SinoIndusFriendship
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,387
- Reaction score
- 0
Kashmir | News & Discussions.
- Thread starter foxhound
- Start date
As mentioned by the author, the instrument of ascension has never been disputed. Even Sheikh Abdullah who was the most popular Kashmiri leader imprisoned by the Maharaja at that time assented to the instrument and supported the decision. So this is a "breakthrough" if this is true.
Unfortunately, no mention of where this new primary source that shows that the date is off by one day is mentioned. Is from declassified documents from the British. Which recently letters of Nehru were published?
And isn't the IOA considered useless by Pakistan because it didn't take into account popular opinion.
Fact is that upto 1989, Kashmirs by and large were happy with being part of India. That's why despite the wars in 65 or 71, no popular kashmiri movement against India materialised despite efforts from Pakistan. Unfortunately, in 1980s, the GoI was responsible for massive interference, poll rigging and did not give equal rights to the citizens of J&K which resulted in their alienation. Human rights violations and gross abuse during the 90s made matters worse. This was exploited by militants and then started the militant movement. Before 89, there was no such thing.
Thankfully, the GoI realized their folly and have returned governance back firmly into the hands of J&K. Prosecution of human rights abuses by the army, para military and recruiting locals has curbed this. Free media and and freedom of expression has given the civil society to demand prosecution of any human right abuses which has drastically improved the situation. This is the reason why local informants have become an essential part of the anti-militant operations and their success.
Bottom line is Kashmir belongs to the Kashmiri people, and they should be given an opportunity to freely and fairly express their opinion. J&K belongs to all the people of J&K (i.e. ladakh, jammu, G-B and PaK) and any decision affecting that requires input of people of all these regions as well.
The article mentions Geelani's followers, I know for a fact that he is very unpopular except for a hardcore group in Sopore and Shopian which comes under Baramullah district.
What usually happens is that just before their protest, they call up the local and foreign media outlets and even though the protest might last 30 mins with only 100 people (the article mentions this number), they will get into the Kashmir news. This is what a friend studying in Srinagar has told me so Im not making it up.
Raising the Pakistani flag in India is illegal, if they wanted to protest against Army's occupation alone, they would have thousands protesting along with them. The Amaranth protest was in my opinion an excellent display of democratic traditions. Although it was unfortunate that unnecessarily it was given a communal nature by extremists on both sides.
But obviously its not as emotive an issue as it used to be. I suggest you read Omar Abdulla's recent speech where he talked about Army's using land in J&K (who pay the J&K govt. by the way) for using govt. land.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/32580-pdp-brought-afspa-well-revoke-omar.html
I know, that's why I put 'violent' in quotes!
according to the article none.
Interestingly, I can't find any other source mentioning this so it would have been a very small incident then with less than a 100 people. Otherwise AFP, reuters e.t.c. usually carry stories even if there are a few 100 people
gubbi
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2009
- Messages
- 4,536
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Now where does it say 'thousands' exactly? Having read the reports, online and speaking with my Kashmiri friends, the whole sham was nothing but a few dozen miscreants wanting publicity, Geelani among them. That's all there's it to it.
Its non news and nothing to get 'hyper' over!
Oh and is you were talking about Amarnath controversy, of-course, people didnt want land to be given out in such a controversial manner. It was then that politicians stepped in and gave it a communal color and a 'pseudo-nationalistic' flavor. Then like they say, all hell broke loose.
Btw, it was so adequately suppressed and things are back to normal. Nothing was achieved in that disturbance.
Awesome
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,023
- Reaction score
- 5
Innocent youth subjected to torture in IHK | Kashmir Media Service
It seems like India's formula for peace in the land is to go after the youth of Kashmir, whether or not if they are involved in the freedom struggle. I guess they figured if they cast a wide enough net, they are bound to catch some worthwhile targets.
