Imran Khan Approves Interim Province Status For Gilgit-Baltistan

[Areesh]

It is plain and simple logic, as shown earlier.

"You can't claim Jammu and Kashmir to be a disputed territory, while claiming a part of Jammu & Kashmir as an integral part of Pakistan."

If you deny that, you are just an idiot.

It is plain and simple. We just did what people of GB wanted. It is just like India's administration of IOK minus the disturbing human rights violations. Demography won't be changed and nobody from outside the province would be allowed to become permanent resident.

You can whine. You are not interested in solving Kashmir issue anyways. We can't deprive people of GB their rightful rights for that.

 

[Osiris]

It is plain and simple. We just did what people of GB wanted. It is just like India's administration of IOK minus the disturbing human rights violations. Demography won't be changed and nobody from outside the province would be allowed to become permanent resident.

You can whine. You are not interested in solving Kashmir issue anyways. We can't deprive people of GB their rightful rights for that.

I am on your side. I think it is great that you have finally understood that plebscite is not happening, no reason to keep people GB suffering, now do the same with AJK and end this matter.

 

[War Thunder]

It does make a difference, in 70 years. Pakistan has not once objected to GB being included as part of princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. As it thought, it would get more votes, if GB was included jn a plebescite.
Now after 70 years, you simply can not state, rest of the state of jammu and kashmir is disputed but Gilgit baltistan has now become a part of Pakistan.

Either all of it is disputed or none of it is.

Gilgit Baltistant was a princely state of Jammu and Kashmir for 70 years? On which planet?
We called them Northern Areas and they had a separate status, but never anything linked to "Kashmir".
We have always maintained "Azad Kashmir" as the only area related to Kashmir and which enjoys a separate status of a state under Pakistan protectorate.

You need to get your facts right here. Ever seen the map of Pakistan?

 

[Crystal-Clear]

Mubarak

 

[Clutch]

As per UN, GB, AJK, Kashmir, Ladakh, Jammu are all part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which Pakistan claims is a disputed territory in its entirety. No more.

I don't see how making GB a province changes Pakistan's stance on Indian occupied Kashmir.

The kashmiri people occupied in India will continue to make the claim that they are occupied and Pakistan will support that claim.

And will die a slow death, as Pakistan progressively weakens its own stand on Kashmir.

It must be the correct move by Pakistan to recognize GB as a province... If it is hitting an Indian nerve so bad... Interesting. I therefore support GB as a province.

 

[Osiris]

Gilgit Baltistant was a princely state of Jammu and Kashmir for 70 years? On which planet?
We called them Northern Areas and they had a separate status, but never anything linked to "Kashmir".
We have always maintained "Azad Kashmir" as the only area related to Kashmir and which enjoys a separate status of a state under Pakistan protectorate.

You need to get your facts right here. Ever seen the map of Pakistan?

You are wrong, name one instance where Pakistan objected to GB being a part of Kashmir.
Even UN recognises GB to be part of Kashmir. Or are you saying UN is wrong and rubbishing the UN resolutions on Kashmir?

 

[M. Sarmad]

It does make a difference, in 70 years. Pakistan has not once objected to GB being included as part of princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. As it thought, it would get more votes, if GB was included jn a plebescite.
Now after 70 years, you simply can not state, rest of the state of jammu and kashmir is disputed but Gilgit baltistan has now become a part of Pakistan.

Either all of it is disputed or none of it is.

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.

 

[Osiris]

I don't see how making GB a province changes Pakistan's stance on Indian occupied Kashmir.

The kashmiri people occupied in India will continue to make the claim that they are occupied and Pakistan will support that claim.




It must be the correct move by Pakistan to recognize GB as a province... If it is hitting an Indian nerve so bad... Interesting. I therefore support GB as a province.

Because Pakistan stand has been the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed.

You can not claim part of the very same state as part of Pakistan and still go on claiming rest of state as disputed.

 

[lastofthepatriots]

My parental home is in Multan which is the largest city in the S
south Punjab and would become its capital if the province is created. However even in Multan there is a huge population of Punjab speaking people and many villages are of entirely Punjabi. Some of our relatives are living in Khanewal and it majority speaks Punjab there. I think Punjab is the largest linguistic group, follow by Pashtoons and then Seraiki. BTW, my mother tongue is Urdu.

You have not explored Pakistan properly. There are more saraiki speakers in Multan than Punjabi. LoL

 

[Osiris]

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.

No it is not valid. India derives its validity over the state of Jammu and Kashmir from instrument of Acessesion. Where does Pakistan derive its legality over GB from , since radclife line (international border) never made it to the state of J&k.

More so UN recognizes GB formerly northern areas as part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

So a state can not be both disputed as well as a part of Pakistan.

 

[war&peace]

You have not explored Pakistan properly. There are more saraiki speakers in Multan than Punjabi. LoL

You have comprehension issues. I never said there are more Punjabi than Seraiki speakers in Multan neither @DESERT FIGHTER misinterpreted my words that way who I have been talking to and then you jump in the covo missing all the posts..lolzzzz

 

[valkyr_96]

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.

thank you this is my understanding as well

 

[lastofthepatriots]

I lived in multan for 4 years... spent another 1 in Bahawalpur...


Multan if anything is today a very multicultural city.. with Baloch,Pakhtuns,Serikies,Panjabis & urdu speakers aswell as people from Haryana etc...

Why? Because it is a historic city .. one of the oldest living cities in the world.. and has been ruled by several dynasties.

The Pakhtuns & settled here from as far as Balochistan.

Than you have the Baloch living a stone throw away... who came and settled .. the Khetrans of Fort Monroe are a good example of assimilation .. they having settled on both sides southern Panjab & Balochistan border speak their own language called Khetrani influenced with seriki.. aswell as Balochi.

The Panjabis arent native but settlers .. some settling in Multan since centuries because how far is a city like Okara from multan? Lol..
And because a large number of migrants came from indian panjab (including haryana/mewat)...

And so did Urdu Speakers from diverse communities like Delhiwalas, Bohras etc..

If anything Bahawalpur is a true Seriki city.. the old capital of the powerful Bahawalpur state.. which neighbored Sindhi Mir States (all of whom speak a seriki+sindhi language— yet hold Sindhi customs,traditions and general way of life).

Nice. But punjabis are also indigenous to Riyasat. Punjabis have been indigenous to the outskirts even before the canal colonies, but in much smaller numbers. Otherwise, your post is a gem.

 

[Areesh]

I am on your side. I think it is great that you have finally understood that plebscite is not happening, no reason to keep people GB suffering, now do the same with AJK and end this matter.

Even with we making GB an interim province won't end this matter.

So nope. Plebiscite is the only way forward.

 

[lastofthepatriots]

There is no city which has only one ethnicity or linguistic group and that's the beauty of Pakistan and I have experienced that there is sizeable community of Punjabi speakers in every city of Punjab (I visited a lot a cities multiple times). I even met Punjabi speaking people in US who hail from cities in Sindh like Hyderabad etc. So they have a huge a population and thus that simply makes them the largest group, second are the Pashtoons, there are more than 2 million Pashtoons in Karachi alone and then KPK, parts of Baluchistan and even in Punjab.

And what will you say about the mianwali niazi Pashtuns of Punjab that speak saraiki? Kid, you got a lot of exploring to do in Pakistan before becoming an authority. Just my opinion.