What's new

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

I've sat with UN people on either side. Unlike you, I represent no one, I represent the truth. And yes, 40 years, FOUR ZERO years.

A few months back you mentioned you go clubbing with your "boys" (your words not mine) in a fleet of Range Rovers.

Now you're 40?

What next, you're a 200yo Rishi who lives in the Himalaya?!?!
 
A few months back you mentioned you go clubbing with your "boys" (your words not mine) in a fleet of Range Rovers.

Now you're 40?

What next, you're a 200yo Rishi who lives in the Himalaya?!?!

Nope .. from Mars. The quality of posts show the quality of the person. Basically a Ph.D. in inaccuracies and half truths.
 
Sir - exquisite.

No other words to describe it will do justice.

@MilSpec @PARIKRAMA @scorpionx @nair

I tag you, gentlemen, to beseech you to give due credit to this exquisite post. A great summation worthy of a statement in any court of law. I, unfortunately, am bereft of the power to green. May I seek your indulgence?



I tag you all for a very informative post at #688. If you want the whole text please let know as some of the members may have earned the love of @Joe Shearer and may be excluded from the said love till further notice:

@ranjeet (you first, he simply loves you and windy)

@Stephen Cohen (you are ignored by @Joe Shearer hence I want you to read this post of his) @adil_minhas (for you too Adil) @Dash (the imperfect Indian bangs it up quite well eh?) @Levina @banvanaxl @OrionHunter @Rain Man @SrNair @cerberus @Soumitra @madokafc @Ankit Kumar 002 @Abingdonboy @Syama Ayas @jbgt90

@Star Wars @third eye @gslv @gslv mk3 @punit @Nair saab @Śakra

@PaklovesTurkiye (I know you enjoy his posts, so tagging you irrespective of your loyalties.)
@LadyFinger (this was the gentleman I told you the first time to interact with, He riles up both Indian and Pakistani members; but is dead straight on facts, howsoever unpleasant)

PS: others too who I may have forgotten to mention. My apologies, the RAM is low(absent) in this 8088 computer (me)

Great post by Joe.
His knowledge on these matters and the way he can communicate them is astounding!
 
Impervious?

Haven't you got that precisely wrong?

As Marcus Furius told the Roman Senate - HIC MANEBIMUS OPTIME.

Joe there is an old legal precedence for creating new facts on the ground and facts are seldom warm and fuzzy. As much it pains to say this - Kashmiris are irrelevant in Kashmir.

Unity does not come without its price, how many americans died in the civil war? how many scots were massacred in Battle of Culloden Field? China and Russia are hardly worth mentioning. The point is - what should have been a fait accompli if not in '47 then in '65 was left to fester like an open wound. Now we need a tourniquet and ofcourse no one likes it.

As i told @scorpionx we should stop being hypocrites - if we are genuinely altruistic and kindred souls then conduct a referendum even if it is only in our part of Kashmir and then respect the wishes of people for once and for all. Why the hesitation? But if we believe Kashmir is an integral part of India then so be it - do away with Article 370, change the demographics, decimate the dissent - so what if rivers of blood is spilled

You cant have it both ways - it is unfair to Kashmir and unfair to India and i make the distinction because Kashmir is not yet India - we have left it hanging
 
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


I Am Not One Guy Sir I Nearly Half The Population of Balochistan Is Made Up Of Pashtuns and Settlers With Three Large Tribes Mandokhel Achakzai and Notezai.Pashtuns Have No Problem


Of The Baloch There Are 107 Tribes And Except for 2.5 All of Them Hate BLA BRA And Actually Support The Musallah Diffa.BRA Actually Consists of Few Members of Mesoori Bugtis Similarly BLA Consists Of Few Members Of Marri Tribe And They Have Gone Back Eversince Mir Chingez Marri Became Nawab

That Is What I Find Funny That People In India Who Have Never Seen Balochistan In There Entire Life Think That A Group of Paid Criminals Like BLA BRA Actually Constitute An Independence Movement
 

A truthful insight into UN plebiscite on Kashmir.
Any counter thoughts to this narrative?
Blistering and to the point. I wonder when people from our region of the world will be able to respond to a debate so clearly and factually without spiralling into the vortex of jingoistic emotions.
 
That Is What I Find Funny That People In India Who Have Never Seen Balochistan In There Entire Life Think That A Group of Paid Criminals Like BLA BRA Actually Constitute An Independence Movement


First of all, what's with the bold?

Secondly, I can understand your Point of view. I feel the same for all your members who tell me about Kashmir while not setting one foot there.

Chill. We have experts on both sides.
 
Last edited:
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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.


Sir, I appreciate your effort ... But an eye-witness account by an Indian Soldier or something stated by an Indian Official can not be accepted as "evidence" as India itself is a party to the dispute.



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?



No, what I am saying is that the existence of such an Instrument of Accession has never been Independently Verified and this may have a few legal implications.



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?


Again, You are missing the point. That Instrument of Accession may or may not have existed. But the original (even if it existed) was never presented to the UN (or Pakistan) and it has not been registered with the UN Secretariat, India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations. (If ever needed, of course)


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.


Sir, we have discussed this many times before. The UN Resolutions endorsed a binding agreement, and India stalled the original mechanism as it did not agree to any of the demilitarization proposals.



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.


It's not about where he signed it. It's about "what legal authority did he have for signing the agreement when he had practically lost his sovereignty" ?

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." This demonstration consists of the actual display of state activities that may be performed only by a territorial sovereign." "The principle that continuous and peaceful display of the functions of state within a given region is a constituent element of territorial sovereignty is . . .based on . . international jurisprudence and doctrine widely accepted .

H. BRIGGS, THE LAW OF NATIONS 239, 240 (2d ed. 1952) (citing Island of Palmas Case, (U.S. v. Neth.), 2 R. Int'l Arb. Awards 829 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 1928) (dispute over Spain's capability to cede the Island of Palmas to the U.S.))




And what, according to you, is Baltistan ?

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

H. BRIGGS, supra note 59, at 242.




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.


The Maharaja was unable to establish his effective sovereignty in Gilgit region in more than two months (after the British left.) In theory, sovereignty was transferred to Maharaja. But in practice he had no control/sovereignty over the Gilgit Region. And International Law required the Maharaha to have effective sovereignty over Gilgit Region if he were to transfer the sovereignty to any other dominion. International Law works that way.


Source for Gilgit Scout transferring land to Pakistan, H.S. Gururaj Rao, , supra note 2, at 101.



That does not extinguish his rights. ....

He is already dead. And he was the last officially recognized Khan of Kalat. However, If someone thinks that he has a case, he can go to the International Court of Justice. Good luck with that ..


 
Last edited:
Do that yourself, you fool.

Kashmiris get quotas in education; only Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes get quotas in jobs in India. The J&K budget is subsidised heavily; India spends many times more per capita on that state than on any other. Kashmiris work all over India in responsible positions, both KPs and KMs.

Don't take what is happening to rioters as what is happening to Kashmiris.



Oh, goody goody. He likes me!



We can do without this child's primer in patriotism. All the passages in red are true of J&K State as well.



If you can't comment on things where you don't know the details, you will not have much to contribute, I am afraid.



Can you show us a similar case from Pakistan?

Hello MR FOOOOOL. mind your language otherwise you get equal response.
Check this. https://defence.pk/threads/security...gears-up-to-mark-pak-independence-day.444054/

This is Happening in Indian occupied kashmir while whole Pakistani Kashmir is celebrating with Pakistan. so open your eyes and ears and watch some other media than Indian one if you really wana get facts.
 
Sir - exquisite.

No other words to describe it will do justice.