It seems like India's formula for peace in the land is to go after the youth of Kashmir, whether or not if they are involved in the freedom struggle. I guess they figured if they cast a wide enough net, they are bound to catch some worthwhile targets.
ashwin
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- 0
It was not India which sent its force to annex kashmir and to make the kashmir raja to run to India. In azad kashmir there are no cross border terrorist activities by the terrorists (freedom fighter in your language). So we cannot keep Kashmir exposed to the terrorists who cross the border from the other side This is the reason to keep the forces over there. Stop sending them we will remove the forces.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Absolutely, and to that end it should not be hard for the UN and other international organizations to trace and register as many of the Kashmiri punidts that left, or the Kashmiri diaspora in Pakistan and abroad, so that their votes are counted as well in a free and fair plebiscite.
Let the Kashmiri's voice be heard, and end the dispute.
Gabbar
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 2,118
- Reaction score
- 0
Just one issue with this. Even Indian agencies can't count and trace all of the Pandits who left for many years. It will be like finding a piece of hay in a gigantic needle stack.
Accession of Kashmir to India - legal?
The ostensible accession of Kashmir to India is a fiction entrenched in the Indian position.
The fact that the act was performed by a feudal ruler who had fled his capital in the face of popular revolt is well established in the official record of the dispute. But the facts of the elaborate conspiracy are no so well known but they are being exposed by the painstaking historical research conducted by such unimpeachable authorities as the Oxford historian, Alistair Lamb. The details would need a lengthy narration. Let the following facts, all beyond contradiction, therefore suffice:
1. For months prior to the so-called accession, the Maharaja (the feudal despot) was in contact not only with the Indian leaders but also with other Maharajas who had brought about the mass killings and exodus of their Muslim subjects and acceded to India. Ten weeks earlier, he had dismissed his Kashmiri Pandit Prime Minister who had counselled against a move hostile to Pakistan. The Maharaja had brought in troops and murderous gangs from outside to overawe his Muslim subjects (the majority of the people) and crush any movement for accession to Pakistan.
2. At the moment that he offered to accede to India, his authority over the bulk of the State had crumbled.
3. India flew in its troops to restore his authority even before he had signed and delivered the instrument of accession. His accompanying letter was composed in Delhi.
4. An erstwhile Kashmiri popular leader, Shaikh Muhammad Abdullah, who had become a cohort of Indian leaders, was installed in office for his support of the Maharaja's accession. But this same person, when he insisted that the accession was provisional and depended on a plebiscite, was dismissed and put in jail in 1953. He languished in prison for about thirteen years. It was his followers who mainly formed what was called the Plebiscite Front. (He was reinstated when he was a tired, old man and had given up the fight.)
5. The Constituent Assembly was convened without a poll in Kashmir itself. Seventy-three out of 75 candidates were declared to have been elected unopposed.
6. Before this Assembly was convened, India assured the Security Council that the Assembly would not "come in the way" of the holding of a plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations. One representative of India (an eminent jurist. Benegal Rao, later a judge of the International Court of Justice at the Hague) in his formal statement before the Council termed the State's accession to India as "tentative", pending a plebiscite.
7. The Security Council adopted the resolution of 30 March 1951 that any action of the so-called Constituent Assembly "would not constitute a disposition of the State" in accordance with the principles enunciated in the Council's earlier resolutions and accepted by both India and Pakistan - namely the synchronized withdrawal of the forces of both sides preparatory to the plebiscite and the holding of the plebiscite under the control and supervision of the United Nations.
8. When in defiance of the Security Council and in violation of the international argument embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), India in November 1956 nevertheless got the Assembly to declare Kashmir as a part of India, the Security Council adopted the resolution of 24 March 1957, again reminding the parties that "the final disposition of the state of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations". It also reiterated its earlier declaration that, "any action that the Assembly may have taken or might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof, or action by the parties concerned in support of any such action by the Assembly, would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle."
If India were as certain of the legal strength of its claim as it professes to be, would it not agree to the whole question being examined by the World Court? A process lasting a few months would vindicate its position and bring it resounding victory. But India knows that an impartial investigation would be fatal to its claim. hence the loud, indignant insistence on "sovereignty". Said an experienced lawyer to his young apprentice: "If you are weak in law, stress the facts; if you are weak in facts, stress the law; but if you are weak in both facts and law, give them hell!" The way India has been giving hell to all its critics would please that lawyer.
