'Roof of the World' rebels against Pakistan

[Screambowl]

any documentary or circumstantial evidence ....???




prove it ....

when I told you to go through the thread looks like you did not. I will report your posts otherwise because as per the rules of PDF, you need to first go through the thread.

 

[toxic_pus]

Karachi agreement is Invalid, because in 1965 and 1971 Pakistan violated it.

Karachi agreement is very much valid. It only recognizes ground positions of the two sides as on that date. It does nothing else.

 

[HRK]

Part I: Establish CFL and maintain peace along that line. That's where Karachi Agreement comes in.
Part II: Withdraw completely (among other things)

So, if you want plebiscite in accordance to UN resolution, Pakistani will have to withdraw completely. How effing difficult is it to comprehend?

As said earlier withdrawal of troops was to be considered separately for that unilateral withdrawal is not possible without any 'International Mechanism ensuring that no party will alter the situation' for this India does not agree .... with 'Integral Part' mantra

so is it that difficult to understand ....

when I told you to go through the thread looks like you did not. I will report your posts otherwise because as per the rules of PDF, you need to first go through the thread.

would report my post are out of mind ..... have you gone through any of the doc I posted ..... ????

 

[toxic_pus]

As said earlier withdrawal of troops was to be considered separately for that unilateral withdrawal is not possible without any 'International Mechanism ensuring that no party will alter the situation' for this India does not agree .... with 'Integral Part' mantra

so is it that difficult to understand ....

The very act of withdrawal, whether under any 'International Mechanism' or otherwise, would be alteration of Karachi Agreement. What the eff are you talking about.

As with implementation of Part II, UN is on record saying that Pakistan's obligation to withdraw is unilateral and unconditional. Why the eff should we agree to any 'International Mechanism' when UN wouldn't allow it.

 

[Screambowl]

Karachi agreement is very much valid. It only recognizes ground positions of the two sides as on that date. It does nothing else.

Pakistan constitution, article 257 says, Pakistan cannot maintain any relation with Kashmir without plebiscite not even military without plebiscite.

Pakistan says, article 257 is for Indian kashmir.

But Constiution of Azad Kashmir(azad kashmir says) through article 2 that Azad Kashmir Azad Kashmir is a part of greater Jammu and Kashmir. That means article 257 is also for Azad Kashmir.

How the hell they have deployed their military in Azad Kashmir. Just clear that.

No agreement no Pact, can take over the constitution, if there are pacts or agreements then there are amendments in the constitution in micro area as per the record and demarcation. But I dont find it in any Constitution of Pakistan.

If Karachi agreement is valid then their article 257 of Pakistani constitution is invalid.

..



would report my post are out of mind ..... have you gone through any of the doc I posted ..... ????

got to earlier thread or google yourself for your own knowledge that LOC runs till point NJ9842. Beyond that LOC is not defined.

 

[HRK]

Pakistan constitution, article 257 says, Pakistan cannot maintain any relation with Kashmir without plebiscite not even military without plebiscite.

Pakistan says, article 257 is for Indian kashmir.

But Constiution of Azad Kashmir(azad kashmir says) through article 2 that Azad Kashmir Azad Kashmir is a part of greater Jammu and Kashmir. That means article 257 is also for Azad Kashmir.

How the hell they have deployed their military in Azad Kashmir. Just clear that.

No agreement no Pact, can take over the constitution, if there are pacts or agreements then there are amendments in the constitution in micro area as per the record and demarcation. But I dont find it in any Constitution of Pakistan.

If Karachi agreement is valid then their article 257 of Pakistani constitution is invalid.

don't rant post article ....not your interpretation ......

 

[Screambowl]

don't rant post article ....not your interpretation ......

speech less? lol

Provision relating to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.-When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and that State shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State.

