Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[javaman]

You first.

problem aap ko hai bhai jaan, y shud i.

 

[toxic_pus]

Mountbatten (Meeting of Defence committee October 27):

In the special circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government​

[that is a reference to India] have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. Consistently with their policy[i.e. India's policy] that, in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, [and this exactly what I had referred to as 'India's own policy that people of the state should vet any accession decided by the Ruler, in case where there was an apparent conflict of interest'] it is my wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and its soil cleared of the invader, the question of the States accession should be settled by a reference to the people.​

Still a policy, not a rule. Or are you now saying that policy and rule are same. The accession of Princely states happened in accordance to Sec 6(1) of India Act, 1935, which reads:

A State shall be deemed to have acceded to the Federation if His Majesty has signified his acceptance of an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof....​

Whatever additional motivations India had in conducting a referendum in Junagadh after invading and occupying it, under the rules of partition and accession of States a referendum was necessary, as highlighted above.

Referendum was not necessary, as clarified above. It was entirely a brainchild of Nehru. Jinnah was very much opposed to any sort of referendum.

The Nawab of Junagadh had already signed the instrument of accession to Pakistan and the instrument was in Pakistan's possession - no one other than the State of Pakistan had the authority after that to 'invite' anyone into the State, unless delegated that authority by the State of Pakistan. Dissemble as much as you want, but legally India invaded and occupied territory that had legally acceded to Pakistan.

True, according to law Junagadh belonged to Pakistan once the IoA was accepted by Pakistan. But, Pakistan was incapable of intervening and ensure security within and of the state. That is why India was asked to intervene. So responding to a crisis situation, on request, no less, was not against International Law. Far from being an 'invasion'.

For one it would be nice to validate the authenticity of the instrument of accession India claims to have, secondly, the rules agreed to between the British, ML and Congress on the accession of States clearly point out the need to resort to the wishes of the people in case of disputed accessions, as referred to by Mountbatten in his comments at the beginning of the post.

The IoA, the signed one, is in public domain. Why do you expect others to drip feed you? Anyway there it is:

Secondly, Jinnah was staunchly against any plebiscite in any State. To him the opinion of the ruler was final. To Nehru, however, plebiscite was important, in case of conflict.

 

[Areesh]

problem aap ko hai bhai jaan, y shud i.

You and other Indians are also facing difficulty in believing that news or crap or whatever it is. So start it with your self.

tells it all.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pls... atleast pakistan should not lecture us on "moral bakruptcy" and "tyranny"....how many of its own country men did it kill in Operaion searchlight in 1971.

The difference is that most Pakistanis today are not justifying the atrocities that were committed in 1971, but Indians continue to not only defend atrocities committed in Kashmir, but continue to advocate a perpetuation of Indian policies of occupation, subjugation and tyranny of the people of Kashmir under the guise of 'nationalism'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Thats never gonna happen and you know it.Therefore forget it, sort out the issues in your own country and lets live peacefully unless your nation has a surefire action plan to get Kashmir

At least you are open about supporting occupation and tyranny by the State of India, and the violation of its commitment to the people of Kashmir and the international community.

 

[owcc]

The difference is that most Pakistanis today are not justifying the atrocities that were committed in 1971, but Indians continue to not only defend atrocities committed in Kashmir, but continue to advocate a perpetuation of Indian policies of occupation, subjugation and tyranny of the people of Kashmir under the guise of 'nationalism'.

If atrocities are being comitted in Kashmir we accept it all ,but yes no matter what however tyrannical yu think our rule is ,it is here to stay ,to that I agree as some of the bad habits which we learned from our new friend Israel I suppose

 

[toxic_pus]

Pakistan cannot fulfill any responsibilities when India rejects the UNSC resolutions to begin with.

India rejected UNSC resolution after 1965. Nothing stopped Pakistan from fulfilling its own responsibility before that.

 

[javaman]

You and other Indians are also facing difficulty in believing that news or crap or whatever it is. So start it with your self.

tells it all.

whole world knows ,who is having problem.

chalo koi baat ni ,akeley mein kha lo,sharmao mat.whole world knows.

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

The difference is that most Pakistanis today are not justifying the atrocities that were committed in 1971,

How does it matter if you repent 40 yrs after the deed, is done..
however it would have been different if Pakistanis had risen against genocide in East Pak in 71 itself...then you would have had the moral justification criticize Indian deeds.

but Indians continue to not only defend atrocities committed in Kashmir, but continue to advocate a perpetuation of Indian policies of occupation, subjugation and tyranny of the people of Kashmir under the guise of 'nationalism'.

Well there were no forces, no human right violations, tyranny in Kashmir before 1989..before Pakistan started supporting armed militants to fuel secessionist movement in Kashmir..because of which India had to deploy security forces .

So indeed Pakistan is not part of the solution, but part of the problem.

 

[Areesh]

whole world knows ,who is having problem.

chalo koi baat ni ,akeley mein kha lo,sharmao mat.whole world knows.

Again . This news is unreliable for sure.

 

[jbond197]

Again . This news is unreliable for sure.

This news is about Indian land by Indian newspaper so will be believed by Indians. If you don't believe it, too bad, we can't help it. BTW its's India's Internal matter so don't worry

 

[Areesh]

This news is about Indian land by Indian newspaper so will be believed by Indians. If you don't believe it, too bad, we can't help it. BTW its's India's Internal matter so don't worry

You can believe in crap. You are an Indian after all.

 

[javaman]

You can believe in crap. You are an Indian after all.

frm now on i will believe in rupee news,pak ideology,u know u badly need pudin hara

 

[Areesh]

frm now on i will believe in rupee news,pak ideology,u know u badly need pudin hara

Again a .

 

[schneider]

At least you are open about supporting occupation and tyranny by the State of India, and the violation of its commitment to the people of Kashmir and the international community.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172 tacitly accepts India's stand regarding all outstanding issues between India and Pakistan and urges the need to resolve the dispute through mutual dialogue and does not call for a plebiscite.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 cannot be implemented since Pakistan failed to withdraw its forces from Kashmir which was the first step in implementing the resolution.[50] Now the resolution is obsolete since the geography and demographics of the region have been permanently altered.[51] The resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter.[18] Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII

The Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had unanimously ratified the Maharaja's Instrument of Accession to India and had adopted a constitution for the state that called for a perpetual merger of the state with the Union of India. India claims that this body was a representative one, and that its views were those of the Kashmiri people at the time.


All differences between India and Pakistan including Kashmir need to be settled through bilateral negotiations as agreed to by the two countries when they signed the Simla Agreement on 2 July 1972

Kashmir conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia