Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
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...
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.