@MilSpec @PARIKRAMA @scorpionx @nair

I tag you, gentlemen, to beseech you to give due credit to this exquisite post. A great summation worthy of a statement in any court of law. I, unfortunately, am bereft of the power to green. May I seek your indulgence?



I tag you all for a very informative post at #688. If you want the whole text please let know as some of the members may have earned the love of @Joe Shearer and may be excluded from the said love till further notice:

@ranjeet (you first, he simply loves you and windy)

@Stephen Cohen (you are ignored by @Joe Shearer hence I want you to read this post of his) @adil_minhas (for you too Adil) @Dash (the imperfect Indian bangs it up quite well eh?) @Levina @banvanaxl @OrionHunter @Rain Man @SrNair @cerberus @Soumitra @madokafc @Ankit Kumar 002 @Abingdonboy @Syama Ayas @jbgt90

@Star Wars @third eye @gslv @gslv mk3 @punit @Nair saab @Śakra

@PaklovesTurkiye (I know you enjoy his posts, so tagging you irrespective of your loyalties.)
@LadyFinger (this was the gentleman I told you the first time to interact with, He riles up both Indian and Pakistani members; but is dead straight on facts, howsoever unpleasant)

PS: others too who I may have forgotten to mention. My apologies, the RAM is low(absent) in this 8088 computer (me)


My friend, let me tell you honestly that @Joe Shearer is much more capable. May be he is tired (it was a tedious debate) that is why he didn't understood properly what I was saying. And his reply was wide of the mark.
 
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?



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?

What have I done THIS time?

<sigh>

Let me get back on both these :(
 
@hellfire

So, that's it ? trying to team up now ? No more arguments ? Literally begging for support from Indian Members ? :lol:

@Joe Shearer

:disagree:

Good Heavens!

I am left at a loss for words!!

Do you seriously think that we hunt in a pack? On the contrary, @hellfire is responding to a proposition of mine that we should (first) take the facts of a matter seriously on board, and stop being childish, with a 'You did', followed by a 'No, I didn't'; and we should (second) do as @Oscar suggested and contextualise the facts.

That is why the wide coverage. Being sour-tempered and grouchy, with rapidly-hardening arteries, I tend to snap off people's heads and have discouraged many youngsters, Indian mostly, but some Pakistani as well. It seems that hellfire's intention is to remind all of us of these two goals, to be aimed for severally and collectively.

That is all there is to it.

Don't you think that we should each of us familiarise ourselves with the truth, and understand what actually happened, rather than allow every discussion to degenerate into a mutual name-calling session?
 
My friend, let me tell you honestly that @Joe Shearer is much more capable. May be he is tired (it was a tedious debate) that is why he didn't understood properly what I was saying. And his reply was wide of the mark.

You see, you deserve a response befitting your posts, hence, abstaining from a comprehensive response as you require attention, and that needs time, which I don't have right now.


However:


1.
Sir, I appreciate your effort ... But an eye-witness account by an Indian Soldier or something stated by an Indian Official can not be accepted as "evidence" as India itself is a party to the dispute.

What is your issue here? I fail to understand.

(i) You don't accept the Instrument of Accession.

(ii) You don't accept the Sovereign's statement on the said accession.

(iii) You don't accept the accepted and proclaimed leader of the Kashmiris at the time - Sheikh Abdullah's acceptance of the Instrument of Accession. Indeed, you have now taken to denounce him, thereby insulting every Kashmiri of the time, who had full faith and backed him every move during the years leading up to 1947.

(iv) You ignore your own acceptance of the territories south of Manawar as International Boundary between India and Pakistan vide Karachi Agreement of 1949 (copy appended vide http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IN PK_490729_ Karachi Agreement.pdf).

This area, south of Manawar, is opposite Jammu-Katra-RS Pura-Sambha, all parts of J&K. By signing on the dotted lines that day, you have indeed accepted and recognized the same. So you mean to tell me, you are now backtracking from your agreement as signed by you as a legal sovereign nation? Please clarify that point. Don't side step the issue as you have been doing so far.

Other than the fact that you are sticking to the stand taken by GoP since 1947, I really am yet to see any point of relevance or facts here.

2.
No, what I am saying is that the existence of such an Instrument of Accession has never been Independently Verified and this may have a few legal implications.

By extension of the logic, so is the case of Gilgit, Baluchistan et al. Gilgit was a result of mutiny, show me your plebiscite/referendum.

Now, I am curious as to what is your position on the State of Jammu & Kashmir? Because your statements are contradictory, at times claiming it as an entity and at others, challenging the legal basis of the same as a princely state. Wgat do you think, should we take the whole question of J&K according to regions? If so, why have you refused to state as such in all the resoultions till date? You are merely indulging in a circumlocutory act.

By the ways @Joe Shearer has aptly pointed out the non-validity of your contentions on the aforementioned points. So, your points have no merit.

However, since you are talking of independently verifying, the same holds for all accessions done on either side, so meaning, should we now question the whole accession on both sides and merely allow China to move in?

My friend, are you Chinese? I could not come across a more ludicrous logic, as stated by you, other than to serve the aims of the Chinese, who have claims to every inch of earth where any one remotely a part of China even urinated! Lately they have included waters, so since their ships dispose off the waste by evacuation into ocean, you may as well hand them the oceans shortly.

3.
Sir, we have discussed this many times before. The UN Resolutions endorsed a binding agreement, and India stalled the original mechanism as it did not agree to any of the demilitarization proposals.

Yikes. Under Chapter VI? Now you are tickling me. Stop:yes4:

4.
It's not about where he signed it. It's about "what legal authority did he have for signing the agreement when he had practically lost his sovereignty" ?

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." This demonstration consists of the actual display of state activities that may be performed only by a territorial sovereign." "The principle that continuous and peaceful display of the functions of state within a given region is a constituent element of territorial sovereignty is . . .based on . . international jurisprudence and doctrine widely accepted .

H. BRIGGS, THE LAW OF NATIONS 239, 240 (2d ed. 1952) (citing Island of Palmas Case, (U.S. v. Neth.), 2 R. Int'l Arb. Awards 829 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 1928) (dispute over Spain's capability to cede the Island of Palmas to the U.S.))




And what, according to you, is Baltistan ?

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

H. BRIGGS, supra note 59, at 242.

Interesting. So we occupied valley if we go by your logic so far. So why are you quoting the law which is again antithetical to your own position?

You see, your reading is tremendous, but your posting of facts in bits and pieces is merely a ploy at obfuscation ....

5.
He is already dead. And he was the last officially recognized Khan of Kalat. However, If someone thinks that he has a case, he can go to the International Court of Justice. Good luck with that ..

Now again an antithetical point.

We also say the same. Good luck with that.

Anyways, I am curious, can you point out to me any place where Pakistan has signed a document allowing Kashmiris a right to self determination?:coffee:

I couldn't find any. They signed all documents pertaining to question of accession either to India or Pakistan. And the dumb buggers in valley have no clue that they are up a creek of excreta without a paddle.:disagree:

Yet I find Pakistanis here championing their right to independence .....:rofl:

@PaklovesTurkiye your comment on last two lines?

@hellfire So, that's it ? trying to team up now ? No more arguments ? Literally begging for support from the Indian Members ? :lol:



@Joe Shearer :disagree:

Nah. Am on (s)troll mode. Got a bugger of an exam on 30 Sep (and should be off line now:p:). Recertification. So avoiding engaging you.

He is enough. I am merely enjoying his wordplay. Amazing. Even his critics respect that!!! LOL

As for the underlined, we both are supposedly "imperfect" Indians, I getting bracketed with @Joe Shearer for talking of peace as opposed to war.

So, aim is to guide the disbelievers (they actually think @Joe Shearer is paid agent of Pakistan!!!) who would rather have us go down a war path as opposed to peace.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom