FO blasts Indian army chief for 'irresponsible, false' allegations against Pakistan

[newb3e]

How do you even define a "Hindutvadi" ?

Big population here, impotent ?


Like SARS-COV2 ?

part SARS/MERS, part Influenza virus, part HIV..

what has modi and hindutava done to this great nation!! all their dreams on becoming a supa powa down the drain!!

sad! you might succeed in killing some muslims but you wont erradicate muslims from india and might even loose your union will be devided into smaller pieces!! and no Pakistan wont even have to do anything you crazy ideology will self implode and desteoy india!

 

[Silverblaze]

First, this statement from the hindutva army chief confirms they have suffered casualties.
Second they might now conduct a terrorist attack via afghan pradesh.
Third, response from Farigh Office is again dumb. At least
Use words like genocide, fascism, nazism, war crimes in one go.

 

[xyxmt]

our FO should have some standards should have a policy, "we don't reply to stupid statements", and that will relieve their work of replying by 99%

 

[Vikki]

Average rebuttal. Could have been better.

Indian actions and statements should be described accurately as baseless and childish.

Furthermore, specific examples of India exploiting the world's attention should be stated and then expanded on liberally. The issue to raise here would be the 15 year naturalisation motion, which if passed and enabled, will undo Kashmir's established autonomous status and erode its demographic balance. It should be stated clearly that this is tantamount to ethnoreligious cleansing by stealth.

I'm not sure that these clowns actually truly are working and speaking in Kashmir's genuine interests. How many times can we allow them to miss such open goals before we start to wonder if they're deliberately missing?

You can have all the rights of a province in India if you live in that state for 5 to 7 years..why should kashmir be any different?15 years is a long period of time...i say bring it down to 5 years.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

You can have all the rights of a province in India if you live in that state for 5 to 7 years..why should kashmir be any different?15 years is a long period of time...i say bring it down to 5 years.

Kashmir had autonomous status, which Delhi has now revoked without the permission of Kashmiris.

 

[Chhatrapati]

Well, this must be a first for Pakistan Foreign Office to give statements. Usually, it's your prime minister's rant on twitter about RSS, BJP, and Modi in a loop.

 

[Jackdaws]

Kashmir had autonomous status, which Delhi has now revoked without the permission of Kashmiris.

It had semi autonomous status within the umbrella of the Indian Constitution. Can Delhi revoke it? Yes. Ideally, instead of Governor should have been revoked by the J&K Assembly. That can be the only legal dispute. The process of abrogaging Article 370 was legally fine.

What's the legal of Kashmir In Pak?

 

[masterchief_mirza]

It had semi autonomous status within the umbrella of the Indian Constitution. Can Delhi revoke it? Yes. Ideally, instead of Governor should have been revoked by the J&K Assembly. That can be the only legal dispute. The process of abrogaging Article 370 was legally fine.

What's the legal of Kashmir In Pak?

"Ideally"? So when a legally established threshold exists, the parameters of which define what can and cannot be done legally, it is simply "ideal" that this threshold is adhered to? It is merely "ideal" to not wrangle, rewrite and meander through the legislation and exert executive influence from Delhi in order to establish a new and enforced normal?

This whole premise is ludicrous.

Certainly, the only way to nullify Kashmir's semi-autonomous self-governing status was to unilaterally abrogate the articles that made it semi-autonomous in the first place.

This unilateralism from Delhi against the wishes of the people of the valley (rendering their locally elected parliament irrelevant) is witnessed on both sides of the ceasefire line, hence is why Pakistani Kashmiris are mainly pleased with their situation, while the Kashmiris in IoK are mainly displeased with theirs.

 

[Jackdaws]

"Ideally"? So when a legally established threshold exists, the parameters of which define what can and cannot be done legally, it is simply "ideal" that this threshold is adhered to? It is merely "ideal" to not wrangle, rewrite and meander through the legislation and exert executive influence from Delhi in order to establish a new and enforced normal?

This whole premise is ludicrous.

Certainly, the only way to nullify Kashmir's semi-autonomous self-governing status was to unilaterally abrogate the articles that made it semi-autonomous in the first place.

This unilateralism from Delhi against the wishes of the people of the valley (rendering their locally elected parliament irrelevant) is witnessed on both sides of the ceasefire line, hence is why Pakistani Kashmiris are mainly pleased with their situation, while the Kashmiris in IoK are mainly displeased with theirs.

Your assertion that a legal threshold was breached is disingenuous. A legal loophole was found within the existing framework and it was exploited.

And it is rather fanciful for Pakistanis to be talking about the Indian Constitution given the number of coups there which have been judicially certified and the number of times your Constitution has been made a mockery of.

The Kashmiris have a right to be aggrieved and have a right to mount a legal challenge. They were governed by the Ranvir Penal Code which did not even grant equal rights to women, including inheriting property if they married a non Kashmiri.

So there are multiple points that abolition of Article 370 addressed.