Article: 257 Provision relating to the State of Jammu and Kashmir | The Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Developed by Zain Sheikh

 

[HRK]

As with implementation of Part II, UN is on record saying that Pakistan's obligation to withdraw is unilateral and unconditional. Why the eff should we agree to any 'International Mechanism' when UN wouldn't allow it.

but after that as highlighted previously many times situation has changed under KARACHI Agreement ..... India has accepted the deployment of Pakistani troops ....

 

[toxic_pus]

Pakistan constitution, article 257 says, Pakistan cannot maintain any relation with Kashmir without plebiscite not even military without plebiscite.

Pakistan says, article 257 is for Indian kashmir.

But Constiution of Azad Kashmir(azad kashmir says) through article 2 that Azad Kashmir Azad Kashmir is a part of greater Jammu and Kashmir. That means article 257 is also for Azad Kashmir.

How the hell they have deployed their military in Azad Kashmir. Just clear that.

No agreement no Pact, can take over the constitution, if there are pacts or agreements then there are amendments in the constitution in micro area as per the record and demarcation. But I dont find it in any Constitution of Pakistan.

If Karachi agreement is valid then their article 257 of Pakistani constitution is invalid.
.

I don't think Article 257 precludes PA to be deployed in P0K.

 

[Screambowl]

I don't think Article 257 precludes PA to be deployed in P0K.

Provision relating to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.-When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and that State shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State.
Article: 257 Provision relating to the State of Jammu and Kashmir | The Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Developed by Zain Sheikh

it says, state of jammu and Kashmir which is India, but Azad Jammu Kashmir in its constitution under article 2 clause (d) states that, AJK is part of greater Jammu and Kashmir. Which defines the validity of article 257 in Azad Kashmir.

 

[toxic_pus]

but after that as highlighted previously many times situation has changed under KARACHI Agreement ..... India has accepted the deployment of Pakistani troops ....

UNCIP's 3rd Report, was dated 9 Dec, 1949, after Karachi Agreement.

...the Resolution […], as has been pointed out, draws a distinction between the withdrawal of Indian and Pakistan forces. Pakistan troops are to begin to withdraw in advance of the Indian troops and their withdrawal is not conditioned on Pakistan's agreement to the plan of the Indian withdrawal.” (para 242) ​

​

 

[HRK]

speech less? lol

Provision relating to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.-When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and that State shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State.

Article: 257 Provision relating to the State of Jammu and Kashmir | The Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Developed by Zain Sheikh

unfortunately I am tackling 4 -5 Indians at this very moments ..... who unfortunate I am .....

SO what is the contradiction here ..... ??

after the accession with Pakistan Kashmiries will decide .... their legal status ...like they want to be a Province in Pakistan or a Dominion Sate their land their rule .....

 

[toxic_pus]

Provision relating to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.-When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and that State shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State.
Article: 257 Provision relating to the State of Jammu and Kashmir | The Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Developed by Zain Sheikh

it says, state of jammu and Kashmir which is India, but Azad Jammu Kashmir in its constitution under article 2 clause (d) states that, AJK is part of greater Jammu and Kashmir. Which defines the validity of article 257 in Azad Kashmir.

It still doesn't preclude deployment of troops.

 

[Screambowl]

unfortunately I am tackling 4 -5 Indians at this very moments ..... who unfortunate I am .....

SO what is the contradiction here ..... ??

after the accession with Pakistan Kashmiries will decide .... their legal status ...like they want to be a Province in Pakistan or a Dominion Sate their land their rule .....

please read post #325

It still doesn't preclude deployment of troops.

but ist their own constitution which says. That means their constitution if flawed or they have overruled the constitution. Where as India has maintained its promise with article 370.

This is my argument past 4 days.

 

[toxic_pus]

please read post #325



but ist their own constitution which says. That means their constitution if flawed or they have overruled the constitution. Where as India has maintained its promise with article 370.

This is my argument past 4 days.

I think, and I am saying this on the basis of a casual reading of Article 256, the two Articles are entirely different in scope. While Article 370 effectively makes J & K an autonomous region, Article 256 legitimizes J & K accession to Pakistan, if it should happen.