GB not to be made province at any cost, says Sardar Attique

[Zibago]

Hahaha it does not matter in Pakistan what Kashmiris but hell lot of hue and cry when Indian Kashmiris protests.

He calls himself a Pakistani but he wants GB to he part of Kashmir

 

[unleashed]

Instead of wasting their time by giving useless statements the political leader should serve their people. I am again saying if people of GB continued to be prime victim of this deprivation, one day it will cost Pakistan.

I

IF GB becomes a province of Pakistan then India will be more than happy.

If its gonna benefit India, then why you guys are crying like a baby girl?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Gilgit Baltistan declared independance from the Dogra regime before they ceded to Pakistan and hence do not consider themselves to be a part of Jammu and Kashmir.

At the time of the alleged accession to India, Kashmir was, in effect, divided into three distinct sectors: Azad Kashmir, "Legal" Kashmir and the Gilgit region. (Now GB)


The Maharaja did NOT exercise sovereignty over Gilgit Region, which constituted one-third of Kashmir. By the 1890s, it was the British Agent at Gilgit who wielded the real authority there. In 1935, the British leased Gilgit from Kashmir for sixty years, but surrendered their lease on the eve of partition." In theory, sovereignty reverted to Kashmir, but the Maharaja was never able to make this sovereignty effective in any way. When the Maharaja sent a governor to Gilgit, the Gilgit Scouts imprisoned him and turned the territory over to Pakistan. In light of this fact, it is clear that the Maharaja did not perform the activities of a territorial sovereign in the Gilgit region.

As such, the Maharaja had never exercised sovereignty over the region, and as per international law, could not transfer more rights than he possessed. Therefore, India did not receive the Gilgit region, now possessed by Pakistan, under the Instrument of Accession



Under International Law, A state can intentionally acquire sovereignty over any such territory that is not under the sovereignty of another state. The occupied territory must have, been terra nullius, without owner, and the occupation must have been real or "effective." ... Effective occupation occurs when there is an announced intention to acquire the territory, and actual settlement or occupation with the assertion of governmental authority has taken place.


The British surrendered their lease on the eve of partition, the Gilgit region was a terra nullius. At the time of accession, under the August 1947 Standstill Agreement, Pakistan alone was responsible for administering services in Kashmir such as the post, telegraph and railways. These services were the beginning of Pakistan's establishment of government authority over the region. This process was completed after the territory was transferred to Pakistan by the Gilgit Scouts. Since this time, Pakistan has claimed the Gilgit region, formerly a terra nullius, as part of its territory, keeping it beyond the control of the Azad Kashmir authorities and making it an integral part of Pakistan. In doing so, Pakistan has established governmental control sufficient to provide security to life and property. Thus, Pakistan effectively occupies the Gilgit region to the exclusion of India.



Pakistan's claim on GB is legally valid and justified. However, if (and when) needed, Pakistan is ready to hold a referendum in GB as well.

 

[tarrar]

He needs hell lots of spanking & by the way I can some bhartis trolling here & acting like as if they are treating Kashmiris like GOLD in illegal Indian occupied Kashmir, where as the truth is bhartis are terrorizing Kashmiris daily.

 

[VCheng]

In 1935, the British leased Gilgit from Kashmir for sixty years, but surrendered their lease on the eve of partition." In theory, sovereignty reverted to Kashmir

The British surrendered their lease on the eve of partition

So if the British leased Gilgit from Kashmir, who did they surrender their lease to? Nobody? Or did the sovereignty revert to Kashmir, legally speaking?

 

[M. Sarmad]

So if the British leased Gilgit from Kashmir, who did they surrender their lease to? Nobody? Or did the sovereignty revert to Kashmir, legally speaking?

In theory, sovereignty reverted to Kashmir, but the Maharaja was never able to make this sovereignty effective in any way. When the Maharaja sent a governor to Gilgit, the Gilgit Scouts imprisoned him and turned the territory over to Pakistan. In light of this fact, it is clear that the Maharaja did not perform the activities of a territorial sovereign in the Gilgit region. As such, the Maharaja had never exercised sovereignty over the region, and could not transfer more rights than he possessed.

