Pakistan: A slice of China in Islamabad

[Joe Shearer]

NALSAR ? India ?

India itself is a party to the dispute therefore it's not a neutral/credible source

And a properly referenced article/refutation will be much appreaciated

Why don't you look at the arguments rather than the source of the arguments?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Those were not, in fact, proposals made by UNCIP, but were the stipulations of the main body. The UNCIP even pleaded with the Pakistani delegates not to seek any changes as they were not authorised to discuss or to negotiate any changes. Do look up the proceedings of the body; they are available as published documents.

Sir, I know very well what I am talking about. India , and not Pakistan, didn't let a plebiscite take place in Kashmir. We have discussed it many times. Will post links in a while

Why don't you look at the arguments rather than the source of the arguments?

There are no "arguments", just opinions ... No citations, no neutral sources to back up those biased opinions have been provided

 

[Bilawal Bhutto]

There's hundreds of sources of india outright rejecting the UN Resolution. Pakistan never rejected it, stop cherry picking. We are always ready for the conduction of it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir, I know very well what I am talking about. India , and not Pakistan, didn't let a plebiscite take place in Kashmir. We have discussed it many times. Will post links in a while

Of course you know what you are talking about, and of course you are one of the most formidably equipped commentators on this issue on the Pakistani side on PDF.

However, the facts within your own citation stand against you. Would you like me to copy and paste extracts from within it? As you have already implied that it is well referenced.

 

[Bilawal Bhutto]

Typical hard headed baseless argument by the indian.

 

[M. Sarmad]

However, the facts within your own citation stand against you. Would you like me to copy and paste extracts from within it? As you have already implied that it is well referenced.

Please do..

From the article:

1. Problems of Implementation.-Since 1949, it has become evident that India refuses to agree to demilitarization in any form or sequence so as to permit a free and impartial plebiscite. This refusal first presented itself as a matter of interpretation of the 13 August and 5 January resolutions. (p. 105)

========================

@Joe Shearer

UN appointed official mediator blamed India (not Pakistan) for halting the plebiscite process

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/2-mi...unned-down-by-army.504257/page-6#post-9621073

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/modi-spoke-indias-mind-over-cpec.445218/page-3#post-8597669

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chri...-of-trash-ive-seen.444780/page-4#post-8586944

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chri...-of-trash-ive-seen.444780/page-4#post-8587157

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir, I know very well what I am talking about. India , and not Pakistan, didn't let a plebiscite take place in Kashmir. We have discussed it many times. Will post links in a while



There are no "arguments", just opinions ... No citations, no neutral sources to back up those biased opinions have been provided

The second comment first. My arguments were based on two things: a published court judgement from the High Court of Australia, known popularly as the Mabo judgement, that establishes the principles of terra nullius. Incidentally, this flatly contradicts your much-vaunted Mr. Howley's interpretation of the term one year earlier than the judgement. The second was an ab initio analysis of the law relating to ownership and possession, specific to the case of lease of property, and its application to the sovereignty over Gilgit.

As far as the published judgement is concerned, if you are saying that on reference, it is beyond the power and capacity of a reasonably knowledgeable person to look it up on his or her own, that will be a strange situation indeed; however, citations can and shall be provided, to obviate anyone taking refuge behind this.

As far as ab initio analysis is concerned, it is difficult to understand how plain and simple reasoning can be provided with references. It is possible to reproduce the textbook explanation of the situations to be discussed; since that seems to be your wish, so be it.

Then you mention 'biased opinions', referring to the responses I posted. This is contrasted to the well-referenced note by Mr. Howley on which you depend so heavily. It is strange that you should take this position, since Mr. Howley's note itself is an opinion. Please take a close look; it is a comment, not a learned article; in other words, it has been published by permission, and no peer review or any other assessment of its content is implied. It is, in the barest sense, an opinion. I can only point out that by selecting one opinion, and elevating it to the level of credibility of scripture, is not a new gambit; from Alastair Lamb onwards, these have been the tactics used, and we are inured to it.

