Stand with Kashmir

[Mo12]

Im a human being and I stand with people of Balouchistan

 

[Great Janjua]

Im a human being and I stand with people of Balouchistan

They will chase until you run out of your indian ego mate

 

[M. Sarmad]

As a first, please let me present you with the most easily available rebuttal to the claim that The Instrument of Accession does not exist:

http://thewire.in/76079/public-first-time-jammu-kashmirs-instrument-accession-india/

Please go through the link as it also clarifies many of claims against the authenticity as well as those of the Maharaja signing this under duress.

Please let me know your thoughts on the same.

A rebuttal by whom ?

Who is this Venkatesh Nayak anyway who claims to have seen the original Instrument of Accession ? and who claims that it has been "rediscovered" ? His claim has zero credibility



The fact remains that India has failed to produce the original copy of the so called "Instrument of Accession" on any international forum (including UN)



And the UN doesn't consider this "Instrument of accession" as legally valid and complete as is clear from the successive resolutions passed by the Security Council (in 1948 and 1949):

The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite;

 

[Peshwa]

1)

a) International law clearly states that every treaty entered into by a member of the United Nations must be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations. "The Instrument of Accession" was neither presented to the United Nations nor to Pakistan. Hence India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.

http://thewire.in/76079/public-first-time-jammu-kashmirs-instrument-accession-india/

Based on the above, the document clearly exists and its location is known.
So except for the formality of submitting this document, its claim of not existing is moot.

b) The legality of the Instrument of Accession may also be questioned on grounds that it was obtained under coercion. The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void."..... India’s military intervention in Kashmir was provisional upon the Maharaja’s signing of the Instrument of Accession. More importantly, however, the evidence suggests that Indian troops were pouring into Srinigar even before the Maharaja had signed the treaty. This fact would suggest that the treaty was signed under duress.

This is an assumption that the IoA was signed under duress.
The quote by the ICJ is in reference to overarching guidelines. It is NOT in reference to the IoA.
So this is a claim and not a fact! ICJ has not provided any verdict on the authenticity nor the claim of being signed under duress.
In particular, the IoA further has signature of Lord Mountbatten, the representative for the crown. So in making your claim, you are also discrediting the authority that oversaw partition. I haven't seen any indication or claims refuting the authenticity of the IoA by the British government or its representatives.

c) The Maharaja had no authority to sign the treaty, hence the Instrument of Accession can be considered without legal standing . The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was hardly in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Hari Singh was in flight from the state capital, Srinigar. And it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power .....

According to the rules of partition, as overseen by the British, he has all the authority to do so.
Any claim made against the same needs to be verified by the British who were the authority on this matter with regards to partition. No such claim exists from the British.

Thus, an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Instrument of Accession shows that the accession of Kashmir to India was neither complete nor legal, as Delhi has vociferously contended for over sixty years.


Moreover, further shedding doubt on the treaty`s validity, in 1995 Indian authorities claimed that the original copy of the treaty (letter of accession) was either stolen or lost !!!

http://thewire.in/76079/public-first-time-jammu-kashmirs-instrument-accession-india/

Please refer to the same.

2)

Accession of Kashmir is different from accession of any other Indian Princely State as the accession has been placed before the UN Security Council for arranging a ratification or otherwise by the people of the State under the auspices of the United Nations. Therefore, the arrangement caused through the accession of 26 October 1947 has been taken over by the interests of 195 countries of the UN (including Pakistan as a member nation of UN and as a party). Pakistan as a party to the dispute administers two administrations of the State on its side of cease fire line.

I will have to get back to you on this point.

Thanks.

 

[M. Sarmad]

http://thewire.in/76079/public-first-time-jammu-kashmirs-instrument-accession-india/

Based on the above, the document clearly exists and its location is known.
So except for the formality of submitting this document, its claim of not existing is moot.



