Pakistan: A slice of China in Islamabad

[Zibago]

I actually live in Islamabad all this fear mongering to us looks nothing but propaganda by folks who dont even know the dynamics of this city
They are very co-operative with the authorities and barring few they mostly they hire Pakistanis in their firms we dont see few Chinese in our city as a threat

 

[M. Sarmad]

I actually live in Islamabad all this fear mongering to us looks nothing but propaganda by folks who dont even know the dynamics of this city
They are very co-operative with the authorities and barring few they mostly they hire Pakistanis in their firms we dont see few Chinese in our city as a threat

Be warned bro, CPEC has unleashed the Qaum of Yajooj Majooj ... And they will "eat up" all the available resources

 

[Zibago]

Be warned bro, CPEC has unleashed the Qaum of Yajooj Majooj ... And they will "eat up" all the available resources

It wasnt a perfect deal far from it but hey its better than empty desert right ?
Multan metro case kind of exposed who the real MISCREANTS are

 

[Joe Shearer]

As i said Pakistan has more claims in Chinese teritory than china .. states such as hunza were never part of any chinese empire rather they only gave an oath of loyalty to them... Which does not make their claim credible.. their claim ended whenthe british took over most of the princly states making them part of British india ..and before chinese claim heck even Tajikistan can claim to GB as it was part of greater badakshan province... But the fact is that the areas now GB were part of British India and cannot be claimed by china

Technically, that last bit is wrong. British India consisted of those territories directly administered by the Crown, under the Governor-General, and the rest of India was constituted of princely territories in the status of vassal states of the British Crown, under the Viceroy.

Gilgit Baltistan and the Emirates were constituent elements of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, the Emirates - Hunza and Nagar, for instance - were subordinate (vassal) states of the J&K State.

Please follow carefully my argument.

Their status as vassals of J&K was an exact parallel of their earlier status of vassals of Kashgar. So when they (the Emirates) revolted against their suzerain ruler, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, their status was independent for a short while, then constituent parts of Pakistan thereafter (their absorption into Pakistan was a drawn-out and complicated process). Please note that the position of the Emirates during British and J&K rule was exactly as you have described their position under Chinese (or rather, Xinjiang) rule. You stated:

states such as hunza were never part of any chinese empire rather they only gave an oath of loyalty to them...

And that was precisely their status under the Maharaja and the British, behind the Maharaja.

Which does not make their claim credible.. their claim ended whenthe british took over most of the princly states making them part of British india

Their claim never ended when the British took over most of the princely states, BECAUSE THE BRITISH NEVER TOOK OVER THE PRINCELY STATES, AND THESE WERE NEVER PART OF BRITISH INDIA.

If the princely states had been part of British India, the disputes between the two Dominions of Pakistan and India would never have existed, as the Independence Act clearly defined what came within India, and what was to be excluded to form Pakistan. The disputes arose solely with respect to the princely states. With the lapse of the treaties with the British Crown, these states were technically independent, and were given the choice of joining either Pakistan or India.

According to your reasoning, if the Chinese (the ruler of Kashgar and his legal heirs, the PRC) had ended their claim when the British took over the princely states of Hunza and Nagar (and Swat), then conversely, their claim remained in suspended animation, as the states in question came into a treaty arrangement with J&K.

Which is what I am arguing.

Some portion of India wanted independence from the Raj how does that sound?

Precise?

Did anyone read this? Chinese super market is owned by Pakistani.

With apologies, that wording is ambiguous; it should be, "Supermarket in Pakistan selling Chinese goods is owned by a Pakistani." That makes the whole situation very easy to understand.

 

[M. Sarmad]

It wasnt a perfect deal far from it but hey its better than empty desert right ?
Multan metro case kind of exposed who the real MISCREANTS are

It is related in the Holy Quran (and in the authentic traditions of the Prophet) that near the end of time, the descendants of the tribes of Yajooj and Majooj will emerge again, descending from elevation/hills(21:96), and cause a terrible menace. Brace yourselves ... Turbulent times ahead

 

[Zibago]

It is related in the Holy Quran (and in the authentic traditions of the Prophet) that near the end of time, the descendants of the tribes of Yajooj and Majooj will emerge again, descending from elevation/hills(21:96), and cause a terrible menace. Brace yourselves ... Turbulent times ahead

Mongol hordes 13th century

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

you have reason to be worry.. Pakistan situation similiar to China situation when they start open up.
everyone worried with western economy coming to invade China.

try to watch jack ma interview.. i'm forget in which minute he talked about China open up to western and it's scare the hell out of them.

But China had a pragmatic and dynamic leadership.. Pak has corrupt arseholes.

 

[MultaniGuy]

But China had a pragmatic and dynamic leadership.. Pak has corrupt arseholes.

There is plenty of room of improvement in Pakistan.

Admittedly the leaders in Pakistan are corrupt

 

[925boy]

My facts are straight.

We gave Shaksgam Valley to China.

Shaksgam Valley was part of the Kashmir Princely state.

sorry but was "kashmir"undisputed at that time and fully Pakistani?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Mongol hordes 13th century

They too may (or may not) have been the descendants of Yajooj Majooj .. But they will emerge near the end times (maybe again, maybe for the first time) descending from hills and cause a terrible menace ... That's what the prophecy tells us

sorry but was "kashmir"undisputed at that time and fully Pakistani?

