establish a separate homeland for themselves, but only on the basis of the will of the people and through democratic channels.



In Balochistan, the Shahi Jirga and the members of the Quetta municipality voted to join Pakistan on behalf of British Balochistan. It was decided to hold a referendum in Balochistan on June 30, 1947 in Shahi Jirga excluding the Sardars nominated by the Kalat state and non-officials members of Quetta Municipality. That would decide the future affiliations of Balochistan. An extraordinary joint Session of the Shahi Jirga was held on 30 June 1947 to decide the crucial issue. To the dismay of the Congress, 54 members of the Shahi Jirga and Quetta Municipality, voted en-bloc to join the new Constituent Assembly to be set up in Pakistan.



In Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), the British allowed for a referendum on the issue of Pakistan.. Polling began on 6 July 1947 and the referendum results were made public on 20 July 1947. According to the official results, there were 572,798 registered voters. 289,244 (99.02%) votes were cast in favor of Pakistan. Only 2874 (0.98%) were cast in favor of India. The resulting referendum in July 1947, showed overwhelming support for the new country and so KPK was included in Pakistan.

Punjab and Bengal legislatures voted for partition.

The Sindh assembly was the first British Indian legislature to pass the resolution in favour of Pakistan.


Before that, General elections were held in British India in 1945 to elect members of the Central Legislative Assembly and the Council of State

The Muslim League participated in the elections with a clear-cut agenda –

1) Pakistan is the national demand of the Muslims of India and
2) The Muslim League is their sole representative organization.

The turnover was extraordinary. Leagues performance was even more impressive as it managed to win all the 30 seats reserved for the Muslims. The results of the provincial election held in early 1946 were not any different. Muslim League captured approximately 95 per cent of the Muslim seats.



So, Pakistan was "democratically" created in accordance with the will of the people.

The second point, about the Xinjiang Uyghurs, was intended to show you the hollowness of any argument for inclusion OR exclusion based on naming, or on supposed commonality; commonality can be twisted and defined in so many thousands of ways that it would be perfectly possible to have utterly absurd combinations.

The commonality was not 'supposed', it was a real
The combination was not absurd, it was logical and reasonable.


The Two Nation Theory on the basis of which Pakistan was created tells us that Muslims living in British India were a single nation.

The idea of "Muslim Nationalism in India" formed the basis of the Two Nation Theory ... This idea/theory implies/implied that We were Muslims before being Indian ... And We were Indian before being (Non-Indian) Muslim ... This theory created and propounded by modernist and reformist Muslims (like Sir Syed) was inspired by Western Political Theories (of John Locke, Thomas Paine, Milton etc.).... It in a way advocated a Pan-Islamism that was restricted by geographical boundaries of the Nation-state (of India, and now Pakistan).

 

[Joe Shearer]

When Pakistan was established in August 1947, it was constitutionally composed of only those areas of British India which had opted for it.

The British allowed the Muslims to establish a separate homeland for themselves, but only on the basis of the will of the people and through democratic channels.



In Balochistan, the Shahi Jirga and the members of the Quetta municipality voted to join Pakistan on behalf of British Balochistan. It was decided to hold a referendum in Balochistan on June 30, 1947 in Shahi Jirga excluding the Sardars nominated by the Kalat state and non-officials members of Quetta Municipality. That would decide the future affiliations of Balochistan. An extraordinary joint Session of the Shahi Jirga was held on 30 June 1947 to decide the crucial issue. To the dismay of the Congress, 54 members of the Shahi Jirga and Quetta Municipality, voted en-bloc to join the new Constituent Assembly to be set up in Pakistan.



In Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), the British allowed for a referendum on the issue of Pakistan.. Polling began on 6 July 1947 and the referendum results were made public on 20 July 1947. According to the official results, there were 572,798 registered voters. 289,244 (99.02%) votes were cast in favor of Pakistan. Only 2874 (0.98%) were cast in favor of India. The resulting referendum in July 1947, showed overwhelming support for the new country and so KPK was included in Pakistan.

Punjab and Bengal legislatures voted for partition.

The Sindh assembly was the first British Indian legislature to pass the resolution in favour of Pakistan.


Before that, General elections were held in British India in 1945 to elect members of the Central Legislative Assembly and the Council of State

The Muslim League participated in the elections with a clear-cut agenda –

1) Pakistan is the national demand of the Muslims of India and
2) The Muslim League is their sole representative organization.

The turnover was extraordinary. Leagues performance was even more impressive as it managed to win all the 30 seats reserved for the Muslims. The results of the provincial election held in early 1946 were not any different. Muslim League captured approximately 95 per cent of the Muslim seats.

So, Pakistan was "democratically" created in accordance with the will of the people.

You may recall that I clearly wrote about deliberately abstaining from any comment on this issue.

The commonality was not 'supposed', it was a real
The combination was not absurd, it was logical and reasonable.

Sadly, events all over the world have undermined both the 'commonality' and the 'combination'. I believe that from my point of view, it is better to let the tale be told by practical affairs, rather than entering into a detailed debate on what was once a real, logical and reasonable matter for discussion, on the lines of 'how many angels can dance on the point of a pin'.

I say 'sadly' not from either any personal feeling of sorrow, nor from 'schadenfreude', but from consideration of the lacerated feelings of those who find that the entire basis of their nationhood is under threat.

The Two Nation Theory on the basis of which Pakistan was created tells us that Muslims living in British India were a single nation.

You will recall that Ulysses had plugged the ears of his oarsmen with wax, at a similar juncture.

The idea of "Muslim Nationalism in India" formed the basis of the Two Nation Theory ... This idea/theory implies/implied that We were Muslims before being Indian ... And We were Indian before being (Non-Indian) Muslim ... This theory created and propounded by modernist and reformist Muslims (like Sir Syed) was inspired by Western Political Theories (of John Locke, Thomas Paine, Milton etc.).... It in a way advocated a Pan-Islamism that was restricted by geographical boundaries of the Nation-state (of India, and now Pakistan).

I, too, admire and study forgotten and arcane branches of knowledge, and am fully in sympathy with the yearnings of others.