This is an assumption that the IoA was signed under duress.
The quote by the ICJ is in reference to overarching guidelines. It is NOT in reference to the IoA.
So this is a claim and not a fact! ICJ has not provided any verdict on the authenticity nor the claim of being signed under duress.
In particular, the IoA further has signature of Lord Mountbatten, the representative for the crown. So in making your claim, you are also discrediting the authority that oversaw partition. I haven't seen any indication or claims refuting the authenticity of the IoA by the British government or its representatives.




According to the rules of partition, as overseen by the British, he has all the authority to do so.
Any claim made against the same needs to be verified by the British who were the authority on this matter with regards to partition. No such claim exists from the British.





http://thewire.in/76079/public-first-time-jammu-kashmirs-instrument-accession-india/

Please refer to the same.





I will have to get back to you on this point.

Thanks.

You are referring to a blog written by Mr. Nobody and presenting it as your proof ?

 

[Peshwa]

A rebuttal by whom ?

Who is this Venkatesh Nayak anyway who claims to have seen the original Instrument of Accession ? and who claims that it has been "rediscovered" ? His claim has zero credibility

That's a bit rich. Didn't you just refer me to a paper by two fellows from a Stanford publication?

The Fate of Kashmir
International Law or Lawlessness?
BY VIKAS KAPUR AND VIPIN NARANG

What is their credibility?

The fact remains that India has failed to produce the original copy of the so called "Instrument of Accession" on any international forum (including UN)

I just provided you with a link that not only has a scan, but provides the exact location.
Pakistan and the UN can find this in the location. If not, then you can raise a brouhaha about it.
It has not been presented is not the same as it doesn't exist.

And the UN doesn't consider this "Instrument of accession" as legally valid and complete as is clear from the successive resolutions by the Security Council in 1948 and 1949:

This is a blatant lie and frankly borderline intellectual dishonesty.
The UN has not made any statement to doubt the authenticity of the IoA. If so please provide this exact statement. What you are referring to below is an interpretation based on perspective.

The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite;

This simply refers to a (non binding) recommendation for the method in which the dispute would be resolved, ie. through the will of people. This does not in any way make the IoA invalid. Unless you provide this exact statement by the UN that states the same. The above was because Nehru went to the UN to let the people decide.

To my point, the only "legal" document that makes a claim to ownership is with India. Pakistan has a moral claim or is party to a dispute but does not have any legal document to make claims.
Now how the dispute should be settled based on mediators (UN) and their recommendation is another matter all together.

You are referring to a blog written by Mr. Nobody and presenting it as your proof ?

A blog?! The write up has references and scanned copies of the actual IoA. Since you're the accuser, it is your responsibility to prove that the claims made are false. Else this is just a blatant exhibition of your biases.

So what makes your claim any better? You gave me a link to PDF and a Stanford paper..what authenticity do your claims have? Please elaborate.

Please, at least apply an even keel to the logic you're throwing in my face!

 

[M. Sarmad]

That's a bit rich. Didn't you just refer me to a paper by two fellows from a Stanford publication?

The Fate of Kashmir
International Law or Lawlessness?
BY VIKAS KAPUR AND VIPIN NARANG

What is their credibility?

That paper argues about the legality of the instrument of accession

Whereas in the blog you have referred to, an unknown man claims to have seen and rediscovered the original IoA. That IoA which had never been presented on any international forum by India, and which had been reported 'either lost or stolen' by the Indian authorities in 1995

You see no difference ??

I just provided you with a link that not only has a scan, but provides the exact location.
Pakistan and the UN can find this in the location. If not, then you can raise a brouhaha about it.
It has not been presented is not the same as it doesn't exist.

Well, the UN has a special secretariat for that purpose. Those who wish to get any documents registered with the UN simply go there with the "original" documents. But India never did that. Why ?? ... Most probably because no such document ever existed ...

This is a blatant lie and frankly borderline intellectual dishonesty.
The UN has not made any statement to doubt the authenticity of the IoA. If so please provide this exact statement. What you are referring to below is an interpretation based on perspective.

The UN may not have made any statement to doubt the authenticity of the IoA (and I never claimed that) BUT the UN does not consider IoA as legally valid and complete.

