Some posters here had speculated if you can read maps. Unfortunately, this comment is turning their speculation into fact. It appears you are not aware of how a region is marked on a map by identifying the co-ordinates of its extreme points. Also, if you had taken the trouble of reading the Gazette, you would have come across the physical description of Kashmir's boundaries as well.
Lolz...why dont you do me a favor and mark all the 'extreme' points and let us know what exactly constitutes of Kashmir?
i am waiting, let's see who is better at map-reading a soldier or ranter.
You have already answered your question. Refer to the line highlighted. The entire Kashmir was under Brit suzerainty since 1857. (If you don't know what suzerainty means, google.) When power was transferred to the Maharaja, circa 1947, it was transferred from the Brits and not from the Afghans or Pathans or Sikhs. So what held 'guud' to the Brits at the time of transfer of power became relevant, not what was 'guud' to the Afghans, Pathans or Sikhs during the stone age. Now since the Maharaja 'inherited' - for lack of better words - the entire Kashmir, hence on signing of Instrument of Accession, the entire Kashmir legally became India's property. Hence any reference to Kashmir includes the entire NA.
You know what, you posts puts me in a delima - should i laugh or should i bang my head at your stupidity.
Just because the great maharaja was given the 'entire' Kashmir so we ALL should take that point as the reference and forget what went before that. Voila!
Why dont you tell us all from which point of time in the history should we start accepting our history?
Lolz..the brits gave maharja something and therefore one should only consider this point worthy enough to make future decisions as if nothing else in the history merits any significance less the brits.
And BTW, i used the Pathans/Afghans for just a random reference, nothing specific. The same example can hold GUUD Mugals and Rajas.
One more thing. Kashmir was never completely held by any one entity, other than the Dogras, post 1860. Also since Ladakh was a conquest, by your logic it shouldn't be part of Kashmir as well.
And it is therefore that your intellect tells us that anything past/before this era is insignificant and useful.
You are so blinded by false superiority and perceived notions, ever heard of that
kowain ka mandaq? i doubt you had, or else by now you must have figured out a way to come out of that god forsaken hole!
I am going to hazard a guess that you have never been within a mile of a legal document, let alone prepare one. Anyway, the Pak-Chin agreement regarding Saksam Valley, is null and void because it is an ex parte agreement and not for all the gibberish you have typed.
i am soldier and not a LDA, so may be you can help me out on this one!
The decision was ex parte because the area was ours and ours alone, we consulted those who had a stake in the 'Saksam' valley and obviously not those who were merely irritants and nothing more!
Except for putting a question mark on the competence of the Pakistani legal team, it won't mean anything like you have suggested. Historically Balochistan was never a part of Kashmir, in the same way as Gilgit, Baltistan, Hunza and Ladakh provinces are. It will have the same validity if Mexico enters into a contract with USA subject to 'final solution to Kashmir'.
Well that's what you sounded like, dont blame me, question your intellect.