Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
To this I will say the same thing I had said to a friend of yours a while back.
This is called cognitive dissonance. A self-serving version of ‘reality’ has been drip fed to you by your State and you have convinced yourself that it is the truth. So when you are faced with the real ‘reality’ that completely contradicts your perceived ‘reality’, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for you to rationalize the dichotomy between what you perceive it should be and what you see it really is. Instinctively, you just reject the real ‘reality’, out of hand and cling on to your perception, because it is easier for you to rationalize your perception than the dichotomy.
It appears that your appetite for embarrassment is insatiable.
Speaking frankly your post doesnt merit a refutation as you already did that by doubting and vacillating betwixt and between the 'termination of the lease', anyway here's what Subroto Roy has to say about the events:Firstly, Article 2 of the Lease agreement recognizes that Gilgit was part of ‘dominions of His Highness, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir’ and undertakes, accordingly to ‘honour’ the tradition of the land and to hoist ‘the flag of His-Highness’ at the ‘official headquarters of the Agency, throughout the year’. It reads:
In recognition of the fact that the said territory continues to be included within the dominions of His Highness the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, salutes and customary honours shall be paid in the said territory by the administration on the occasion of the birth day of His Highness, Baisakhi, Dussehra, Basant Panchmi and on such other occasions as may be agreed upon by His Highness and the Viceroy and the Governor-General of India. The flag of His-Highness will be flown at the official headquarters of the Agency throughout the year.
Clearly, except for restricting it, the lease didn't end Maharaja's sovereignty over Gilgit. Also, the fact that the Brits took the lease from the Maharaja and not from any Afghans, Pathans, Sikhs or any pink giraffe under my bed, is an attestation of Maharaja's ownership of Gilgit.
Secondly, the lease agreement was officially terminated on 1st August, 1947, just before the transfer of power and Gilgit reverted back to the Maharaja. So when the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession he had complete ownership of Gilgit and as such the legal rights passed over to India on signing of the Instrument.
Thirdly, even if the lease agreement hadn’t been terminated just before the date of transfer of power, it still wouldn’t have made any difference, because according to Section 7(1)(b) of Indian Independence Act, 1947, all outstanding agreements between the British India and the Princely States stood automatically terminated.
For an even better and thorough debunking of your amusing claim, you may read this.
So soldier boy, are we done yet?
I was just listening to the song ''Regulators'', by Warren G.
Xeric I don't personally know you -- but you were the first person that come to my mind.
Infact the most easy thing to do when you yourself cant play is to bar others from playing too. The easiest thing one can do when he cant justify his claim is to post ostentatious replies and earn that cheap acknowledgments from his likes. The easiest thing to do when one cant prove the actual point is to pour in irrelevant BS and instead of discussing the matter at hand, argue over nondescript details!to indian --- draw your maps continue the yaps the realities on the ground speak for themselves. You should be the ones taking initiative to solve all your disputes (i stress the plural)
We have been trying this since long, but then someone on the east is shrewd enough to find an excuse to jeopardize the entire peace process.To move forward, you need a good relations with your neighbours. For our own success, we need good relations with neighbours --including the one on the east.
What bothers me is the the blatant refusal of crime against humanity that had been commited by india forces in Kashmir, moreover instead of mending ones own house they have the cheeks to tell the freedom fighters not to finger them. Infact the indians have mastered dirty-tactics and we see that evident in every move made by india. They probably think that by extorting the innocents they may subdue the fight against aggression, but they forget (as you very correctly have pointed out) that they would reap what they have always sown!Mr Harish -- Kashmir is a land dispute. Not a dispute over people. Being a Muslim majority region, it is inevitable that we will stand in solidarity to the people there facing injustices. And many injustices have taken place. You already know this fact. India reaps what it sows in Kashmir. It plays dirty politics, practises state sponsored terrorism, deception, manipulation, abuses human rights, and terrorizes the lives of millions. And then when majority in Kashmir is not happy, India whines and cries and offers excuses and justifications for its rogue behaviour.
i think they have forgotten the time when the regular indian forces at the LoC used to turn their faces away from the infiltrating fighters (so that they dont have to engage them - or should i say, the infiltrators should spare their poor lives).Any resistance you meet there is purely Kashmiri phenomenon in pure powder form. Always you are accusing Pakistan of sending militants from our soil; I wont deny that there are no cross border infilitrations; but most of your media and official stories are bullshits.
for God's sakes, you even arrest a Pakistani pigeon and put it in detention center......hysteria and paranoia will only cause you to grow more gray hairs and maintain certain psychological complexes that keep you from ''running smoothly''
any valuable intel from ''pigeon'' ?? Has the serum been administered, and if so, is the little bugger talking yet?
LOLLLLLLLLLLL
to indian --- draw your maps continue the yaps the realities on the ground speak for themselves. You should be the ones taking initiative to solve all your disputes (i stress the plural)
To move forward, you need a good relations with your neighbours. For our own success, we need good relations with neighbours --including the one on the east.