And no, I am not referring to any interpretation, I am quoting the "Exact Words" used by the UN:

THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Having received from the Governments of India and Pakistan in Communications, dated December
23 and December 25, 1948, respectively their acceptance of the following principles which are
supplementary to the Commission's Resolution of August 13, 1948;

1. The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be
decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite;

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/uncom2.htm

This simply refers to a (non binding) recommendation for the method in which the dispute would be resolved, ie. through the will of people. This does not in any way make the IoA invalid. Unless you provide this exact statement by the UN that states the same. The above was because Nehru went to the UN to let the people decide.

India itself took the matter to the UN, didn't it ? The UN didn't declare Pakistan an aggressor state, nor did it hold Pakistan responsible for halting the process. It was India which didn't let a plebiscite take place in Kashmir.

As for the binding nature of the UN Resolutions and India's chapter VI mantra:


The UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir are neither "Unenforceable" nor "Non-binding" ...


1) UN maintains that "NO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CAN BE DESCRIBED AS UNENFORCEABLE."


2) There always has been a general inability of the Permanent Five to agree upon imaginative and expansive applications of Chapter VI ... In Somalia, the Security Council deployed the UN's first operation, UNOSOM I, in mid-1992 to separate warring combatants and help delivery of humanitarian relief ....

UNOSOM I entered and operated without invoking Chapter VII

Further Reading: http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/6/1/1305.pdf



3) India approached UN under Chapter VI of the UN charter , BUT the decision taken by UN reflected that its resolutions were not based exclusively on this chapter .... The resolutions , apart from chapter VI , are based upon other chapters , including chapter VII

The fact that there does not exist any provision for the deputing of UN peace keeping mission under chapter VI makes it obvious that UN resolutions were not exclusively based on chapter VI .... The interim measures which included cease fire and deputation of United Nations Military Observer Group were based on Article 40 of chapter VII ...

Besides chapter VI and VII , UN resolutions are based on other chapters also(i.e Article 1 , Chapter I (2) and Article 55 , Chapter IX) ...

^^ And this is not my personal opinion. That is Rosalyn Higgins' opinion on 'Kashmir Resolutions and under which chapter they were passed' .. Source: 'Higgins, Rosalyn. United Nations Peace Keeping 1946-67: Documents and Commentary. London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1970. (349-51)

(Rosalyn Higgins is an expert on International Law; a Doctor of Juridical Science. She has served as a Judge in the International Court of Justice for fourteen years (and was elected President in 2006). Her competence has been recognised by many academic institutions, having received at least thirteen honorary doctorates)




4) While a recommendation under Chapter VI by itself "may not" be binding, this is not the case in the Kashmir dispute. Here, the parties have consented to be bound by the resolutions of 13 August and 5 January. (13 M. WHITEMAN, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 360 (1968).



5) The UNSC Resolutions endorsed a binding agreement between India and Pakistan reached through the mediation of UNCIP, that a plebiscite would be held, under agreed and specified conditions. A letter dated December 23, 1948, from India's Secretary-General of the Ministry of External Affairs to the Representative of UNCIP, stated that the Indian Prime Minister's acceptance of the 5 January resolution was conditioned on Pakistan's acceptance of the resolution. By this letter, India consented to be bound by the resolution of 5 January and, through this, the resolution of 13 August as well. (Aide Memoire No. 1, Letter Dated 23 December 1948 From the Secretary General of the Ministry of External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations of the Government of India to Mr. Alfredo Lozano, Representative of UNCIP at 23, U.N. Doc. S/1196 (1949)




6) Self-Determination as a Binding Rule of International Law

Four instances may inform the principle of self-determination with a legal dimension.

(i) The principle of self-determination is binding upon the parties, whether they have adopted it as the basis or as a criterion for the settlement of a particular issue or dispute. In the peace treaties after World War I, and in the cases of Kashmir (after 1948), the Saar Territory (1955), and Algeria’s struggle for independence, the principle of self-determination was chosen as a basis for negotiation, and in the Agreement on Ending War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam (1973) the parties expressly recognized the South Vietnamese people’s right to self-determination.


http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873





7) The binding nature of these UN resolutions (as acknowledged by Indian officials)



Finally some quotes from Indian officials on Kashmir exemplifying their commitment to plebiscite rather than forced accession as history has found them do :-

We adhere strictly to our pledge of plebiscite in Kashmir; a pledge made to the people because they believe in democratic government; We don't regard Kashmir as a commodity to be trafficked in -Krishna Menon (Press statement in London, reported in the Statesman, New Delhi, 2nd August, 1951)

The Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible -Letter from Govt. of India to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, 11th September, 1951

I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken.
-Krishna Menon (Statement at UN Security Council, 24th January, 1957)

The resolutions of January 17, 1948 and the resolutions of the UNICP, the assurances given, these are all resolutions which carry a greater weight; that is because we have accepted them, we are parties to them, whether we like them or not. -Krishna Menon, (Statement at UN Security Council, 20th February, 1957)

These documents (UNCIP reports) and declarations and the resolutions of the Security Council are decisions; they are resolutions, there has been some resolving of a question of one character or another, there has been a meeting of minds on this question where we have committed ourselves to it. -Krishna Menon, (Statement at the Security Council, 9th October, 1957)


India believes that sovereignty rests in the people and should return to them. -Krishna Menon, (The Statesman, Delhi, 19th January, 1962)





Therefore, India is bound by word and deed to leave the future of Kashmir to the will of its people.

 

[Peshwa]

That paper argues about the legality of the instrument of accession

Whereas in the blog you have referred to, an unknown man claims to have seen and rediscovered the original IoA. That IoA which had never been presented on an international forum and which had been reported 'either lost or stolen' by the Indian authorities in 1995

You see no difference ??

Actually none whatsoever.
The unknown man as you claim has a name and can be reached, similar to the two Stanford students who are merely using references, the same MO used by the "blogger". His references are at the bottom of the publication, as in the Stanford paper.

I also believe you skipped or failed to read his arguments about the authenticity of the IoA under the heading:
Is the J&K IOA held by the National Archives a genuine document?
Please go through and provide your arguments against his since you find those unacceptable.

The source and location of the IoA is available to you or anyone else that questions it. Please feel free to visit the archives and provide the forensic evidence to make your claim.

Well, the UN has a special secretariat for that purpose. Those who wish to get any documents registered with the UN simply go there with the "original" documents. But India never did that. Why ?? ... Most probably because such a document never existed ...

This is your claim and not proof that it doesn't exist. I repeat, not submitting is NOT the same as not existing. The "why" for which can only be answered by the Indian Govt. You are free to speculate nevertheless, but those only remain possible reasons, not the reason.

Since you're speculating on the "Why", let me ask you,
If Mountbatten signed this IoA, Then why hasn't the British Government backed up Pakistani claims of foul play? Why hasn't the British government come out openly to call the IoA as doctored or even under duress?
Can you share your thoughts on this?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Actually none whatsoever.

Okay then ... Let's leave it to the readers to decide whether they see any difference between "putting forward a legal argument" and "making an outrageous claim"

 

[Peshwa]

The UN may not have made any statement to doubt the authenticity of the IoA (and I never claimed that) BUT the UN does not consider IoA as legally valid and complete.

You are contradicting yourself.
If the UN doesn't consider the IoA as legally valid, it has to be clear in its stance. Since no such statements exist, the rest is a mere interpretation based on the method recommended by the UN to resolve the dispute. The below does not state AT ALL that the IoA is invalid or unauthentic.
From what I see here, you're simply reading between the lines based on what you want it to read.
Self fulfilling prophecy at most.

And no, I am not referring to any interpretation, I am quoting the "Exact Words" used by the UN:

HE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Having received from the Governments of India and Pakistan in Communications, dated December
23 and December 25, 1948, respectively their acceptance of the following principles which are
supplementary to the Commission's Resolution of August 13, 1948;

1. The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be
decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite;

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/uncom2.htm
.