 

[GumNaam]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1251449392181075968

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Your assertion that a legal threshold was breached is disingenuous. A legal loophole was found within the existing framework and it was exploited.

And it is rather fanciful for Pakistanis to be talking about the Indian Constitution given the number of coups there which have been judicially certified and the number of times your Constitution has been made a mockery of.

The Kashmiris have a right to be aggrieved and have a right to mount a legal challenge. They were governed by the Ranvir Penal Code which did not even grant equal rights to women, including inheriting property if they married a non Kashmiri.

So there are multiple points that abolition of Article 370 addressed.

No, it isn't even a case of "legal loopholes" being exploited, rather it can be defined as constitutional exceptionalism. This is a strange path for a self declared democratic nation to pursue, especially one that criticises autocratic and communist nations as a matter of routine. The hypocrisy is truly palpable.

Rather than an oppression of women, the legal statute you refer to was designed to resist non-Kashmiri inheritance of native Kashmiri assets. Such protectionism is the whole point of semi-autonomous or autonomous status. They have every right to protect their land and assets by using such legislation so your efforts to frame it as some blanket discrimination against women is what's "disingenuous" here.

Moreover, regardless of what legal loopholes existed in terms of the abrogation of Kashmir's semi-autonomous status, executive exceptionalist action still had to be taken. For starters, the dissolution of local parliament and imposition of central governorship in Nov 2018. There was no justification for this. It was a ruse from the start. That Delhi's constitution permits such an act under contentious circumstances actually suggests India is an autocratic republic more akin to autocratic or communist nations whenever it suits Delhi to be as such.

https://www.sadf.eu/focus-45-kashmi...amper-india-and-pakistan-relations-in-future/

There are multiple criticisms and identified legal errors with regards to Delhi's actions last August. That no Indian supreme court will ever admit to them is simply another damming indictment of India's descent into autocracy, where the once independent arms of statehood now simply validate one another in a perpetual cycle of rubber stamping of autocratic rule.

"It is important also to see Article 370 in the light of clause 7 of the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh that declared that the State could not be compelled to accept any future constitution of India. The State was within its rights to draft its own constitution and to decide for itself what additional powers to extend to the government in Delhi. Article 370 was designed to protect those rights. According to the constitutional scholar A. G. Noorani, Article 370 records . Neither India nor the State can unilaterally amend or abrogate the Article except in accordance with the terms of the Article (Article 370 of the constitution of India, para 13). Furthermore, Article 370 embodied six special provisions for Jammu and Kashmir:

1. It exempted the state from the complete applicability of the Constitution of India. The state was allowed to have its own constitution.
2. Central legislative powers over the state were limited, at the time of framing, to the three subjects of defence, foreign affairs and communications.
3. Other constitutional powers of the central government could be extended to the state only with the concurrence of the state government.
4. The ‘concurrence’ was only provisional. It had to be ratified by the state’s Constituent Assembly.
5. The state government’s authority to give ‘concurrence’ lasted only until the state constituent assembly was convened. Once the state constituent assembly finalised the scheme of powers and dispersed, no further extension of powers was possible.
6. Article 370 could be abrogated or amended only upon the recommendation of the State’s Constituent Assembly (Article 370 of the constitution of India, para 14)."

Note that the "constituent assembly" was dissolved in 1957, without having made any indication of a desire to abrogate article 370. Indeed, Modi didn't exploit "loopholes" in the law, rather he simply rewrote the law to suit his requirements, annulling previous statutes, principles, promises and legally declared entitlements as he saw fit. Your suggestion that Modi is some legal whizzkid surrounded by the talents of individuals like Yogis and Shah that allowed him to exploit loopholes in constitutional documents is laughable. He's no different to Putin rewriting law to extend his rule, or even Musharraf rewriting law to further his post-coup career. These guys aren't politico-legal geniuses that you can write an in depth docuseries about. They're pretty straightforward people.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...ir-is-not-kosher-yet/article28836245.ece/amp/

 

[Jackdaws]

No, it isn't even a case of "legal loopholes" being exploited, rather it can be defined as constitutional exceptionalism. This is a strange path for a self declared democratic nation to pursue, especially one that criticises autocratic and communist nations as a matter of routine. The hypocrisy is truly palpable.

Rather than an oppression of women, the legal statute you refer to was designed to resist non-Kashmiri inheritance of native Kashmiri assets. Such protectionism is the whole point of semi-autonomous or autonomous status. They have every right to protect their land and assets by using such legislation so your efforts to frame it as some blanket discrimination against women is what's "disingenuous" here.