At the time of signing of the boundary agreement in 1962 ?? ... No

But Pakistan was in effective possession of GB at that time and the International law does permit a State in de facto and effective possession of an area to conclude agreements of a limited local character to maintain peace and tranquility

The Sino Pak border agreement of 1963 is Provisional, The article 6 clearly states :

“The two parties have agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, the sovereign authority concerned will reopen negotiations with the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the boundary, as described in Article Two of the present agreement, .."

 

[Joe Shearer]

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/gb-n...ays-sardar-attique.486101/page-2#post-9333875

LOL.

As usual, you have a formidable argument. If you had only been on the Indian side!

Your argument is flawed in one minute but all-important respect: the definition of terrus nullius. It does not mean a territory shifting its loyalty and allegiance from one ruler to another, nor does it mean a territory with an administration that can be browbeaten and overthrown. It means a territory where is no administration, no state apparatus, and no recognised or capable of being recognised sovereign territory.

To be precise, the most famous example is Australia; another very good example was Antarctica.

Gilgit (I shall not talk about Baltistan; for some peculiar reason, both Pakistanis and Indians hyphenate Gilgit-Baltistan, where there is nothing about their situation that invites hyphenation) was not without administration, or a system of governance. It was governed by the British directly, under 'lease' from the Maharaja, until the lease was surrendered on the eve of independence, as you have meticulously pointed out. It slipped out of the Maharaja's grip, again, as you have pointed out; it did not slip into the grip of Pakistan, and its position remained independent at the time.

If the Maharaja had overrun it militarily, the question would have remained moot; he didn't, so his people had effectively seceded.

A seceded state is emphatically not a terrus nullius. An uninhabited, or unadministered state is.

Pakistan's rights over these Emirates hinges on the definition of the states offered a choice between Pakistan and India. Were only those states in direct treaty arrangement with the Crown to be given a choice? If so, then Hunza and Nagar were to travel along with their masters, the Maharaja of J&K. Were the subordinate states also to be given that choice? Both legally and logically, the answer to this would be 'NO'.

Why?

Because the choice was explicitly given only those who were in direct treaty with the Crown.

So Hunza and Nagar technically had no freedom to choose other than what was done for the entire J&K State.

I would like to leave you with this bonbon.

 

[M. Sarmad]

LOL.

As usual, you have a formidable argument. If you had only been on the Indian side!

Your argument is flawed in one minute but all-important respect: the definition of terrus nullius. It does not mean a territory shifting its loyalty and allegiance from one ruler to another, nor does it mean a territory with an administration that can be browbeaten and overthrown. It means a territory where is no administration, no state apparatus, and no recognised or capable of being recognised sovereign territory.

To be precise, the most famous example is Australia; another very good example was Antarctica.

Gilgit (I shall not talk about Baltistan; for some peculiar reason, both Pakistanis and Indians hyphenate Gilgit-Baltistan, where there is nothing about their situation that invites hyphenation) was not without administration, or a system of governance. It was governed by the British directly, under 'lease' from the Maharaja, until the lease was surrendered on the eve of independence, as you have meticulously pointed out. It slipped out of the Maharaja's grip, again, as you have pointed out; it did not slip into the grip of Pakistan, and its position remained independent at the time.

If the Maharaja had overrun it militarily, the question would have remained moot; he didn't, so his people had effectively seceded.

A seceded state is emphatically not a terrus nullius. An uninhabited, or unadministered state is.

Pakistan's rights over these Emirates hinges on the definition of the states offered a choice between Pakistan and India. Were only those states in direct treaty arrangement with the Crown to be given a choice? If so, then Hunza and Nagar were to travel along with their masters, the Maharaja of J&K. Were the subordinate states also to be given that choice? Both legally and logically, the answer to this would be 'NO'.

Why?

Because the choice was explicitly given only those who were in direct treaty with the Crown.

So Hunza and Nagar technically had no freedom to choose other than what was done for the entire J&K State.

I would like to leave you with this bonbon.

Dickinson Journal of International Law

Volume 9, Number 1, Article 5, 1991
(p.93-94)

http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=psilr

 

[Joe Shearer]

Dickinson Journal of International Law

Do please look at the judgement of the Australian Courts. There it was found that the territory of Australia was not, in fact, terrus nullius, because of the presence there of the Australian aborigines.

If that were so, imagine the applicability of the doctrine to the Gilgit territory, that had much more than a bare population; that had a fixed system of government, as well.

 

[Bilawal Bhutto]

I'm really skeptical of these chinamen.. who on Earth would wanna buy overpriced nasty chinese food. when we can buy cheap kabobs from our local brothers.... I would rather help my Pakhtun brothers support their family... than some foreign business mangnate with net worths of billions from Hong Kong.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Do please look at the judgement of the Australian Courts. There it was found that the territory of Australia was not, in fact, terrus nullius, because of the presence there of the Australian aborigines.

If that were so, imagine the applicability of the doctrine to the Gilgit territory, that had much more than a bare population; that had a fixed system of government, as well.

As pointed out by H. Briggs (in 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.)), 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."

Maharaja never "effectively" controlled Gilgit and his sovereignty didn't extend to Gilgit when Pakistan annexed it, and therefore India didn't receive Gilgit under the so called instrument of accession (even if it's accepted as legally valid and complete) as the Maharaja, as per the international law, couldn't transfer more rights than he possessed .... So, under international law, Pakistan's claim on Gilgit is legally valid and justified.

But more importantly, and as stated earlier, Pakistan has never refused to conduct a UN supervised plebiscite in Gilgit to resolve the dispute. It's India which won't allow such a plebiscite in the territory administered by them.