What's new

Kashmir all-party meet: Modi discusses atrocities in Azad Kashmir, Balochistan

You are ignoring the simple fact that it was not the terms of the Instrument of Accession that Pakistan objected to but the accession itself and the authority of the Maharaja to sign such an agreement. Pakistan rejected this accession as it was predicated on fraud and violence. Under international law," if a dispute arises as to sovereignty over a portion of territory where one party has actually displayed sovereignty, it is not enough for the other party to show territorial sovereignty once existed; it must also be shown that the territorial sovereignty has continued to exist and did exist at the time critical to deciding the dispute." ... At the time the Maharaja allegedly signed the accession, his sovereignty over the state had practically been eroded. And the Gilgit Region was a terra nullius as the Maharaja (or his predecessors) was never able to make his sovereignty effective in any way in that region.

Get your law straight.
Get your dates straight.
Get your facts straight.

As far as the signature of the Instrument of Accession was concerned, the document was signed on the 26th of October. Your objections to the date all start from after the death of Lord Mountbatten, who accepted the accession on the following date, the 27th of October. Prior to that, during his lifetime, no one had the temerity to question either the authenticity of the accession or the dates.

Regarding the law on it, Kashmir was a subsidiary state of the British Crown, and that relationship was embodied in the figure of the Viceroy. As you probably know by now, it was the Viceroy who governed the relations with the Indian state; his position as the Governor-General of the British Crown Colony was subsumed within the other. On the lapse of the British Colony, the British Crown simultaneously abrogated the treaties with the subsidiary allies. By their earlier agreement as the Chamber of Princes, the princely states had already, at the time of the First Round Table Conference (where the future mentor and creator of Pakistan was present), agreed that their states should join the British Crown Colony of India: the Instrument of Accession that ALL the rulers signed, including the Khan of Kalat, with one exception, was the original document that was attached to the Government of India Act, 1935. It was nothing new, it was the implementation of a decision that had been kept abiding a settlement of the political row caused by the Congress party boycotting the government and administration created by the Act of 1935.

While I have at all times the utmost respect for you, your argument about fraud and violence are paper thin. There is no question about the exercise of the State's authority over the area that you currently call Azad Kashmir from prior to 1846 to a few days before the document of accession was signed. At the date of signing, there was a period of armed rebellion by elements who had killed the soldiers of the state, coerced and browbeaten the administrators and had declared independence. Not accession to Pakistan, but independence. Your criteria do not hold; it was for the State to recover its territories from the hands of the rebels, and it did so, through the succeeding power to which it had acceded, as far as Rajouri and Poonch were concerned. Be it noted that these two were also parties to the armed rebellion, that they were recovered, and that they are now legitimately again under their original and traditional authority.

Your point about Gilgit and your point about Baltistan are separate and independent; the territories were separate and independent, and it is only Pakistani sleight of hand that slubbers them together, for its own convenience and for the easier deception of the naive outer world.

Gilgit was so much a part of the Maharaja's dominion that the suzerain power formally sought his permission to administer it, after a period when the Maharaja's administrators were in full control. This was later converted into another legal and binding form of permission to administer it through the lease of that territory by the British from the Maharaja.

As you are a man of the land, you will readily admit that you will not take from your neighbour on lease a property to which he does not have title and full and complete enjoyment.

Incidentally, the territory reverted to the Maharaja on the 15th of August, 1947, the lessor, the British Crown Colony, having ceased to exist, and the lessee having thereby regained his full and unalienated rights.

Now for the dates.

You are intelligent and you have studied the legal aspects, and I respect you for the commendable job that you have done. Having said that, you are no historian, far from it, and I say this still with the utmost respect. You have failed to note the differences between the date of the Instrument of Accession and the date on which Major Brown mutinied - not rebelled, but mutinied, a crime punishable by court martial and carrying with it a sentence of death for those found guilty - and invited a delegate from the Dominion of Pakistan to come and take over.

The trouble is that almost without exception all of you Pakistanis see these events through a romantic haze which defies dissection. If you stopped being so childishly wrapped up in this issue, and paused to look at the gap between the 26th of October and the date on which Major Brown locked up the governor of Gilgit (not Baltistan), you will find that your entire elaborate edifice collapses.

You are good, Sir, in your articulation of the case on behalf of Pakistan. Unfortunately, that is not good enough.

Let us continue to review the facts.

As for accession of Khanate of Kalat to Pakistan, there were no similar issues. And this accession was not challenged by anyone. Neither by India, nor by the Khan himself. The Khan (like Nizam of Hyderabad) could have taken the issue to the Security Council by himself if he believed that Pakistan was trying to coerce him. He didn't.