To recapitulate, the question needs to be faced: at what point of time and by what justifiable means did Kashmir become a part of India? By the Maharaja's accession? But India itself acknowledges that the accession was subject to plebiscite under international auspices. By the decision of the Constituent Assembly? But India assured the Security Council that the decision would not prejudge the plebiscite and come in its way. By the sheer passage of time? But, despite the lapse of decades, Kashmiris have shown themselves as unreconciled to Indian occupation and rule. By the elections held periodically in the Indian-occupied area? But these elections are known to have been rigged and their outcome is totally disowned by the people of Kashmir, as the mass uprising amply bears out.
Net Pakistani Kashmir : - Accession of Kashmir to India - legal?
The ostensible accession of Kashmir to India is a fiction entrenched in the Indian position.
The fact that the act was performed by a feudal ruler who had fled his capital in the face of popular revolt is well established in the official record of the dispute. But the facts of the elaborate conspiracy are no so well known but they are being exposed by the painstaking historical research conducted by such unimpeachable authorities as the Oxford historian, Alistair Lamb. The details would need a lengthy narration. Let the following facts, all beyond contradiction, therefore suffice:
1. For months prior to the so-called accession, the Maharaja (the feudal despot) was in contact not only with the Indian leaders but also with other Maharajas who had brought about the mass killings and exodus of their Muslim subjects and acceded to India. Ten weeks earlier, he had dismissed his Kashmiri Pandit Prime Minister who had counselled against a move hostile to Pakistan. The Maharaja had brought in troops and murderous gangs from outside to overawe his Muslim subjects (the majority of the people) and crush any movement for accession to Pakistan.
2. At the moment that he offered to accede to India, his authority over the bulk of the State had crumbled.
3. India flew in its troops to restore his authority even before he had signed and delivered the instrument of accession. His accompanying letter was composed in Delhi.
4. An erstwhile Kashmiri popular leader, Shaikh Muhammad Abdullah, who had become a cohort of Indian leaders, was installed in office for his support of the Maharaja's accession. But this same person, when he insisted that the accession was provisional and depended on a plebiscite, was dismissed and put in jail in 1953. He languished in prison for about thirteen years. It was his followers who mainly formed what was called the Plebiscite Front. (He was reinstated when he was a tired, old man and had given up the fight.)
5. The Constituent Assembly was convened without a poll in Kashmir itself. Seventy-three out of 75 candidates were declared to have been elected unopposed.
6. Before this Assembly was convened, India assured the Security Council that the Assembly would not "come in the way" of the holding of a plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations. One representative of India (an eminent jurist. Benegal Rao, later a judge of the International Court of Justice at the Hague) in his formal statement before the Council termed the State's accession to India as "tentative", pending a plebiscite.
7. The Security Council adopted the resolution of 30 March 1951 that any action of the so-called Constituent Assembly "would not constitute a disposition of the State" in accordance with the principles enunciated in the Council's earlier resolutions and accepted by both India and Pakistan - namely the synchronized withdrawal of the forces of both sides preparatory to the plebiscite and the holding of the plebiscite under the control and supervision of the United Nations.
8. When in defiance of the Security Council and in violation of the international argument embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), India in November 1956 nevertheless got the Assembly to declare Kashmir as a part of India, the Security Council adopted the resolution of 24 March 1957, again reminding the parties that "the final disposition of the state of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations". It also reiterated its earlier declaration that, "any action that the Assembly may have taken or might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof, or action by the parties concerned in support of any such action by the Assembly, would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle."
If India were as certain of the legal strength of its claim as it professes to be, would it not agree to the whole question being examined by the World Court? A process lasting a few months would vindicate its position and bring it resounding victory. But India knows that an impartial investigation would be fatal to its claim. hence the loud, indignant insistence on "sovereignty". Said an experienced lawyer to his young apprentice: "If you are weak in law, stress the facts; if you are weak in facts, stress the law; but if you are weak in both facts and law, give them hell!" The way India has been giving hell to all its critics would please that lawyer.