 

[M. Sarmad]

This is your claim and not proof that it doesn't exist. I repeat, not submitting is NOT the same as not existing. The "why" for which can only be answered by the Indian Govt. You are free to speculate nevertheless, but those only remain possible reasons, not the reason.

Since you're speculating on the "Why", let me ask you,
If Mountbatten signed this IoA, Then why hasn't the British Government backed up Pakistani claims of foul play? Why hasn't the British government come out openly to call the IoA as doctored or even under duress?
Can you share your thoughts on this?

Since India had failed to produce that document on any international forum, the "existence" or "non-existence" of IoA doesn't make any difference now. It simply doesn't exist as it has not been registered with any international body.


The British didn't have to back up (or reject) Pakistan's claims of foul play as the IoA had become irrelevant once the accession of Kashmir to India was placed before the UN for ratification or otherwise (by the people of Jammu and Kashmir)

 

[Peshwa]

Okay then ... Let's leave it to the readers to decide whether they see any difference between "putting forward a legal argument" and "making an outrageous claim"

Again, if you want the reader to decide, why the need for the leading statements made against the arguments presented by both?
You my friend are clearly acting like judge jury and executioner here.
And I'm still perplexed how you got to the statement "putting forth a legal argument"....what makes one claim more credible in the eyes of the law?

 

[M. Sarmad]

You are contradicting yourself.
If the UN doesn't consider the IoA as legally valid, it has to be clear in its stance. Since no such statements exist, the rest is a mere interpretation based on the method recommended by the UN to resolve the dispute. The below does not state AT ALL that the IoA is invalid or unauthentic.
From what I see here, you're simply reading between the lines based on what you want it to read.
Self fulfilling prophecy at most.

I am not contradicting myself

You are unable to understand a very simple thing

As per the so called IoA, Kashmir had acceded to India

But As per UN, the final accession of Kashmir to India or Pakistan is yet to be decided (through a free and fair plebiscite)

 

[American Pakistani]

Which fundamental rights have been trampled upon, can you please elaborate?
Because the Indian constitution does not allow for states to seek independence from the union..
So unless India is trampling on the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution of India, which provide equal rights to all of its citizens, I fail to understand what the Kashmiris have been denied here?

Kashmir is not indian state but an occupied territory. Pull your 7 lakh indian occupier terrorists scum roaches out and see how many seconds it will take for them to merge with pakistan.

 

[Peshwa]

Since India had failed to produce that document on any international forum, the "existence" or "non-existence" of IoA doesn't make any difference now. It simply doesn't exist as it has not been registered with any international body.

I'm absolutely dumbfounded by this line of argument. It doesn't exist in the records of the UN, but the document does exist. One cannot just dismiss the authenticity or existence of IoA just because it wasn't submitted. The location and scans of which have been presented here through the link.
Its a different story if the IoA will be used to decide the fate of Kashmir.

The British didn't have to back up (or reject) Pakistan's claims of foul play as the IoA had become irrelevant once the accession of Kashmir to India was placed before the UN for ratification or otherwise (by the people of Jammu and Kashmir)

Your claim is that the document was straight up forged and if not forged, signed under duress.
Both claims easily verifiable by the British government.
They don't become irrelevant to the argument we are having regarding authenticity just because the fate of Kashmir was placed under the UN.
Now pray tell, why haven't the British corroborated your version of events on the accession.

I am not contradicting myself

You are unable to understand a very simple thing

As per the so called IoA, Kashmir had acceded to India

But As per UN, the final accession of Kashmir to India or Pakistan is yet to be decided (through a free and fair plebiscite)

My friend, its been fun chatting with you and I would love to continue this discussion further.
Nevertheless, there is a hot bowl of ramen and an angry girlfriend waiting for me, so I will have to catch you another time to settle our "feud"
Kashmir and its resolution can wait one more day.

Cheers!