Mr Harish -- Kashmir is a land dispute. Not a dispute over people. Being a Muslim majority region, it is inevitable that we will stand in solidarity to the people there facing injustices. And many injustices have taken place. You already know this fact. India reaps what it sows in Kashmir. It plays dirty politics, practises state sponsored terrorism, deception, manipulation, abuses human rights, and terrorizes the lives of millions. And then when majority in Kashmir is not happy, India whines and cries and offers excuses and justifications for its rogue behaviour.
Any resistance you meet there is purely Kashmiri phenomenon in pure powder form. Always you are accusing Pakistan of sending militants from our soil; I wont deny that there are no cross border infilitrations; but most of your media and official stories are bullshits.
P-O-K,NA on the Pak side, J&K on the Indian side are disputed territories whose fate will be sealed thru the referendum wen the time is ripe for it.
Not on you, I know.Infact as you have gone immune to to 'embarrassment' you try to cloak it by posting it all over others. As we have also seen that you have been short of logic lately, so you instead of posting any relevant details, resort to these yaps in order to gain cheap popularity. It aint working doc!
I am responding to your very specific claim that any reference to J&K doesnt include GB. For example:BTW, let's be clear on this atleast; what exactly have you been trying to prove since the day you landed here in this thread? Is it that once (upon a time) Gilgit was part of J & K or that the 'happening's post 1935 and especially 31 July 1947 by virtue of which Giglit became Pakistan is the point that bothers you? Seriously i find your posts quite intuitionalized!
Since you wanted a map, I had given you one right from the horses mouth The Imperial Gazetteer of India (1908). You found it so hard to explain away that you started narrating history from the troglodyte era.the fact remains that no independent source, western mapping agencies and international map makers agree with you. They all have been delineating NA and AK in such a way that both of these areas shown OUT of J & K. So if someone want to prove the opposite he needs to quote a map that i posted in my post # 1082, but then it should be from a credible and independent source and not some BR shyt!
It was you who referred to that lease as a last ditch attempt to make your point that Gilgit wasnt a part of Kashmir, at least not at the time of transfer of power. Little did you know that the lease agreement explicitly recognized the Maharajas sovereignty over Gilgit and the Brits had eventually retroceded Gilgit to Maharaja right before transfer of power. You would refute if you knew how to.Speaking frankly your post doesnt merit a refutation as you already did that by doubting and vacillating betwixt and between the 'termination of the lease'...
Mr Roy is right that India never had a de facto control over Gilgit. But then India didnt have de facto control over any part of Kashmir between August and October, 1947. On and from 26th Oct, 1947 India got de jure ownership of Kashmir by virtue of Instrument of accession. However it was only upto the current LoC that India could establish de facto control and the rest of Kashmir to the west of LoC has remained de jure. This is actually a strawman argument since no Indian claims de facto ownership and control of NA and AJK. It is the de jure ownership that India claims of.anyway here's what Subroto Roy has to say about the events:
The actions of the then-new British Dominion of Pakistan with respect to Gilgit in August-November 1947 were tantamount to ending the status in international law of the old State of Jammu & Kashmir that had originated in 1846. The then-new British Dominion of India did not ever have de facto control of Gilgit as a result. Hence, Gilgit never belonged to India. Due to Pakistans action in Gilgit and then later the attack commencing October 22, the old State of J&K disintegrated between August and October 1947 into an ownerless entity in international law. Its territories came to be annexed by military decision by the new Pakistan and new India, and hence we have the LOC being the valid demarcation in international law.
This is called shooting in the foot, just like your reference to that lease. I will come to it shortly. If simply taking over the area from the current owner, who had forcefully taken over that piece of land, is enough to be considered as part of Pakistan, then how come acceding on the basis of Instrument of accession, signed by the current owner of Kashmir and vetted by the largest opposition party in Kashmir, is not a valid way of acceding Kashmir to India? Both the cases are principally same taken over from the owner without a plebiscite (although in Indias case it is based on a recognized legal set up).Apart from above the the following says the same thing but as it comes from an independent source, it might be able to push some sense into you Islamic Republic of Gilgit 1947 (Pakistan)
A closer look at the above mentioned link would also refute some of the claims (especially the one saying: As far as the formation of an Islamic Republic of Gilgit in 1947 is concerned it was not recognized by anybody, not even by the government of Pakistan. The latter, however, entered into what came to be known as Karachi Agreement on April 28, 1951) as infact, The Republic came to an end on November 16,1947 with the arrival of the Pakistani Agent, Sardar Mohammad Alam, who took the area into Pakistani possession.
Sorry not interested...we r fine with the ground realities in Kashmir and we know how to deal with them.
Absolutely my friend....we need good relations to move forward...but if that forward growth is at the cost of the territorial integrity of my country...sorry we r not interested in that "moving forward".
I (whole of India) would not like/let the blood of countless martyrs who spilled their blood in the 4 wars and in terrorist acts go in vain.
Comeon....we all know better..Pakistan has its lifeline (rivers) flowing thru Kashmir and thence controlled by India.
So please dont try to mask ur strategic interest in Kashmir with a benevolent goal.
If so concerned abt ppl of Kashmir pls take note its because of the cross border infiltration the IA is there in Kashmir and hence the "so called" state terrorism,human rights violations etc etc.
Stop supporting cross border infiltration...IA will have no reason to be in Kashmir and hence everything turns out to be good.
I think LeT,JeM are as Kashmiri as OBL is American...So wats their business in Kashmir..?
And regarding the pure Kashmiri phenomenon thing....I just have one word...Dont get fooled by thinking the whole of Kashmir is Geelani type.
P-O-K,NA on the Pak side, J&K on the Indian side are disputed territories whose fate will be sealed thru the referendum wen the time is ripe for it
Till tat as u guys say P-O-K and NA will be parts of Pakistan and J&K will be part of India.Period.
what is this nonsense? If everything is fine, then why are the issues not solved or addressed yet?
''sorry not interested''
Indeed things weren't perfect but not so messed up like today until u tried to replicate an Afghanistan in Kashmir! death by 1000 cuts, wasn't it the call?
You are a thickhead as ever. If i would pick up a map of the 1700s it would still probably show the 13 Colonies under the English control!Not on you, I know.
Let me answer your last question first.
I am responding to your very specific claim that any reference to J&K doesn’t include GB. For example:
Since you wanted a map, I had given you one right from the horse’s mouth – The Imperial Gazetteer of India (1908). You found it so hard to explain away that you started narrating history from the troglodyte era.
You are again just shyting out just anything that land on your head.Anyway, my point is that since Pakistan considers entire Kashmir as something ‘pending final solution’, GB, being a part of Kashmir, is therefore, not yet a part of Pakistan. This in turn means that by virtue of Instrument of Accession, legally it still belongs to India, irrespective of history of Kashmir, during the era of troglodytes. Now if Pakistan wants to reach a ‘final solution’ as envisaged by UN resolutions, GB must also come under plebiscite. But before that, the preconditions to plebiscites, viz complete withdrawal of Pak nationals and army from GB has to be performed in the same manner as it is to be performed in AJK.
So now you feel defeated, get up boy we still have to go a long way.I am least bothered by what goes on in GB and frankly I wouldn’t give an ant’s azz if Pak incorporates GB as part of Pakistan. But when Pakistanis, such as yourself, scream and shout about plebiscite as per UN resolutions I feel like reminding them that it would put Pakistanis in greater discomfort than Indians.
It was AbuNow coming back to your claim that GB was never a part of Kashmir and by extension India do not have any locus standi on GB.
What a d!c...Before that let me remind you that on 31st July, 1947, Pakistan didn’t exist for GB to be part of it. Amusing part is that you don’t know the date of your country’s birth and here you are debating about Kashmir’s history.
It was due on 1 Aug, did it happen?It was you who referred to that lease as a last ditch attempt to make your point that Gilgit wasn’t a part of Kashmir, at least not at the time of transfer of power. Little did you know that the lease agreement explicitly recognized the Maharaja’s sovereignty over Gilgit and the Brits had eventually retroceded Gilgit to Maharaja right before transfer of power. You would refute if you knew how to.
Mr Roy is right that India never had a de facto control over Gilgit.
But then India didn’t have de facto control over any part of Kashmir between August and October, 1947. On and from 26th Oct, 1947 India got de jure ownership of Kashmir by virtue of Instrument of accession. However it was only upto the current LoC that India could establish de facto control and the rest of Kashmir to the west of LoC has remained de jure. This is actually a strawman argument since no Indian claims de facto ownership and control of NA and AJK. It is the de jure ownership that India claims of.
Above, is something palaver and intellectually vacuous; ignored!This is called shooting in the foot, just like your reference to that lease. I will come to it shortly. If simply ‘taking over’ the area from the current ‘owner’, who had forcefully taken over that piece of land, is enough to be considered as part of Pakistan, then how come acceding on the basis of Instrument of accession, signed by the current owner of Kashmir and vetted by the largest opposition party in Kashmir, is not a valid way of acceding Kashmir to India? Both the cases are principally same – ‘taken over’ from the ‘owner’ without a plebiscite (although in India’s case it is based on a recognized legal set up).
Nevertheless, it is again invalid argument, since the de jure ownership had already passed on to India on 26th Oct, 1947 and the calendar I follow shows Oct to precede Nov.
Now about foot shooting. The article opens thus:
‘In August 1947, the Governor-General of the Union of India, Lord Mountbatten of Burma, negotiated with the Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, the accession of his domain to the Union of India, that included the Northern Area, known commonly as Gilgit-Baltistan, which were assigned by the British only recently to the Maharaja of Kashmir.’
This is the second time I have used your source to disprove your claim that Gilgit-Baltistan is/was not a part of J&K.
You mean like this: ..??If I start facepalming, I have to do that for so many times I might just end up hurting my face. So pardon me if instead of facepalming I do a whole lot of ROFLOL.
Absolutly not - referrendum was out of the question when the armed insurgency began. All pro-India elements in Kashmir were brutally rooted out , be it Kashmiri pundits or pro-India groups of Muslim origin, the only ones allowed to survive were those who had seperatist agendas or were direct proxies of Pakistan.
Violence and armed movement meant an end to the possibility of referrendum.