To recapitulate, the question needs to be faced: at what point of time and by what justifiable means did Kashmir become a part of India? By the Maharaja's accession? But India itself acknowledges that the accession was subject to plebiscite under international auspices. By the decision of the Constituent Assembly? But India assured the Security Council that the decision would not prejudge the plebiscite and come in its way. By the sheer passage of time? But, despite the lapse of decades, Kashmiris have shown themselves as unreconciled to Indian occupation and rule. By the elections held periodically in the Indian-occupied area? But these elections are known to have been rigged and their outcome is totally disowned by the people of Kashmir, as the mass uprising amply bears out.
Net Pakistani Kashmir : - Accession of Kashmir to India - legal?
So we agree that "official" Pakistani policy does'nt stand for the right of self-determiniation for people of J&K then?
South Asia Monitor: A Perspective on the Region
Gilgit-Baltistan, also called Federally Administered Northern Areas, was once a part of Jammu and Kashmir. But since 1947, when India and Pakistan achieved independence, the unfortunate territory is facing the wrath of colonisation.
The people of this strategically important region revolted against the autocratic Dogra ruler and carved out an independent state, "Republic of Gilgit", on Nov 1, 1947. While the freedom fighters were preparing to liberate the adjacent Baltistan region, the Pakistan Army invaded Gilgit.
The president of Republic of Gilgit was dismissed Nov 16, 1947. Since then it has been an unending battle for the people of Gilgit-Baltistan, who have been resisting against the deprivation of basic human, democratic and judicial rights for 60 years.
No accession deal was ever signed with Pakistan. In fact Pakistan, in its "Karachi Pact" of April 28, 1951, admitted that Gilgit-Baltistan is part of Jammu and Kashmir.
As Pakistan admits this reality, there is no moral justification of subjecting the local communities to the clauses of the constitution of Pakistan. If an autonomous like set-up of governance is possible in "Azad Jammu and Kashmir", why the same is not replicated in the region, people wonder.
Despite the area being officially declared part of Jammu and Kashmir, the state subject rule (SSR) was abolished during the regime of Gen Ayub Khan. It is a conspiracy to convert the local communities into a minority by a systematic settlement programme of immigrants from North West Frontier Province and Punjab.
The region's administrative body of 30 members, called Northern Areas Legislative Council, is headed by the Federal Minister for Kashmir Affairs based in Islamabad. The chief executive, appointed by the Pakistan government from among members of the National Assembly, enjoys the status of a ruler of the territory. He is not answerable to the council as he represents Islamabad.
The council cannot make or amend laws because every bill needs the chief executive's assent. The deputy chief executive is the senior-most elected office holder in the council but works just as personal assistant of the chief executive. There is no provision for moving a no-confidence motion to remove the deputy. The council has no powers concerning approval of the budgetary allocations. It cannot act as a check on the executive.
India has granted constitutional, political and judicial rights to the people of Ladakh. Nearly half of the population of Ladakh is Muslim and they enjoy these rights. Why are the same basic human rights denied to the Muslims of Gilgit-Baltistan? Why are the local communities treated like worthless chattels by Pakistani authorities while we live in the 21st century?
While Pakistan demands demilitarisation of parts of the Jammu and Kashmir, in the name of establishing peace, both military and paramilitary forces such as Khyber Rifles, Chitral Scouts, Sindh Ranger and Frontier Constabulary are stationed in Gilgit-Baltistan. Recently the numbers of these armed forces were increased while both India and Pakistan claim moving towards building peace.
The principal civil servant is the chief secretary, while secretaries head other departments. Ironically domicile residents of Gilgit-Baltistan are not eligible for the post of chief secretary and secretaries.
Each district has a court of district and sessions Judge. There is a chief court, comprising a chairman and two members. The government nominates members of chief court. Merit is not a criterion in selecting the members.
There is no public service commission, no services tribunal, no service rules or structure, no TV station, no independent press, no commerce institution, no medical or engineering college or university and no appellate court.
Gilgit-Baltistan is one of the most poverty stricken areas of Pakistan. Alarmingly low literacy, absence of industries and bad road links, lack of energy sources and job opportunities have forced thousands to leave the region in quest of livelihood. It seems that keeping the region backward is a state policy.
The communication department of Gilgit-Baltistan is managed by the Pakistan Army. The department is called Special Communication Organisation, where most employees are non-residents of the Gilgit-Baltistan. The department for developing infrastructure, called Federal Work Department (FWD), is also in the hands of the army. The local people are not allowed to enter FWD.
The key posts of civil services are reserved for people from other provinces of Pakistan. The retired army and civil bureaucrats have been deployed on all key posts of civil services while the local educated people are facing unemployment.
(Manzoor Parwana, a Gilgit-based editor of a banned monthly journal "Kargil International" and a rights activist. He can be contacted at parwana@engineer.com)
Gilgit-Baltistan, also called Federally Administered Northern Areas, was once a part of Jammu and Kashmir. But since 1947, when India and Pakistan achieved independence, the unfortunate territory is facing the wrath of colonisation.
The people of this strategically important region revolted against the autocratic Dogra ruler and carved out an independent state, "Republic of Gilgit", on Nov 1, 1947. While the freedom fighters were preparing to liberate the adjacent Baltistan region, the Pakistan Army invaded Gilgit.
The president of Republic of Gilgit was dismissed Nov 16, 1947. Since then it has been an unending battle for the people of Gilgit-Baltistan, who have been resisting against the deprivation of basic human, democratic and judicial rights for 60 years.
No accession deal was ever signed with Pakistan. In fact Pakistan, in its "Karachi Pact" of April 28, 1951, admitted that Gilgit-Baltistan is part of Jammu and Kashmir.
As Pakistan admits this reality, there is no moral justification of subjecting the local communities to the clauses of the constitution of Pakistan. If an autonomous like set-up of governance is possible in "Azad Jammu and Kashmir", why the same is not replicated in the region, people wonder.
Despite the area being officially declared part of Jammu and Kashmir, the state subject rule (SSR) was abolished during the regime of Gen Ayub Khan. It is a conspiracy to convert the local communities into a minority by a systematic settlement programme of immigrants from North West Frontier Province and Punjab.
The region's administrative body of 30 members, called Northern Areas Legislative Council, is headed by the Federal Minister for Kashmir Affairs based in Islamabad. The chief executive, appointed by the Pakistan government from among members of the National Assembly, enjoys the status of a ruler of the territory. He is not answerable to the council as he represents Islamabad.
The council cannot make or amend laws because every bill needs the chief executive's assent. The deputy chief executive is the senior-most elected office holder in the council but works just as personal assistant of the chief executive. There is no provision for moving a no-confidence motion to remove the deputy. The council has no powers concerning approval of the budgetary allocations. It cannot act as a check on the executive.
India has granted constitutional, political and judicial rights to the people of Ladakh. Nearly half of the population of Ladakh is Muslim and they enjoy these rights. Why are the same basic human rights denied to the Muslims of Gilgit-Baltistan? Why are the local communities treated like worthless chattels by Pakistani authorities while we live in the 21st century?
While Pakistan demands demilitarisation of parts of the Jammu and Kashmir, in the name of establishing peace, both military and paramilitary forces such as Khyber Rifles, Chitral Scouts, Sindh Ranger and Frontier Constabulary are stationed in Gilgit-Baltistan. Recently the numbers of these armed forces were increased while both India and Pakistan claim moving towards building peace.
The principal civil servant is the chief secretary, while secretaries head other departments. Ironically domicile residents of Gilgit-Baltistan are not eligible for the post of chief secretary and secretaries.
Each district has a court of district and sessions Judge. There is a chief court, comprising a chairman and two members. The government nominates members of chief court. Merit is not a criterion in selecting the members.
There is no public service commission, no services tribunal, no service rules or structure, no TV station, no independent press, no commerce institution, no medical or engineering college or university and no appellate court.
Gilgit-Baltistan is one of the most poverty stricken areas of Pakistan. Alarmingly low literacy, absence of industries and bad road links, lack of energy sources and job opportunities have forced thousands to leave the region in quest of livelihood. It seems that keeping the region backward is a state policy.
The communication department of Gilgit-Baltistan is managed by the Pakistan Army. The department is called Special Communication Organisation, where most employees are non-residents of the Gilgit-Baltistan. The department for developing infrastructure, called Federal Work Department (FWD), is also in the hands of the army. The local people are not allowed to enter FWD.