At 4:39 this morning, you said,"....a properly referenced article/refutation will be much appreaciated (sic)". Fair enough. I hope you will allow me to submit this for your perusal, on a different thread; this thread was purely for the purpose of reviewing the increasing presence of China and the Chinese, and inter alia, it brought in elements of the sovereignty over Gilgit, which is how we segued into a discussion on the Kashmir issue itself. Such a discussion does not belong here; please open another thread, and I will post there.

For a start, I intend to place before you a sampling of the blatantly biased opinions held by Mr. Howley, which, while they do not affect his references, explains his careful selection of those references, and throw considerable light on the slant of his comment.

I look forward to your opening the new thread; meanwhile, I shall work on compiling the opinions expressed, distinct from the references and researched interpretations, and on the refutation that you seek.

@hellfire

 

[bananarepublic]

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.



Precise?



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.

Technically it was part of British india as it was administered by british india .the claim of GB being leased is partially right as many states were conquered by the dogras while the frontier states were conquered by the British.

As i said that the Chinese can not claim these part and even if they could their only claim would be partially on states of hunza and nagar no more. And that with very loosely evidence.. even during those time the loyalty of these states would fluctuate between the Chinese and badakhshanis... And the loyalty would be in meare name ... There was no substantial connection with the Chinese except for exporting slaves which my ancestors were very good act..
States of hunza and nagar were independent of them and regular border disputes on land further cement it. As if it were part of any Chinese claim before 1948..there would've been not much blood shed on land grabbing..
Problems arose after 1948 when Chinese moved into what is now GB province.. which narrated by some of my elders of that time talking about canons and troops patrolling the areas and was defused by ayub khan which resulted in them moving out of these land ..

 

[SoulSpokesman]

BR,

As i said that the Chinese can not claim these part and even if they could their only claim would be partially on states of hunza and nagar no more.

Yes, but if they do, you guys wud be able to do little about it, is that not?

Regards

 

[I.R.A]

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

The relations on state level aside ......... people to people contact ..... well dealing with Chinese people is a different matter, it won't be nice for all of them, unless Chinese government before sending its people starts teaching them about Pakistani culture and its people. I for one am sure I will have problems with them the way they behave. Shaan emotional ads are not going to work. By the way I feel Chuahdry Nisar realised the problem and took appropriate measures .......

 

[SoulSpokesman]

IRA bhai,

I for one am sure I will have problems with them the way they behave.

Why do you say that? The Chinese seem to be very polite, why would you have a problem with that?

Regards

 

[Joe Shearer]

Reasonable, Very close, with some minor reservations on my part; do read my interpretation as well.

Technically it was part of British india as it was administered by british india .

Not correct. British India was administered directly. If you are referring to Gilgit as being part of British India, it was never considered so; it was administered by the Political Service (you may remember the infamous Iskandar Mirza, who belonged to that service) and not by the ICS.

The princely states were, in theory, sovereign states, under the suzerainty of the British Crown. When the Crown Colony, British India, was granted Dominion status as two Dominions, technically these 561 princely states became independent, but were also told in unmistakable terms that they would have to commit to joining one of the two Dominions: Britain would NOT countenance a third, or any other than the two.

the claim of GB being leased is partially right as many states were conquered by the dogras while the frontier states were conquered by the British.

Again, I must demur. Let us take it in sequence.

The Dogras started as vassals of the Lahore Durbar. Gulab Singh's distant relative was Raja of Jammu, and was displaced by the Lahore Durbar (Gulab Singh and his brother fought against the Sikhs, but surrendered when further resistance became clearly futile). Subsequently, for services rendered, Gulab Singh got the jagir of Jammu, and took the precaution of getting the erstwhile Raja to endorse his claim in perpetuity. Then that became the seat of Dogra resurgence in the mountains, and in turn, they took all the small hill states in and around Jammu, surrounding the Vale, that was directly administered by officers of the Lahore Durbar.

Gulab Singh's general, Zorawar Singh, took Baltistan, then Ladakh, and finally mounted a disastrous campaign against Tibet, in which he lost his life. When the fighting ended, the Sino-Tibetan forces had been defeated outside Leh, and they entered into a treaty with the Dogra power that defined that boundary. All the trouble about Aksai Chin was due to subsequent idiocy of a greedy British geographer and a gullible Maharaja of J&K.