Let me remind you, since you displayed such dexterity and skill in handling legal terms, that there is no statute of limitations on this matter; both the successors of the Khan of Kalat and any other party to that situation may raise it at any suitable and convenient date. That we have refrained for all these seven decades has merely encouraged your ministers to rise from one insolent gesture to another, to scale new peaks every year.

By cablegram dated 21 August 1948, Hyderabad informed the Security Council, under Article 35 (Z), that a grave dispute had arisen between Hyderabad and India, which, unless settled in accordance with international law and justice, was likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

So, under International Law, even the accession of Hyderabad to India is disputed but the accession of Kalat to Pakistan is an accomplished task.

Not so. A single reference is not a dispute. The reference remained what it was, a reference by a sovereign pledged to a course of action from which he wished to resile, and from which the contracting party exercised by force his specific performance.

Furthermore, the accession was an accomplished task. We have no quarrel with that original accession; nor do the people of Balochistan. The quarrel on legal grounds relates to the terms of accession, and to their involuntary widening by force exercised by the Dominion of Pakistan. A treaty violated by exercise of force and against the wishes of one of the treating parties is not a valid treaty any more. Your deep studies in international law would have informed you of this, and would also have informed you that with the breach of that treaty, Pakistan became a forcible occupier and an illegal one.

You can up the ante on Baluchistan as much as you want, but under International Law, Baluchistan is Pakistan's internal matter whereas Kashimir is NOT India's internal matter and nothing is going to change that

No, not correct. On both counts. Baluchistan does not cease to be an international matter with more than the interests of Pakistan to be concerned, taking into consideration Pakistan's breach of treaty obligations.

In contrast, there was no breach of treaty obligations by India, nor a violation of the Radcliffe Award, dividing the territory of the British Crown Colony, in the case of Kashmir. Instead, there was an impulse on the part of the administration of Pakistan, an impulse based on not a single legal foundation, an impulse based on the forcible overthrow of a legal and sovereign authority by armed rebellion in one part of the sovereign's territory, and on the mutiny of his suzerain's forces, the Gilgit Scouts, paid for and led by the officers appointed to lead it by the Crown Colony, which had no longer any legal authority to operate in the territory, and which killed the sovereign's soldiers and administrators to further their wishes.

Baltistan was conquered - in part. There was absolutely no reference to the people, not as Baltistan. In the part of Baltistan administered by India, there have been elections, free and fair elections, of a sort that even members of this forum from Pakistan admit have not been held in parts of the former state held by Pakistan.

Sorry.

Close, but no cigar.

@hellfire

Irrespective of the validity of your conclusion the situation on the ground is also impervious to change - politically, diplomatically or militarily.

Impervious?

Haven't you got that precisely wrong?

@Azlan Haider not discussing here. You are a damn advocate(no offense, told you I respect you for your posts and will learn from them). In seniors cafe after 30 Sep I asked you time.

But I hope you recall I had told you this line would be taken? Lucky guess, eh?;)

Inevitable.

Pakistan's administrators have never displayed any sense of when to stop. They have a tin ear for the nuances, and continue to bluster and to strike postures long after the relevance of such play-acting is exhausted. And then they are caught completely by surprise when their actions and dramatics provoke a reaction from even a long-suffering neighbour.

Irrespective of what the oppressors say (or do), No oppression lasts for ever ...

Your phrasing. Your outlook. Your freedom of speech.

As Am Inhabitant Of Balochistan I Assure You Sir That We Are Not Oppressed.Thank You For Your Concern Please Shift Them Towards Oppressed People In Your Country



So One Sikh Showboy Thats Your Answer??

Do you really want an answer to that question?

Let me assure you: empty bragging like this will invite swift and merciless retribution.

Mind your language.

Pakistanis and Indians have a lot much in their hearts...Bus koi sunne wala hona chayie....

By the way, I don't know why I feel little shy from you. May be because it is second time you tried to "pull me" as u say. hehe...I, now, when writing my posts on forum, get cautious/afraid from you and @Joe Shearer instead of moderators....hahahahaha....

Whenever I m in trolling mood, you pull me off. Destroying all funny mode...:lol::lol: :enjoy:

Huh?

What the hell was that about?

You are one of my favourites from the new crowd. It's another thing that the others are mostly unspeakable louts. What did I do this time?

I am "SURE" The great Prime minister of india will bring some chai stalls when he comes to azad Kashmir

Why not? He is not ashamed of his background and upbringing. Only a cheap and badly brought up person fails to respect those of humble origin who have achieved eminence. I suppose you are feudal royalty, and have someone to pick up your clothes where you drop them, and take off your boots after your morning chukka, and hand you your clothes after your bath. If you are not, you should have respect for someone who has done something with his life. If at his age, you can be the prime minister of your (adoptive) countries, you should thank your God, on your knees, fasting.
 
Correct.