H. BRIGGS, supra note 59, at 242.

 

[VCheng]

In theory, sovereignty reverted to Kashmir, but the Maharaja was never able to make this sovereignty effective in any way. When the Maharaja sent a governor to Gilgit, the Gilgit Scouts imprisoned him and turned the territory over to Pakistan. In light of this fact, it is clear that the Maharaja did not perform the activities of a territorial sovereign in the Gilgit region. As such, the Maharaja had never exercised sovereignty over the region, and could not transfer more rights than he possessed.

H. BRIGGS, supra note 59, at 242.

So the UN recognized that sovereignty over GB reverted to Kashmir according to its Resolutions? Theoretically speaking, of course.

 

[M. Sarmad]

So the UN recognized that sovereignty over GB reverted to Kashmir according to its Resolutions? Theoretically speaking, of course.

The charge (of aggression against Pakistan) and counter-charge ceased to be relevant the minute both sides agreed to the resolution of UNCIP of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949.

Kashmir's accession to India (through the so called instrument of accession) and GB's accession to Pakistan had lost all relevance once the Security Council passed Resolutions that established self-determination as the governing principle for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute and when India and Pakistan accepted those resolutions thus endorsing a binding agreement between India and Pakistan that a plebiscite would be held to decide the accession of Kashmir to India or Pakistan.

 

[VCheng]

The charge (of aggression against Pakistan) and counter-charge ceased to be relevant the minute both sides agreed to the resolution of UNCIP of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949.

Kashmir's accession to India (through the so called instrument of accession) and GB's accession to Pakistan had lost all relevance once the Security Council passed Resolutions that established self-determination as the governing principle for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute and when India and Pakistan accepted those resolutions thus endorsing a binding agreement between India and Pakistan that a plebiscite would be held to decide the accession of Kashmir to India or Pakistan.

So GB is included in the areas of Kashmir where the plebiscite was to be held per UN Resolutions?

 

[M. Sarmad]

So GB is included in the areas of Kashmir where the plebiscite was to be held per UN Resolutions?

Is to be held *

Yes, it is. Both Pakistan and India gave up their claims when they agreed to resolve the dispute through a free and fair plebiscite (under UN auspices). But later on, India backtracked and reverted to its original claim/charge, Pakistan has every right to do the same. GB is as much Pakistan as IOK is India .... of course until and unless the promised plebiscite is carried out.

 

[Trango Towers]

Hahaha it does not matter in Pakistan what Kashmiris but hell lot of hue and cry when Indian Kashmiris protests.

Yes idiot. We are talking about Kashmir politician here. All politicians are liars and this one is no different. This guy is only making stupid statement for personal gains.

Beside why are you laughing its disputed territory and we have it. You can't even look at it except on Google maps.R u still laughing

GB. Azad Kashmir and every other area is Pakistan. The internal boundaries for governance are of no consequence. Regardless of what stupid politicians say

 

[VCheng]

Is to be held *

Yes, it is. Both Pakistan and India gave up their claims when they agreed to resolve the dispute through a free and fair plebiscite (under UN auspices). But later on, India backtracked and reverted to its original claim/charge, Pakistan has every right to do the same. GB is as much Pakistan as IOK is India .... of course until and unless the promised plebiscite is carried out.

I will await further developments in this matter with interest, that is all I will say at this point. Pakistan's changes with regards to the legal status of GB will not be trivial in their implications.

 

[kasper95]

Yes idiot. We are talking about Kashmir politician here. All politicians are liars and this one is no different. This guy is only making stupid statement for personal gains.

He is a politician,what will he gain personally if he makes statements against the wishes of the people.

 

[American Pakistani]

I said several times and will say again, held a plebiscite and referendum under UN monitoring, in GB and AJK and get done with it. Once the fate of GB and AJK are legally accepted by UN the pressure will be on Inda. That is the proper way to go forward, else the future generations will see another grave issue much more worse and difficult than Bangladesh or Durand Line.

 

[saaju]

Lol sardar attique is no one to stop this .. He has no power at all .. We kashmiri people have no problem with any decision that Pak govt take in the best interest of our beloved Pakistan ...