Governance of Azad Kashmir

[Dubious]

That is not a final solution either.

Any unilateral changes by Pakistan must be considered very carefully for any potential impacts on the status of its claims on Kashmir. Great caution is advisable.

 

[VCheng]

Does Israel's Supreme Court have similar jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories?

 

[Dubious]

Does Israel's Supreme Court have similar jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories?

Dont derail a thread in senior's cafe and Palestine is not a disputed area...it is a recognized independent state by a number of nations! Kashmir is not a recognized independent state by ANYONE!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-palestine-as-a-state/?utm_term=.bddda718a028

 

[VCheng]

Dont derail a thread in senior's cafe and Palestine is not a disputed area...it is a recognized independent state by a number of nations! Kashmir is not a recognized independent state by ANYONE!

But there is no Palestinian State either, hence my relevant question. However, since you have determined it to be derailment, I shall not respond here any further to you to avoid being punished.

 

[Dubious]

But there is no Palestinian State either, hence my relevant question. However, since you have determined it to be derailment, I shall not respond here any further to avoid being punished.

The Palestinianstate had been there prior to israel's existence (past century)!
You can start another thread

Palestine is not a disputed area...it is a recognized independent state by a number of nations! Kashmir is not a recognized independent state by ANYONE!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-palestine-as-a-state/?utm_term=.bddda718a028

 

[VCheng]

On topic, I already said above the only realistic outcome I can foresee of a former princely state divided between three nuclear powers is converting the AGPLs into recognized international borders. How each country gets to that point I do not know, but there have been many states that have come and gone throughout human history. It is not necessary or even possible for each to be resurrectable given the ever changing nature of international geopolitics.

 

[saiyan0321]

On topic, I already said above the only realistic outcome I can foresee of a former princely state divided between three nuclear powers is converting the AGPLs into recognized international borders. How each country gets to that point I do not know, but there have been many states that have come and gone throughout human history. It is not necessary or even possible for each to be resurrectable given the ever changing nature of international geopolitics.

That seems the only solution possible bar some drastic massive economic, military and central power downfall of any of the three states which seem highly unlikely to happen ( even then we see states don't break up as we see with Libya, Afghanistan, Syria e.t.c)...

The question right now that plagues me is how long must India and pakstan take to reach this conclusion.. How much more time? India has seen armed insurgencies since 1990s and even now on the other hand we continuously see protests all over GB for rights. Even the SC order is being called falling completely short of mark... AJK before June 2018 ( mind you its still no province) had to fight tirelessly for rights and frankly a lot of time it was absolute rubbish on our part and here we are doing the same thing with GB. Must they fight also for such a long period of time... What if the most loyal region to Pakistan starts demanding separation due to zero rights being allotted and rights are not just fundamental rights in the constitution but right to resources, right to decisions of their state, right to economic decisions, right to participation in the affairs of the central power that makes the foreign, monetary and military decisions... These rights haven't even been given to AJK... All of this is very important and requires immediate solutions..

 

[saiyan0321]

Dont derail a thread in senior's cafe and Palestine is not a disputed area...it is a recognized independent state by a number of nations! Kashmir is not a recognized independent state by ANYONE!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-palestine-as-a-state/?utm_term=.bddda718a028

He has a point there.. And let me explain it. Look each institution and the individuals of the institution have powers which are defined within the constitution. Correct.
The constitution's very first article is titled the republic and its territories so in its very first article section it states that the name of the republic and the second section and this is important, is its territories defined fully.

Now why is that? Why were the territories the first thing to be mentioned before anything else?

Bcz every article to follow will have its powers and limits contained within that territory.. It cannot surpass it.

This means that the greatest power an individal or institution in Pakistan can have is limited to the extent of the territory so defined in article 1 section 2.. Right

Which means that nobody can make a constitutional or legal order outside Pakistani territories.. Bcz he doesn't have the power allotted.

Now the supreme courts power is also victim to this limit.. The judiciary of Pakistan has its powers covered in article 176-191 ...
Now read the following

187. Issue and Execution of Processes of Supreme Court.

(1) Subject to clause(2) of Article 175, the Supreme Court shall have power to issue such directions, orders or decrees as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it, including an order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person or the discovery or production of any document.

(2) Any such direction, order or decree shall be enforceable throughout Pakistan and shall, where it is to be executed in a Province, or a territory or an area not forming part of a Province but within the jurisdiction of the High Court of the Province, be executed as if it had been issued by the High Court of that Province.

(3) If a question arises as to which High Court shall give effect to a direction, order or decree of the Supreme Court, the decision of the Supreme Court on the question shall be final

Plus we have article 189 as well which says all decisions of supreme courts are binding only on courts IN PAKISTAN..

Now match this with article 1 and section 2 and you will see what he is saying.

How can the supreme court issue an order directing its power upon a territory that is not part of Pakistan constitutionally? How can this order be given?

This is why I am waiting for the SC order in full form to be read bcz this is a very interesting question in legal sense.. How is the supreme court able to penetrate the limits set by the constitution.. Bcz Karachi agreements and the GB own decision to join Pakistan does not have any effect in the constitution bcz GB is not mentioned territorially as Pakistan...

Bcz if so then we can extend our courts power upon other regions in the neighborhood as well that do not territorially make up part of Pakistan. Let's do it with IOK or even Afghanistan.

There needs to be a very good legal and satisfactory explanation for this.. The only way I see it is if the SC recognizes GB as part of Pakistan but then why order a referendum? Why not just a lot them the representation?

The order in media is a mess and I hope the longer version will explain this weirdness.

If this was an unclaimed land void of people so annexed then it can only be done after the annexture and proper amendment.


Also a state does not require recognition to function as a state..

The definition of a state is that a state is composed of three elements which must be fulfilled for it to function as state.

1. Territory.

A composed fixed territory must be present for the existence of a state.. A nomadic tribe is not a state.

2. The people.
A state must have subjects. It must be composed of a population or a nation. A piece of land floating on the sea is not a state.

3. A government.

There must be some form of structure composed for a state to function and fulfill its responsibilities. Laws e.t.c and it can be any form as monarchial or tribal e.t.c
Recently number 3 got a slight change with that the government must be popular...


Thus a state can be formed of it fulfills the above..

Recognition is simply an effect for state relations and it has two forms. Defecto and dejure.. Its happening or non happening does not mean a state does not exist...

But this is entirely a different topic...

Vcheng was basically saying how can SC extend its power upon a territory not part of Pakistan as mentioned in the constitution...

This is why I want a solution for this bcz you see the legal void the people of AJK and GB find themselves in.

 

[Hellfire]

hmmm. Very interesting. I have been also brushing on bhutan's modern history and the indian influence located over there and it was always stemming from the chinese unification program which saw tibet and xingiang become part of china which created fear amongst the bhutan ruling class. China is a factor in kashmir issue as well any independent kashmir will have to come to terms with a very large neighbor and a border with that large neighbor which will be very much undefined.

To call annexation of Xinjiang and Tibet as 'unification' is precisely as true as India claiming parts of Iran, Afghanistan, modern day Pakistan, portions of CARs, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Srilanka, Maldives, Laos and Nepal on 'historical' claims. An absurdity if one desires peace.

If China has a right to 'unify', calls for Akhand Bharat are in the same spirit. That shall be interesting - the response of Pakistani members to that then.

I am uncoming to understand slowly the dynamics of the kashmir events that are happening in IAK however the biggest issue that i have is that 70 years later we are no closer to solving this issue and if we become pragmatic there is absolutely no way civil disobedience or even a full fight in kashmir can result in its separation from India. India is home to one of the most powerful military in the world as well as a strong and stable economy and i have read enough insurgencies all over the world as well the concept of modern statehood and modern borders to understand that nothing short of complete disintegration of the indian central state, military and economy will allow kashmir to become independent provided we follow the concept that Asian states rarely if ever allow their territory to be taken from them. The question is if the two nations cannot snatch the others territory nor can those territory snatch themselves away then what course is left bcz quite frankly you may be willing to fight for your atoot ang for a thousand years and i may be willing to fight for my jugular vein for a thousand years but are those territories willing to put up with no rights for a thousand years. Who is Pakistan to condemn gilgit and AJK to no representation within a state that controls their resources nor rights in their territories for an offhand hope that may never come true.

I am not convinced that this limbo is a wise move and i am glad to see that such discussions are taking course not just in GB or AJK but in all of Pakistan. Cases are coming everyday and the government is under pressure to do something about it...

The question are we willing to accept the hostility of a region just for that.

The question is those that are willing fight for their independence will willingly come under Pakistan a state that they see struggling with governance?

The question is will those that fight and become independent will they come under the suzerainty of Muzzaffarabad or will they create their own state governed from srinagar or leh? being pro pak does not mean pro union.

Will we let go of muzzaffarabad where basically everywhere its written that its unsaid Part of Pakistan?

70 years separation is a long time especially with regions who may or may not see themselves as one nation.



Pakistan and india need to look into this matter with a serious mind. Even if LOC becomes IB with some easier movement deal then it will be fine bcz this current situation is simply no good. As i delved deeper into this subject i have come to understand that we have not been just with the regions that fought to join us.



this is perhaps the strongest argument against the integration of these regions especially gilgit baltistan but the fact of the matter is that an AJK solution like a separate constitution is not for that region bcz Gilgit baltistan for one joined us wilfully and secondly we got AJK to agree to it as well in the karachi agreement. Before the 18th amendment there was an argument that since the federal center empowered soo much already controlled th provinces thus such control on regions like Fata e.t.c was tolerated however after it the provinces have been empowered greatly and many of these federal regions started movements for greater control of their territory. One of the basic argument for FATA province was exactly greater autonomy they would have as a province rather than as districts within KPK.

We saw the call for such autonomy in AJK and it passed the 13th amendment and we also see GB fighting for such a thing but even AJK with all its autonomy is still restricted with representation like in IRSA or other departments...

My point is how long will this continue. What time frame should we give them. Decade, century. They want their rights now!! we cant ignore them just bcz it will weaken our position in the dispute which quite frankly will not change in any sense...

The supreme court and the govt is also coming to terms with this...

Recently the supreme court passed an order that GB comes under its jurisdiction and that the people over there have all the rights allotted within the constitution of Pakistan and that a refrendum should be held within 14 days...

We need to end this dispute bcz this dispute between two powers is crushing the people of the region even if hard drastic decisions must be taken otherwise what is a request today will become a demand tomorrow and a demand tomorrow will become call for separation.

The ship with any solution under UN has sailed a long time back. The only relevant agreement for the two countries was Shimla Agreement, which too, has been rendered useless by the Pakistani actions undertaken as Vajpayee and MMS attempted to reach a negotiated agreement. The situation has evolved, no longer does India appear willing to hang on to Shimla Agreement in face of the Pakistani approach towards seeking a negotiated agreement.

To assume that India can not sustain the casualty rates, is the biggest mistake one can make. The rates in Kashmir valley are a decimal fraction of what our casualty rate for the army is on year to year basis, the same, being a decimal fraction of our strength. It is not only sustainable, but statistically insignificant in pure military terms. We loose more troops due to avoidable reasons like road traffic accidents/other accidents arising our of individual negligence.

The only solution, if indeed anyone wants to seek peace and betterment of the average Kashmiri, is to do nothing. That is, Pakistan must withdraw all actions that promote unrest in the valley and cease all support - diplomatic, political, moral or military support and allow peace to come in the valley. That shall, I assure you, change the situation for better for the common people.

Peace and an opportunity to look forward to having a future for self and the children, does wonders to ensure peace and prosperity in a society. It, the violence and unrest, remains a vicious cycle, only depressing the aspirations of a society.

That is not a final solution either.

Oh, think it over. It is. Indeed it is. Depends on who you ask.

That seems the only solution possible bar some drastic massive economic, military and central power downfall of any of the three states which seem highly unlikely to happen ( even then we see states don't break up as we see with Libya, Afghanistan, Syria e.t.c)...

If I had my way, one of the three would be left alone, absolutely alone and I would step back and sit to enjoy them breaking their own country.

The question right now that plagues me is how long must India and pakstan take to reach this conclusion.. How much more time? India has seen armed insurgencies since 1990s and even now on the other hand we continuously see protests all over GB for rights. Even the SC order is being called falling completely short of mark... AJK before June 2018 ( mind you its still no province) had to fight tirelessly for rights and frankly a lot of time it was absolute rubbish on our part and here we are doing the same thing with GB. Must they fight also for such a long period of time... What if the most loyal region to Pakistan starts demanding separation due to zero rights being allotted and rights are not just fundamental rights in the constitution but right to resources, right to decisions of their state, right to economic decisions, right to participation in the affairs of the central power that makes the foreign, monetary and military decisions... These rights haven't even been given to AJK... All of this is very important and requires immediate solutions..

We have had insurgencies since 1948. We know how to deal with them - time, patience and calibrated violence. Mizo insurgency was supported by Pakistan (East Pakistan). India returned the favor in the run up to the 1971 war. It is a matter of time when India decides that favor must be returned. Any move to change the status of the territories may 'expedite' the timeline?

Only solution remains - a hands off policy by either side to the other's areas. Otherwise, sit back and enjoy the show!

 

[saiyan0321]

To call annexation of Xinjiang and Tibet as 'unification' is precisely as true as India claiming parts of Iran, Afghanistan, modern day Pakistan, portions of CARs, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Srilanka, Maldives, Laos and Nepal on 'historical' claims. An absurdity if one desires peace.