There is surely something wrong when dharmic people in Kashmir fall prey to Islamic Terrorism, Genocide and Ethic cleansing and neither a single Indian political party nor the silent Muslim majority of Kashmir has shown courage to talk about it. This is the power of terrorism... and only Indian Army has the courage and capability to take on these Islamic terrorists head on and show them their place.

You have made a very emotional statement. Your statement has come directly from nationalistic mindset. I can appreciate your statement. But have you every thought how many people have been killed by the brave Indian army in the Kashmir valley? They were human being like you and me. They deserve to live peace fully and independently.
I have one solution for Kashmir. Kashmir should be made free trade zone between India and Pakistan, and jointly rule by both countries.
 
Few paid up indian terror representative spewing lie, will make up indian deflection propaganda? That is what modi sold to indians. That is just pathetic. Both Pakistan and Iran are victim of indian orchestrated terror in Baluchistan. Lets see india make same propaganda claim against Iran.

Kindly clarify on 'deflection propoganda'.

If Iran is a 'victim' of Indian terror, let them raise the issue with us or with UN. As things stand today, I am unaware of any such claim. Do feel free to elighten me.

You can up the ante on Baluchistan as much as you want, but under International Law, Baluchistan is Pakistan's internal matter whereas Kashimir is NOT India's internal matter and nothing is going to change that

That's hardly relevant. East Pak was also supposedly your internal matter. This is not to equate the two or make premature claims of carving Balochistan out, well not just yet.
 
Get your law straight.
Get your dates straight.
Get your facts straight.

.

Sir, I know what I am talking about. Let me explain:

As far as the signature of the Instrument of Accession was concerned, the document was signed on the 26th of October. Your objections to the date all start from after the death of Lord Mountbatten, who accepted the accession on the following date, the 27th of October. Prior to that, during his lifetime, no one had the temerity to question either the authenticity of the accession or the dates. .


The Indians claim that the Instrument of Accession was signed by Mahrajah Hari Singh on 26th October 1947, in which the Mahrajah agreed to accede to India in return for military assistance to put down the popular rebellion against him, seen at that time as an invasion by tribesmen from neighbouring Pakistan. The details of the accession were worked out between the Kashmiri Prime Minister, MC Mahajan and the Indian official, VP Menon, in Dehli. However, there are serious doubts about the signing of the document. Alastair Lamb (in his book, Kashmir - A disputed legacy 1846-1990) points out that the Instrument of Accession could not have been signed by the Mahrajah on 26th October as he was travelling by road to Jammu (a distance of over 350 Km). There is no evidence to suggest that a meeting or communication of any kind took place on 26th October 1947. In fact it was on 27th October 1947 that the Mahrajah was informed by his MC Mahajan and VP Menon (who had flown into Srinagar), the the Instrument of Accession had already been negotiated in Dehli. The Mahrajah did not in fact sign the Instrument of Accession, if at all, until 27th October 1947. This sheds doubts on the actions of the Indian regime. Some Indian troops had already arrived and secured Srinagar airfield during the middle of October 1947. On 26th October 1947, a further massive airlift brought thousands of Indian troops to Kashmir - BEFORE the signing of the Accession. Therefore, this situation begs the question: would the Mahrajah have signed the Instrument of Accession had the Indian troops not been on Kashmiri soil?



Further shedding doubt on the treaty`s validity, in 1995 Indian authorities claimed that the original copy of the treaty (letter of accession) was either stolen or lost.


The Instrument of Accession" was neither presented to the United Nations nor to Pakistan. And it is not registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations. Hence India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.


As for why no one questioned the authenticity of the accession, the simple reason was that there was no need to question the authenticity of the Instrument of Accession as it had lost all its importance and relevance once the Security Council passed Resolutions that established self-determination as the governing principal 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.


While I have at all times the utmost respect for you, your argument about fraud and violence are paper thin. There is no question about the exercise of the State's authority over the area that you currently call Azad Kashmir from prior to 1846 to a few days before the document of accession was signed. At the date of signing, there was a period of armed rebellion by elements who had killed the soldiers of the state, coerced and browbeaten the administrators and had declared independence. Not accession to Pakistan, but independence. Your criteria do not hold; it was for the State to recover its territories from the hands of the rebels, and it did so, through the succeeding power to which it had acceded, as far as Rajouri and Poonch were concerned. Be it noted that these two were also parties to the armed rebellion, that they were recovered, and that they are now legitimately again under their original and traditional authority.

Gilgit was so much a part of the Maharaja's dominion that the suzerain power formally sought his permission to administer it, after a period when the Maharaja's administrators were in full control. This was later converted into another legal and binding form of permission to administer it through the lease of that territory by the British from the Maharaja.

As you are a man of the land, you will readily admit that you will not take from your neighbour on lease a property to which he does not have title and full and complete enjoyment.