This was the situation when the British attacked and defeated the Sikhs in two hard-fought, closely won wars. As a consequence, to liquidate their war indemnity, the Sikhs gave up the Vale to the British, who sold it to Gulab Singh and recognised him as independent and sovereign Maharaja of a state called Jammu and Kashmir.

Upto this point, we have witnessed Dogra conquest and purchase. Their possessions were like a doughnut with the Vale forming the hole in the middle; once they bought it, their territories were contiguous.

What you mention happened after this, in the 80s and 90s of the 19th century. Britain and the princely state joined hands to subdue the north-west; the campaigns against the Pamir Emirates began then, and ended with all of them submitting to the princely state.

However, the British had talked themselves into taking the so-called Great Game seriously; they were also blundering around in Afghanistan and had got into serious trouble there. At this stage, they took what was effectively Gilgit under lease.

There was a formal lease and a tenure of the lease. Nothing informal about it.

To respond to your point specifically: the British gave over nothing of the lands they themselves conquered, but, on the other hand, took over (on lease) some of the state's land.

In 1937 or so, the British renewed the lease, only to give it up abruptly in 1947.

As i said that the Chinese can not claim these part and even if they could their only claim would be partially on states of hunza and nagar no more. And that with very loosely evidence.. even during those time the loyalty of these states would fluctuate between the Chinese and badakhshanis... And the loyalty would be in meare name ... There was no substantial connection with the Chinese except for exporting slaves which my ancestors were very good act..
States of hunza and nagar were independent of them and regular border disputes on land further cement it. As if it were part of any Chinese claim before 1948..there would've been not much blood shed on land grabbing..
Problems arose after 1948 when Chinese moved into what is now GB province.. which narrated by some of my elders of that time talking about canons and troops patrolling the areas and was defused by ayub khan which resulted in them moving out of these land ..

This is very accurate, and I have nothing to add to it. You have even got the fine details, like the slave trade with Kashgar. You mention your ancestors; are you from those parts?

 

[SoulSpokesman]

Dada,

Beautifully summed up for us ignorants. A crib though- it is Akshay Hind not Aksai Chin.....

Regards

 

[bananarepublic]

Reasonable, Very close, with some minor reservations on my part; do read my interpretation as well.

Belong from pak china border regions ...



Not correct. British India was administered directly. If you are referring to Gilgit as being part of British India, it was never considered so; it was administered by the Political Service (you may remember the infamous Iskandar Mirza, who belonged to that service) and not by the ICS.

The princely states were, in theory, sovereign states, under the suzerainty of the British Crown. When the Crown Colony, British India, was granted Dominion status as two Dominions, technically these 561 princely states became independent, but were also told in unmistakable terms that they would have to commit to joining one of the two Dominions: Britain would NOT countenance a third, or any other than the two.



Again, I must demur. Let us take it in sequence.

The Dogras started as vassals of the Lahore Durbar. Gulab Singh's distant relative was Raja of Jammu, and was displaced by the Lahore Durbar (Gulab Singh and his brother fought against the Sikhs, but surrendered when further resistance became clearly futile). Subsequently, for services rendered, Gulab Singh got the jagir of Jammu, and took the precaution of getting the erstwhile Raja to endorse his claim in perpetuity. Then that became the seat of Dogra resurgence in the mountains, and in turn, they took all the small hill states in and around Jammu, surrounding the Vale, that was directly administered by officers of the Lahore Durbar.

Gulab Singh's general, Zorawar Singh, took Baltistan, then Ladakh, and finally mounted a disastrous campaign against Tibet, in which he lost his life. When the fighting ended, the Sino-Tibetan forces had been defeated outside Leh, and they entered into a treaty with the Dogra power that defined that boundary. All the trouble about Aksai Chin was due to subsequent idiocy of a greedy British geographer and a gullible Maharaja of J&K.

This was the situation when the British attacked and defeated the Sikhs in two hard-fought, closely won wars. As a consequence, to liquidate their war indemnity, the Sikhs gave up the Vale to the British, who sold it to Gulab Singh and recognised him as independent and sovereign Maharaja of a state called Jammu and Kashmir.

Upto this point, we have witnessed Dogra conquest and purchase. Their possessions were like a doughnut with the Vale forming the hole in the middle; once they bought it, their territories were contiguous.

What you mention happened after this, in the 80s and 90s of the 19th century. Britain and the princely state joined hands to subdue the north-west; the campaigns against the Pamir Emirates began then, and ended with all of them submitting to the princely state.

However, the British had talked themselves into taking the so-called Great Game seriously; they were also blundering around in Afghanistan and had got into serious trouble there. At this stage, they took what was effectively Gilgit under lease.

There was a formal lease and a tenure of the lease. Nothing informal about it.

To respond to your point specifically: the British gave over nothing of the lands they themselves conquered, but, on the other hand, took over (on lease) some of the state's land.

In 1937 or so, the British renewed the lease, only to give it up abruptly in 1947.



This is very accurate, and I have nothing to add to it. You have even got the fine details, like the slave trade with Kashgar. You mention your ancestors; are you from those parts?

Reasonable, Very close, with some minor reservations on my part; do read my interpretation as well.



Not correct. British India was administered directly. If you are referring to Gilgit as being part of British India, it was never considered so; it was administered by the Political Service (you may remember the infamous Iskandar Mirza, who belonged to that service) and not by the ICS.

The princely states were, in theory, sovereign states, under the suzerainty of the British Crown. When the Crown Colony, British India, was granted Dominion status as two Dominions, technically these 561 princely states became independent, but were also told in unmistakable terms that they would have to commit to joining one of the two Dominions: Britain would NOT countenance a third, or any other than the two.



Again, I must demur. Let us take it in sequence.

The Dogras started as vassals of the Lahore Durbar. Gulab Singh's distant relative was Raja of Jammu, and was displaced by the Lahore Durbar (Gulab Singh and his brother fought against the Sikhs, but surrendered when further resistance became clearly futile). Subsequently, for services rendered, Gulab Singh got the jagir of Jammu, and took the precaution of getting the erstwhile Raja to endorse his claim in perpetuity. Then that became the seat of Dogra resurgence in the mountains, and in turn, they took all the small hill states in and around Jammu, surrounding the Vale, that was directly administered by officers of the Lahore Durbar.

Gulab Singh's general, Zorawar Singh, took Baltistan, then Ladakh, and finally mounted a disastrous campaign against Tibet, in which he lost his life. When the fighting ended, the Sino-Tibetan forces had been defeated outside Leh, and they entered into a treaty with the Dogra power that defined that boundary. All the trouble about Aksai Chin was due to subsequent idiocy of a greedy British geographer and a gullible Maharaja of J&K.

This was the situation when the British attacked and defeated the Sikhs in two hard-fought, closely won wars. As a consequence, to liquidate their war indemnity, the Sikhs gave up the Vale to the British, who sold it to Gulab Singh and recognised him as independent and sovereign Maharaja of a state called Jammu and Kashmir.

Upto this point, we have witnessed Dogra conquest and purchase. Their possessions were like a doughnut with the Vale forming the hole in the middle; once they bought it, their territories were contiguous.

What you mention happened after this, in the 80s and 90s of the 19th century. Britain and the princely state joined hands to subdue the north-west; the campaigns against the Pamir Emirates began then, and ended with all of them submitting to the princely state.

However, the British had talked themselves into taking the so-called Great Game seriously; they were also blundering around in Afghanistan and had got into serious trouble there. At this stage, they took what was effectively Gilgit under lease.

There was a formal lease and a tenure of the lease. Nothing informal about it.

To respond to your point specifically: the British gave over nothing of the lands they themselves conquered, but, on the other hand, took over (on lease) some of the state's land.

In 1937 or so, the British renewed the lease, only to give it up abruptly in 1947.



This is very accurate, and I have nothing to add to it. You have even got the fine details, like the slave trade with Kashgar. You mention your ancestors; are you from those parts?

 

[I.R.A]

IRA bhai,

I for one am sure I will have problems with them the way they behave.

Why do you say that? The Chinese seem to be very polite, why would you have a problem with that?

Regards

They are a huge number of people and not all of them would behave the same way. I normally do have a problem with people who don't respect local laws and traditions ....... as mentioned already Chinese labor force sent here are inmates ......... the ones who should be in Chinese jails.