Moreover, regardless of what legal loopholes existed in terms of the abrogation of Kashmir's semi-autonomous status, executive exceptionalist action still had to be taken. For starters, the dissolution of local parliament and imposition of central governorship in Nov 2018. There was no justification for this. It was a ruse from the start. That Delhi's constitution permits such an act under contentious circumstances actually suggests India is an autocratic republic more akin to autocratic or communist nations whenever it suits Delhi to be as such.

https://www.sadf.eu/focus-45-kashmi...amper-india-and-pakistan-relations-in-future/

There are multiple criticisms and identified legal errors with regards to Delhi's actions last August. That no Indian supreme court will ever admit to them is simply another damming indictment of India's descent into autocracy, where the once independent arms of statehood now simply validate one another in a perpetual cycle of rubber stamping of autocratic rule.

"It is important also to see Article 370 in the light of clause 7 of the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh that declared that the State could not be compelled to accept any future constitution of India. The State was within its rights to draft its own constitution and to decide for itself what additional powers to extend to the government in Delhi. Article 370 was designed to protect those rights. According to the constitutional scholar A. G. Noorani, Article 370 records . Neither India nor the State can unilaterally amend or abrogate the Article except in accordance with the terms of the Article (Article 370 of the constitution of India, para 13). Furthermore, Article 370 embodied six special provisions for Jammu and Kashmir:

1. It exempted the state from the complete applicability of the Constitution of India. The state was allowed to have its own constitution.
2. Central legislative powers over the state were limited, at the time of framing, to the three subjects of defence, foreign affairs and communications.
3. Other constitutional powers of the central government could be extended to the state only with the concurrence of the state government.
4. The ‘concurrence’ was only provisional. It had to be ratified by the state’s Constituent Assembly.
5. The state government’s authority to give ‘concurrence’ lasted only until the state constituent assembly was convened. Once the state constituent assembly finalised the scheme of powers and dispersed, no further extension of powers was possible.
6. Article 370 could be abrogated or amended only upon the recommendation of the State’s Constituent Assembly (Article 370 of the constitution of India, para 14)."

Note that the "constituent assembly" was dissolved in 1957, without having made any indication of a desire to abrogate article 370. Indeed, Modi didn't exploit "loopholes" in the law, rather he simply rewrote the law to suit his requirements, annulling previous statutes, principles, promises and legally declared entitlements as he saw fit. Your suggestion that Modi is some legal whizzkid surrounded by the talents of individuals like Yogis and Shah that allowed him to exploit loopholes in constitutional documents is laughable. He's no different to Putin rewriting law to extend his rule, or even Musharraf rewriting law to further his post-coup career. These guys aren't politico-legal geniuses that you can write an in depth docuseries about. They're pretty straightforward people.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...ir-is-not-kosher-yet/article28836245.ece/amp/

I like how you completely ignored the part about your own history with respect to your Constitution. Pot and kettle?

No, it was patently anti women. Because the restrictions didn't apply to Kashmiri men marrying non Kashmiris. Thus is also violated the UN Charter.

Since the Constituent Assembly ceased to exist in 1957, how can it ever exercise the powers that the Agreement granted it?

It's as absurd as Pakistan claiming all Election Results of 2020 are invalid because the votes of the citizens of East Pakistan haven't been taken into account. If an entity doesn't exist legally anymore, how can it ever exercise its rights and powers?

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I like how you completely ignored the part about your own history with respect to your Constitution. Pot and kettle?

No, it was patently anti women. Because the restrictions didn't apply to Kashmiri men marrying non Kashmiris. Thus is also violated the UN Charter.

Since the Constituent Assembly ceased to exist in 1957, how can it ever exercise the powers that the Agreement granted it?

It's as absurd as Pakistan claiming all Election Results of 2020 are invalid because the votes of the citizens of East Pakistan haven't been taken into account. If an entity doesn't exist legally anymore, how can it ever exercise its rights and powers?

Your point about men having a different rule assumes inheritance dynamics are similar from a father as from a mother. Clearly, an assumption is made that when fathers hand assets down in relatively conservative, religious, patriarchal societies, that emphasis will be placed on preservation of inheritance within a local network. Now that's an assumption - fair enough - but it's grounded in realities of experience within patriarchal societies, which apply in many parts of the world, not just Muslim dominant areas. The aim is ostensibly to preserve local networks of assets following inheritance.

If - as you suggest - absolute equality of genders was the motivator for the abrogation, all Delhi had to do was modify the article to suit the UN Charter and Modi's personal concerns for Kashmiri females. Nobody would have minded.

Clearly however, this is a red herring.

Regarding Constituent Assembly, read the second article I posted, which explains the issue very well.

The absence of a CA was actually a problem for Modi because he couldn't move without an in principle agreement from a CA, hence this was one very important element of 370 that he had to rewrite.

Again - no loopholes here, just shameless rewriting.

 

[waz]

@masterchief_mirza no need to discuss anything with them regarding article 370 brother. Our energies are better directed at other areas.

 

[Jugger]

Kashmir had autonomous status, which Delhi has now revoked without the permission of Kashmiris.

You need to be more clear and cut the clutter of political correctness.
What India has done is annexation of Kashmir without the approval of anyone, especially Pakistan.
BJP will claim this titanic event for political gains till eternity.