Incidentally, the territory reverted to the Maharaja on the 15th of August, 1947, the lessor, the British Crown Colony, having ceased to exist, and the lessee having thereby regained his full and unalienated rights.

Now for the dates.

You are intelligent and you have studied the legal aspects, and I respect you for the commendable job that you have done. Having said that, you are no historian, far from it, and I say this still with the utmost respect. You have failed to note the differences between the date of the Instrument of Accession and the date on which Major Brown mutinied - not rebelled, but mutinied, a crime punishable by court martial and carrying with it a sentence of death for those found guilty - and invited a delegate from the Dominion of Pakistan to come and take over.

The trouble is that almost without exception all of you Pakistanis see these events through a romantic haze which defies dissection. If you stopped being so childishly wrapped up in this issue, and paused to look at the gap between the 26th of October and the date on which Major Brown locked up the governor of Gilgit (not Baltistan), you will find that your entire elaborate edifice collapses.

You are good, Sir, in your articulation of the case on behalf of Pakistan. Unfortunately, that is not good enough..





Jinnah met Mountbatten on Nov 1, 1947 and told him that Kashmir's accession to India "was not a bona fide one since it rested on fraud and violence." And since then, it has been Pakistan's official position. When Pakistan responded to Indian complain of aggression in the SC in Jan 1948, it maintained that it did not accept the accession as it was based on fraud and violence. A lot has been written on this subject by Pakistani authors (letters to UN, speeches and other official documents are also available) and I don't think that we need to go into more details. However, it is pertinent to mention here that 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.


The Maharaja had no authority to sign the treaty, hence the Instrument of Accession can be considered without legal standing. The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was hardly in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Hari Singh was in flight from the state capital, Srinigar. And it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power. Two days before the Maharaja signed his Instrument of Accession to India, the Poonch rebels and their tribesman-allies set up the Azad Kashmir government headquartered at Muzaffarabad. So at the time of the alleged accession, 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.


As previously shown, after 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.



Let me remind you, since you displayed such dexterity and skill in handling legal terms, that there is no statute of limitations on this matter; both the successors of the Khan of Kalat and any other party to that situation may raise it at any suitable and convenient date. That we have refrained for all these seven decades has merely encouraged your ministers to rise from one insolent gesture to another, to scale new peaks every year. .


Sir, a lot can be said here, but all I would say is : Good Luck with that !!


Not so. A single reference is not a dispute. The reference remained what it was, a reference by a sovereign pledged to a course of action from which he wished to resile, and from which the contracting party exercised by force his specific performance. .


http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/46-51/Chapter 8/46-51_08-19-The Hyderabad question.pdf


No, not correct. On both counts. Baluchistan does not cease to be an international matter with more than the interests of Pakistan to be concerned, taking into consideration Pakistan's breach of treaty obligations.


Khanate of Kalat was just a princely state in Baluchistan. You can not use Kalat and Baluchistan interchangeably. Pakistan's breach of treaty obligations ? .. Baluchistan States Union (Kalat, Kharan, Las Bela and Makran) and the Chief Commissioner's Province of Baluchistan were merged with all the remaining provinces and princely states in other parts of Pakistan to form the province of West Pakistan in 1955. Ahmad Yar Khan (the Khan of Kalat) who signed the instrument of accession died in 1979. He could have taken the issue to the UN if he wanted to. But he didn't.
 
Last edited:
Sir you misunderstand. A barb from a Pakistani musalman is the biggest form of honour for an Indian musalman. It reaffirms his faith in Allah. That he remains a good musalman. And never mutated into the type of musalman who butchers innocent musalmans in the name of politics, greed, sect and tribe. Do not feel bad for us sir. We feel bad for them. Cause we see in them the depths that can so easily be plumbed.

@PaklovesTurkiye @Areesh

Nope, didn't misunderstand. I quoted @PaklovesTurkiye to tell the member what I felt on the member's post. The member is a sensible poster usually, just got overboard, for the reason as explained by the member above. And only sensible people you can point things out to. Others, I wouldn't even bother about. On our side, @Stephen Cohen gets similar love and affection. I have great hopes of him, only if he shrugs off his propensity to get ballistic at certain times (I think he lives around some missile/rocket complex unknown to him and gets the vapors from the liquid fuel into his system unknowingly and hence, takes off on a wild journey at times, my view though). Maybe another few years?

I digress. So the Pakistani member I have mentioned, is indeed one of the pleasant members. Hence, my pointing out the facts about you.

Also for the bold and underlined post, am not those one of the politically correct guys! I told you my profession, so I care naught for the religion, only the nationality. So, invalid in my case. And FYI, I resent that! Don't use it.
 