If China has a right to 'unify', calls for Akhand Bharat are in the same spirit. That shall be interesting - the response of Pakistani members to that then.

Political terms hellfire. :p

Yes. They are the same. They stem from the same concept of old empires controlling vast amount of territories and the current states being inherent successors of those empires thus having claims on territories.. Same thing if Arabs claimed territories based on ummayad empire or Iranians doing it on achaemend empire..

I would also think that geographical limitations that China has inherited along with its national psych due to the century of humiliation to the coolonial powers are great factors in this thought process. In fact geography plays a massive role.. We see the indian and pakistan efforts for internal consolidation as well.

Have you read prisoners of geography. Its a fascinating read and it explains how nations think and it fits like a piece of puzzle in a jigsaw...


As I said I am studying to understand the wary nature of china's neighbors which would also open doors to our own border dealings with them

However this is very much straying from topic..

The ship with any solution under UN has sailed a long time back. The only relevant agreement for the two countries was Shimla Agreement, which too, has been rendered useless by the Pakistani actions undertaken as Vajpayee and MMS attempted to reach a negotiated agreement. The situation has evolved, no longer does India appear willing to hang on to Shimla Agreement in face of the Pakistani approach towards seeking a negotiated agreement.

To assume that India can not sustain the casualty rates, is the biggest mistake one can make. The rates in Kashmir valley are a decimal fraction of what our casualty rate for the army is on year to year basis, the same, being a decimal fraction of our strength. It is not only sustainable, but statistically insignificant in pure military terms. We loose more troops due to avoidable reasons like road traffic accidents/other accidents arising our of individual negligence.

The only solution, if indeed anyone wants to seek peace and betterment of the average Kashmiri, is to do nothing. That is, Pakistan must withdraw all actions that promote unrest in the valley and cease all support - diplomatic, political, moral or military support and allow peace to come in the valley. That shall, I assure you, change the situation for better for the common people.

Peace and an opportunity to look forward to having a future for self and the children, does wonders to ensure peace and prosperity in a society. It, the violence and unrest, remains a vicious cycle, only depressing the aspirations of a society.

UN is out.. There limits have been on full display. If they can't explain what is local authority nor how it should work then it has failed..

As for military losses. Pakistan and India inherited a very sophisticated and professional military set up which can take absorb even the heaviest if losses. Pakistan fought a devastating war yet its ability to take losses or absorb them wasn't even remotely challenged.. Even Afghanistan despite devastating losses is able to counter casualties...

As I said nothing short of complete breakdown of central and economic and military sector will see Kashmir separated...

We need to find a solution even if radical or even if its hurts our dispute.. People in GB are screaming for rights, we are trying to build our economy on top of all things. How can we progress without solving these core issues.

Nothing wrong with a back channel proposal and we ahould take forward steps to provide them rights and representation...

To call annexation of Xinjiang and Tibet as 'unification' is precisely as true as India claiming parts of Iran, Afghanistan, modern day Pakistan, portions of CARs, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Srilanka, Maldives, Laos and Nepal on 'historical' claims. An absurdity if one desires peace.

If China has a right to 'unify', calls for Akhand Bharat are in the same spirit. That shall be interesting - the response of Pakistani members to that then.




The ship with any solution under UN has sailed a long time back. The only relevant agreement for the two countries was Shimla Agreement, which too, has been rendered useless by the Pakistani actions undertaken as Vajpayee and MMS attempted to reach a negotiated agreement. The situation has evolved, no longer does India appear willing to hang on to Shimla Agreement in face of the Pakistani approach towards seeking a negotiated agreement.

To assume that India can not sustain the casualty rates, is the biggest mistake one can make. The rates in Kashmir valley are a decimal fraction of what our casualty rate for the army is on year to year basis, the same, being a decimal fraction of our strength. It is not only sustainable, but statistically insignificant in pure military terms. We loose more troops due to avoidable reasons like road traffic accidents/other accidents arising our of individual negligence.

The only solution, if indeed anyone wants to seek peace and betterment of the average Kashmiri, is to do nothing. That is, Pakistan must withdraw all actions that promote unrest in the valley and cease all support - diplomatic, political, moral or military support and allow peace to come in the valley. That shall, I assure you, change the situation for better for the common people.

Peace and an opportunity to look forward to having a future for self and the children, does wonders to ensure peace and prosperity in a society. It, the violence and unrest, remains a vicious cycle, only depressing the aspirations of a society.



Oh, think it over. It is. Indeed it is. Depends on who you ask.



If I had my way, one of the three would be left alone, absolutely alone and I would step back and sit to enjoy them breaking their own country.




We have had insurgencies since 1948. We know how to deal with them - time, patience and calibrated violence. Mizo insurgency was supported by Pakistan (East Pakistan). India returned the favor in the run up to the 1971 war. It is a matter of time when India decides that favor must be returned. Any move to change the status of the territories may 'expedite' the timeline?

Only solution remains - a hands off policy by either side to the other's areas. Otherwise, sit back and enjoy the show!

Hands off is no solution as talks for rights are taking off. With AJK we could enhance the 13th amendment but with GB we need to move drastically.. AJK model won't work. Provisional province is a good idea by us but it must be done in line with other provinces.. Representation in all govt institutions..

 

[Dubious]

So what are its territories?

its territories

why order a referendum?

Justice...For foreign eyes to see it as just take over!

Vcheng was basically saying how can SC extend its power upon a territory not part of Pakistan as mentioned in the constitution...

I get what he was saying but comparing it to Palestine...now that was a bit of off topic trolling

 

[saiyan0321]

Justice...For foreign eyes to see it as just take over!

Hmmm... I downloaded the order in the afternoon.. Its about 109 pages and its amalgamation of various petitions in relation to GB.. so far its talking sense and it seems as far as I can tell, mind you I have only read 1/4th of it yet, the supreme court basically connected its extent to the fact that pakistan is administrating the area... Hmmm

It also held the recommendations by the committee led by sartaj Aziz formed in 2015 and provided the points in 2017 and the SC agreed with it and those recommendations are pretty good and if implemented should solve the problem.. It would be a province without the alteration of article 1. So having provincial powers without being an announced province.. That's totally the way to go.

So what are its territories?

Article states that Pakistan's territories are the following. The reproduction of article 1 section 2.

(2) The territories of Pakistan shall comprise:-
(a) the Provinces of [Balochistan] ,the [Khyber Pakthunkhwa] , the Punjab and [Sindh] ;
(b) the Islamabad Capital Territory, hereinafter referred to as the Federal Capital;
(c) Federally Administered Tribal Areas; and
(d) such States and territories as are or may be included in Pakistan, whether by accession or otherwise.

You see you got the four provinces, the capital territory, fata and any accession territories in the future..

That above is pakistan. So whenever the constitution will mention powers in relation to pakistan it will mean the four provinces, capital territory and fata.

One of the major issues are that the constitution barely mentions azad Kashmir in one article which reproduced in the op..

It has no mention of GB.. Despite the fact that that territory fought its own war of independence and wilfully joined us and we even got ajk to give us that territory thanks to the Karachi agreement..

I get what he was saying but comparing it to Palestine...now that was a bit of off topic trolling

Hahaha should have just stated SC limitations...

 

[VCheng]

That seems the only solution possible bar some drastic massive economic, military and central power downfall of any of the three states which seem highly unlikely to happen ( even then we see states don't break up as we see with Libya, Afghanistan, Syria e.t.c)...

The question right now that plagues me is how long must India and pakstan take to reach this conclusion.. How much more time? India has seen armed insurgencies since 1990s and even now on the other hand we continuously see protests all over GB for rights. Even the SC order is being called falling completely short of mark... AJK before June 2018 ( mind you its still no province) had to fight tirelessly for rights and frankly a lot of time it was absolute rubbish on our part and here we are doing the same thing with GB. Must they fight also for such a long period of time... What if the most loyal region to Pakistan starts demanding separation due to zero rights being allotted and rights are not just fundamental rights in the constitution but right to resources, right to decisions of their state, right to economic decisions, right to participation in the affairs of the central power that makes the foreign, monetary and military decisions... These rights haven't even been given to AJK... All of this is very important and requires immediate solutions..

How long must India and Pakistan take to reach this conclusion? My guess is at least a few decades.

 

[saiyan0321]

How long must India and Pakistan take to reach this conclusion? My guess is at least a few decades.

And I am afraid of it taking this long. I really am.... the region wants it now..

 

[VCheng]

Oh, think it over. It is. Indeed it is. Depends on who you ask.

It will be only if India is able to capitalize on this as a unilateral change of status.

And I am afraid of it taking this long. I really am.... the region wants it now..

The region may want it, but the national narrative in Pakistan will take a long time to accept this outcome.

Vcheng was basically saying how can SC extend its power upon a territory not part of Pakistan as mentioned in the constitution...

The point was valid, but the adjudication is one-sidedly blind. No problem. No complaints. No issues.