The key posts of civil services are reserved for people from other provinces of Pakistan. The retired army and civil bureaucrats have been deployed on all key posts of civil services while the local educated people are facing unemployment.
(Manzoor Parwana, a Gilgit-based editor of a banned monthly journal "Kargil International" and a rights activist. He can be contacted at parwana@engineer.com)
blueoval79
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,189
- Reaction score
- 0
Yup.....Pakistan wants nothing less than whole Kashmir Annexwd into Pakistan......the entire story of freedome ...and azadi..is a Propoganda...to counter indias ststements..that Kashmir is integral part of India.....the whole story of azadi of kashmir is a hogwash ...a ploy to mindwash young guys and turn them into terrorists....who would join jIhadi groups if they declare that Kashmir is integral part of Pakistan....Pakistan would like to have whole of Kashmir minus Kashmiris...so that thay can enjoy the resources just like they are doing in Balochistan.....its all about resources....notthing to do with Humans.
Omar1984
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 12,296
- Reaction score
- 0
Hurriyet leaders welcome package for Gilgit Baltistan
SRINAGAR (IHK): In occupied Kashmir, the leaders of All Parties Hurriyet Conference Agha Syed Hassan Al-Moosvi and Mukhtar Ahmad Waza have welcomed political package for Gilgit Baltistan announced by the government of Pakistan, reports KMS.
Agha Syed Hassan Al-Moosvi, addressing a gathering in Badgam Mukhtar Ahmad Waza talking to media men in Srinagar said that the administrative arrangements would give an opportunity to the people of Gilgit Baltistan to exercise their political rights.
The APHC leader said that the administrative arrangements would not affect the disputed nature of Jammu and Kashmir.
They maintained that Kashmir was a political dispute and it should be resolved politically through negotiations so that permanent peace could be established in South Asia.
The Hurriyet leaders also expressed serious concern over the gross human rights violations by Indian troops in the occupied territory.
They appealed to the world community to put pressure on India to halt Indian state terrorism in occupied Kashmir.
SRINAGAR (IHK): In occupied Kashmir, the leaders of All Parties Hurriyet Conference Agha Syed Hassan Al-Moosvi and Mukhtar Ahmad Waza have welcomed political package for Gilgit Baltistan announced by the government of Pakistan, reports KMS.
Agha Syed Hassan Al-Moosvi, addressing a gathering in Badgam Mukhtar Ahmad Waza talking to media men in Srinagar said that the administrative arrangements would give an opportunity to the people of Gilgit Baltistan to exercise their political rights.
The APHC leader said that the administrative arrangements would not affect the disputed nature of Jammu and Kashmir.
They maintained that Kashmir was a political dispute and it should be resolved politically through negotiations so that permanent peace could be established in South Asia.
The Hurriyet leaders also expressed serious concern over the gross human rights violations by Indian troops in the occupied territory.
They appealed to the world community to put pressure on India to halt Indian state terrorism in occupied Kashmir.
Omar1984
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 12,296
- Reaction score
- 0
AJK PM satisfied over Gilgit-Baltistan package
ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Azad Kashmir Sardar Yaqoob has expressed satisfaction on the Gilgit-Baltistan package, saying the package recognizes Gilgit-Baltistan as part of Kashmir.
Talking to media on the occasion of inauguration of a cell for the overseas Kashmiris at Kashmir House Islamabad, the AJK Premier said every party has a right to hold its own opinion but, added that he gives the credit to the present government of Pakistan for taking a right step through introduction of Gilgit-Baltistan package.
He said Pakistan’s Foreign Minister has taken him into confidence for which, he said, he is grateful to the government of Pakistan.
ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Azad Kashmir Sardar Yaqoob has expressed satisfaction on the Gilgit-Baltistan package, saying the package recognizes Gilgit-Baltistan as part of Kashmir.
Talking to media on the occasion of inauguration of a cell for the overseas Kashmiris at Kashmir House Islamabad, the AJK Premier said every party has a right to hold its own opinion but, added that he gives the credit to the present government of Pakistan for taking a right step through introduction of Gilgit-Baltistan package.
He said Pakistan’s Foreign Minister has taken him into confidence for which, he said, he is grateful to the government of Pakistan.
Similar threads