Last edited:
I don't mind showing Modi to Azad Kashmir. After all, that's where my family originates from. Time to show him the true royalty welcome of the most beautiful and peaceful Azad Kashmir under the protection of Pakistan army. I assure you, Modi will be in awe of Pakistani army. :D
 
Ulta chor kotwaal ko dantay ...... Well Modi himself calling it as Azad(free) Kashmir ......welll yeah its already Azad(free) since 1948... and its the other part of Jamu & Kashmir which is still under the indian occupation and need to be free
But we still are ready to make a referendum in AJK if india have the balls to make a referendum in indian occupied kashmir
 
Took the words out of my mouth.

He is one of the best. Sui generis. But a crook on this subject, I am glad to acknowledge :enjoy:

Absolutely, a wily one at that!



Master's degree in Political Science, you notice. Should I sic my bugbear onto him, for a grounding in the subject before aforementioned bugbear needles me again with half-formed crap about fascism and the Nazis?

And you are back!! Please do the honors. He is a special case. I refuse to engage him till 01 Oct.




@hellfire

I say this for your moral upliftment, strengthening of your reasoning faculties and the (presumably further) sweetening of your breath*: follow this master. And Niaz Sahib.

* In addition, improvements in professional and personal life and a better golf handicap cannot yet be ruled out.

I resent that!!!!! I use Dabur ka Lal dant manjan..... Moti ki Taran daant ;)

On the post, both I have always made an effort to read. Post my getting off (s)troll mode, I intend to start actually tailing them till they cry "stalker". I always correlate golf with @Oscar , no rationale for that though. Probably his dignified posts?

@Oscar sorry for that now itself, my planned stalking.
 
You have made a very emotional statement. Your statement has come directly from nationalistic mindset. I can appreciate your statement. But have you every thought how many people have been killed by the brave Indian army in the Kashmir valley? They were human being like you and me. They deserve to live peace fully and independently.
I have one solution for Kashmir. Kashmir should be made free trade zone between India and Pakistan, and jointly rule by both countries.

1.Firstly, seeing a lopsided view, I believe your roots are in Pakistan, so before posting be brave enough to post the flag of your country of origin and flag of your normal residence if both differ.

2. The underlined and bold part? Please give a breakdown. It is boring to spank any new wannabe expert every other day who arrives exhibiting an aura of intellect incarnate. If you do not have the breakdown, wherein people who have taken up arms against a legal state and been dealt as armed rebels, or where the said people have not indulged in acts of randomly initiating a gunfight with scant regard to civil population, and indeed the armed forces (it is not Indian Army. your inability to discern between the forces is pointing to a highly entertaining spank session) have engaged in a deliberate and planned execution of the populance who are peaceful and law abiding (inclusive of the laws enacted by the state under their autonomous authority to curb civil unrest and disorderly conduct and makes it a point to adequately inform and warn about prohibitory orders), be prepared to be labelled a liar at every post of yours subsequently.


3. As for your solution, since I have my strong suspicion of you being another false flagger from our neighbouring country, may I suggest you read your history including the resolutions wherein the said matter has been discussed and tell me at any point wherein the point of original contention of the peope of valley - a right to self determination has been affirmed by Pakistan as a self appointed party to dispute? Even in Shimla agreement, can you show me the existence of the third option, other than either India or Pakistan? If you read, and do not have a limbic system malfunction (short circuit of your Papez Circuit) you will realise that while all our dear Pakistani members take pains to cry for Azadi and support the Kashmiris in this struggle, yet at no point have they ever involved themselves in ANY document/treaty wherein the same is re-affirmed or contended by them. In short, the duplicity is apparent, only ignorant fools and downright retards are unable to comprehend the ramifications.

@Azlan Haider The third point ONLY. Your comments?
 
Sir, I know what I am talking about. Let me explain:

The Indians claim that the Instrument of Accession was signed by Mahrajah Hari Singh on 26th October 1947, in which the Mahrajah agreed to accede to India in return for military assistance to put down the popular rebellion against him, seen at that time as an invasion by tribesmen from neighbouring Pakistan. The details of the accession were worked out between the Kashmiri Prime Minister, MC Mahajan and the Indian official, VP Menon, in Dehli. However, there are serious doubts about the signing of the document. Alastair Lamb (in his book, Kashmir - A disputed legacy 1846-1990) points out that the Instrument of Accession could not have been signed by the Mahrajah on 26th October as he was travelling by road to Jammu (a distance of over 350 Km).

Lamb is wrong.

There is an eyewitness account by Field Marshal Manekshaw who was then the DMO of the protracted meeting through the day on the 26th October. The Maharaja and his entourage were getting ready for departure to Jammu. On obtaining the signature, Manekshaw and Menon left for the airport and the Maharaja left for Jammu.

I suggest that you rely on an eye-witness rather than Lamb's bilious attempt to justify Pakistani chicanery.

There is no evidence to suggest that a meeting or communication of any kind took place on 26th October 1947.

Are you looking for a minutes of the meeting? It is there in the form of the Instrument of Accession and of the detailed covering letter, both dated the 26th.

In fact it was on 27th October 1947 that the Mahrajah was informed by his MC Mahajan and VP Menon (who had flown into Srinagar), the the Instrument of Accession had already been negotiated in Dehli. The Mahrajah did not in fact sign the Instrument of Accession, if at all, until 27th October 1947.

Since V. P. Menon was in attendance at the meeting in Delhi, presided over by Mountbatten, on the 27th morning, this is not a very water-tight story.

This sheds doubts on the actions of the Indian regime.

Only because Pakistan desperately seeks a shred of legitimacy in the whole sandbagging operation that it attempted.

Some Indian troops had already arrived and secured Srinagar airfield during the middle of October 1947.

There was not a single Indian soldier in Jammu and Kashmir before the 26th of October, and the soldier present on that date was Manekshaw. There were ORs guarding the aircraft and the pilot and flight crew.

This canard is based on another canard, that Patiala state forces were involved in the disturbances in west Jammu.

On 26th October 1947, a further massive airlift brought thousands of Indian troops to Kashmir - BEFORE the signing of the Accession.

This massive airlift, the first effort to bring in Indian troops, since India had already set signing of the Instrument of Accession as a necessary preliminary, was organised by Manekshaw, at the direct order of Patel. At the meeting, when Nehru went off into a philosophical speech, he was abruptly interrupted by Patel, who asked,"Jawaharlal, do you want to help Kashmir or not?" Nehru replied,"Yes", upon which Patel turned to Manekshaw and told him,"You have your orders."

It is sad to see you moving heaven and earth to bring some figment of propriety to Pakistan's actions by pretending that nothing happened, and by relying on a single, jaundiced British source, against an eye-witness account.

Therefore, this situation begs the question: would the Mahrajah have signed the Instrument of Accession had the Indian troops not been on Kashmiri soil?

This begs the counter-question: considering that by then Azad Kashmir, and Poonch, and Rajouri had broken away, what difference would your proposed presence of Indian troops on Kashmiri soil have made? If he was intimidated by military presence, which has been disproved, would he not be intimidated by the military presence only two days march away, at Muzzafarabad? Further, the presence of Pakistani infiltrators, and of officers of the PA, at Muzzafarabad has been attested by Pakistani sources themselves. Their names and approximate numbers are known. Can you cite any evidence that any unit of the Indian Army was present on the 26th (other than those on Manekshaw's team)?

I admire your repeated kite-flying. The weather is adverse.

Further shedding doubt on the treaty`s validity, in 1995 Indian authorities claimed that the original copy of the treaty (letter of accession) was either stolen or lost.

You mean that until then, the copy, that was kept on display, was valid, and in 1995, it was no longer valid? You mean that the numerous copies of the original are also fake?

Can we move away from the childish?

The Instrument of Accession" was neither presented to the United Nations nor to Pakistan. And it is not registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations. Hence India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.

The sovereign, even after the Instrument of Accession, with regard to all matters but Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications, was Maharaja Hari Singh. If the document of accession was faulty, or non-existent, as you have tried to show, then the sovereignty defaulted in any case to the Maharaja in all respects. So what then is your problem?

Regarding the UN, there was no obligation, then or later, to lodge internal documents with the UN. There were 561 princely states, including the states of Junagadh and Hyderabad, over which Pakistan and Hyderabad raised disputes. Except for the two states of Junagadh and Hyderabad, all the other instruments have never been filed. What is the implication? That these are invalid? Or is it that since there was a reference to the UN, these should have been filed? If so, then there is a serious question: please read this following bit carefully.

The UN passed a recommendatory resolution asking for a ceasefire. It is this that is the basis for all further discussion. The UN did not dispute the accession. The UN merely took up India's own decision to hold a plebiscite and affirmed it. At every point thereafter, the UN scrupulously instructed India to manage affairs, and asked that Pakistan should withdraw her troops. It was that signal failure that wrecked all further movement.

As for why no one questioned the authenticity of the accession, the simple reason was that there was no need to question the authenticity of the Instrument of Accession as it had lost all its importance and relevance once the Security Council passed Resolutions that established self-determination as the governing principal 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.

I am sorry but you are wrong. The UN did not pass resolutions that established self-determination as the governing principle for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute. It recommended the holding of the plebiscite in pursuance of the Indian decision to do so, and it recommended the vacation of the aggression by the Pakistani irregulars; at that time, Pakistan had categorically denied, as was done many years later at Kargil, that any regular soldiers were involved, and there was no specific mention in the earlier resolutions of the Pakistan Army.

It is difficult to understand how Pakistan's stand can be based on such scrupulous attention to detail when the country consistently denied, until the time that the Plebiscite Commission actually met, that there were any Pakistani, as distinct from Kashmiri, elements involved.

Jinnah met Mountbatten on Nov 1, 1947 and told him that Kashmir's accession to India "was not a bona fide one since it rested on fraud and violence." And since then, it has been Pakistan's official position. When Pakistan responded to Indian complain of aggression in the SC in Jan 1948, it maintained that it did not accept the accession as it was based on fraud and violence. A lot has been written on this subject by Pakistani authors (letters to UN, speeches and other official documents are also available) and I don't think that we need to go into more details. However, it is pertinent to mention here that 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.

Since Mountbatten was personally asked to work with the princes by the King, his response to this can only be imagined. He had personally written extensively to Hari Singh, asking him to make up his mind, and he was personally in conversation with that monarch. So we need not make too much of this initial resounding accusation.

Further, the act of aggression was addressed by the UN seeking vacation of Kashmir by all intruding elements; what, in your opinion, does that mean? Does it mean that these were holiday-makers whose idle fancies had turned to loot, rape and murder in Baramula?

There are, in fact, no material reasons to vitiate the tale of aggression and violence other than
  1. Alastair Lamb's account of the daily record of the 26th and the 27th of October, which was based on a late departure of the Maharaja from Srinagar, and on his ignorance of the meeting that had taken place already, at the palace in Srinagar, between Menon and Manekshaw on the one hand, and the Maharaja on the other;
  2. The wishful Pakistani speculation that there may have been Indian troops even earlier than the 26th, which turns out to be a figment of a cornered imagination;
  3. The wonderful story of the missing copy, which was never an issue while Mountbatten was alive (until 1979), or Hari Singh had not signed away his residual powers through the J&K Constitution to the State Assembly, notwithstanding the great to-do made about its contents and its precise form in all accounts, including Lamb and including every Pakistani commentator;
  4. The recent marvel of detective science whereby one Pakistani wizard pointed out that the Pakistan Army was not specifically mentioned as a body corporate in the resolution, and that therefore the withdrawal did not refer to it;

The Maharaja had no authority to sign the treaty, hence the Instrument of Accession can be considered without legal standing. The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was hardly in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Why should he have had no authority? He was still the sovereign. Even if, hypothetically, he had signed it in Buckingham Palace, he was still the sovereign and still the empowered party.

The situation on the ground on the 26th, as unfortunately you forgot in your haste, was that only western Jammu, now known as Azad Kashmir, was in armed rebellion; further armed elements had entered, and were in Baramula, having passed through Muzaffarabad; Gilgit was, on that date, indisputably in control; Baltistan was never in dispute and Ladakh was undisturbed. In the Vale, the representative party favoured union with India, and an Indian aim was to release him from his detention and put him in charge.

Hari Singh was in flight from the state capital, Srinigar.

After signing the accession,and on the way to his seat of power, Jammu.

What difference does that make?

And it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power. Two days before the Maharaja signed his Instrument of Accession to India, the Poonch rebels and their tribesman-allies set up the Azad Kashmir government headquartered at Muzaffarabad. So at the time of the alleged accession, Kashmir was, in effect, divided into three distinct sectors: Azad Kashmir, "Legal" Kashmir and the Gilgit region. (Now GB)

It was precisely because he was under attack that he sought military intervention, and it was precisely in order to clear the legal position that the Government of India sought a legal foundation. And you really must do your homework about dates, before declaring so blithely that Gilgit was gone by then.

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.

Tch, tch, tch. You forget that prior to the 1890s, the Gilgit region had been physically conquered by the Dogra troops, and the British had at best an ancillary role to play, at times, not always. You forget that the British Agent wielded real authority over EVERY princely state in India. You forget that the very act of taking the territory of lease underlines the British understanding of the legal position of the Maharaja; they would not have leased it when they had easier options, which a study of the question of Berar might make clear to you.

[/quote]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[/quote]

LOL.

The dates, dear Sir, the dates.

You also forget - every loyal and patriotic Pakistani forgets - that there was nothing to Pakistan but the territory carved out of British India by the Radcliffe Award, and the accession to that Dominion of a few states, Bahawalpur and Chitral and Swat and Kalat (conditionally) among them. There was no question, then or later, of any part of India choosing to become Pakistan. The plebiscite in the NWFP was due to the reluctance of the Congress Government in power to join Pakistan, although the only other alternative was to join Afghanistan, which would have blown a hole through British policy of a century. The plebiscite in Bengal was constituted of a vote by the elected assembly, to determine if a partition was desired.

No part of British India, the colony, or any princely state, had the right to join either Dominion. Their paths were set for them by law, the India Independence Act. You have to understand that questioning that law undermines the very basis of the creation of Pakistan as an independent Dominion. So there was no question of any part of any type of state taking decisions. These were conquered lands, and the determined law of the conqueror was the prevalent basis for the future independence.

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.

J&K, by India, in other words? We choose to take our stand on the law, not on conquest.

As previously shown, after the British surrendered their lease on the eve of partition, the Gilgit region was a terra nullius.

On the contrary, as a land-owner you should be particularly sensitive to the condition of a reversionary lease.

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.

I put it to you that your desires have overtaken your legal understanding.

The Standstill Agreement did not constitute a unique Pakistani responsibility, contrary to your statement that it was Pakistan alone. It was Pakistan alone because India asked for a clearcut decision, not this postponement without a date. So your interpretation that it was a unique assertion of Pakistani right falls down.

You say that the territory of Gilgit was transferred by the Gilgit Scouts to Pakistan. Does that sound normal to you? Do you imagine that any land transferred on lease to the Chinese government by the administration of Pakistan can then be returned to Pakistan, and in the interval, before Pakistani administrators return to their positions, the frontier constabulary can transfer the territory to, say, Afghanistan, on the ground that for a few hours, it was terra nullius?

Incidentally, terra nullius is land over which no government has earlier exercised sovereignty, or over which a government has either explicitly or implicitly relinquished authority. This has to be understood properly. Annexing a neighbouring country's land is not an annexation of terra nullius; it is rank aggression. The neighbour needs to have explicitly given up sovereignty or implicitly given up sovereignty. Neither explicitly nor implicitly did the Maharaja give up sovereignty. Occupying his offices and displacing his administrators by force do not constitute an implicit giving up of sovereignty. Even the J&K State Assembly is constituted with provision for delegates from Gilgit to join at a later date, so there was no implicit object in the mind of the sovereign; it was territory grabbed from him.

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

I note your obfuscation by including Baltistan, never under British lease, but conquered by the columns of the Gilgit Scouts and the state forces of Chitral, first, through besieging and conquering Skardu (not an implicit surrender of sovereignty), Kargil and an attempted conquest of Leh.

Sir, a lot can be said here, but all I would say is : Best of Luck with that !!

While I must congratulate you on a valiant effort, I regret that you have so little to fight with. The basic case is weak. It is based on an emotional desire to command all Muslim resident areas, and to go above and beyond the terms of partition. In other words, to second-guess partition, itself agreed to by the Congress only due to what they saw as the intransigence of the Muslim League during the period of joint government of the Dominion. There is little, actually no legal foundation for what is sought. Just desire.

http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/46-51/Chapter 8/46-51_08-19-The Hyderabad question.pdf

Khanate of Kalat was just a princely state in Baluchistan. You can not use Kalat and Baluchistan interchangeably. Pakistan's breach of treaty obligations ? .. Baluchistan States Union (Kalat, Kharan, Las Bela and Makran) and the Chief Commissioner's Province of Baluchistan) were merged with all the remaining provinces and princely states in other parts of Pakistan to form the province of West Pakistan in 1955. Ahmad Yar Khan (the Khan of Kalat) who signed the instrument of accession died in 1979. He could have taken the issue to the UN if he wanted. But he didn't.

That does not extinguish his rights. Any more than India's reference to the UN extinguished India's underlying rights and substituted them by the thinking of various delegates deputed to look into the matter by the UN.
 
I think you should feel some embarrassment and refrain from blowing your own trumpet. But you are obviously so obsessed with self-publicity that you feel no embarrassment, none at all.

And Sir U shud take out a pinch of humanity if left in India and tell me wasnt that a startling truth I posted about? For love of humanity plz stop this tendency of always nodding head sideways on everything. So how about U award me a negative rating on this very post? U think I care about publicity?

You're such a nice guy, after all.

Tell you what. That DESERVES a treat.

Please feel free to insult us another three times. This time the treat's on us.

Sir U ve totally disregarded the post of your countrymen that compelled me say so. Sorry Sir I dont need any award from anyone as I am what I am and m proud of it. Have U ever seen me spewing venom against Hindus bcz of their Religion?
 

A truthful insight into UN plebiscite on Kashmir.
Any counter thoughts to this narrative?
 
As Am Inhabitant Of Balochistan I Assure You Sir That We Are Not Oppressed.Thank You For Your Concern Please Shift Them Towards Oppressed People In Your Country



So One Sikh Showboy Thats Your Answer??


You are one guy .But there are several others that hates Pakistan to core .
Except majority muslim Kashmiris from few districts all others in J&K supports India ,love India.
We knows Balochistan is a similar case .
But all we need those few that oppose Pakistan.Some of them are powerful also.
Our diplomats will do rest of the job
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom