In case of referendum, we will vote for India: Top Gilgit-Baltistan leader

[czar]

Senior Gilgit-Baltistan leader Abdul Hamid Khan claims the region will vote en-masse to join India, in case of referendum. While addressing a gathering in Gilgit, Hamid accused Pakistan of unleashing atrocities against the inhabitants of the disputed province. He further alleged arrest of dozens of human rights activists who have opposed the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which would pass through Gilgit-Baltistan and areas of Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK).

“If referendum happens, people will vote for India. They never committed atrocities on us. Neither have they ever attempted to occupy our land. Instead, it was Pakistan who took over our territory without the will of the inhabitants,” Hamid said.

Accusing Pakistan of maintaining turbulence in the disputed territory, Hamid pointed that India “never initiated war” in the region. Siachen was taken back by India only after the cowardly army of Pakistan attacked the neighbouring nation, he added.

www.india.com/news/india/in-case-of...or-india-top-gilgit-baltistan-leader-2082481/

 

[Syed1]

Hahahahahahhaha... okay dear. The rest of the 99% will always vote for Pakistan.

 

[TM Riddle]

Mashallah what a twist.Give this guy an Indian citizenship already.

 

[santos11]

Are Baltic disgruntled with Pakistan government for some reason?

 

[pakistanigoneaussie]

to put this into context, he is a separatist party that has one seat in parliament


if such issues and that of Kashmir went to a vote, as it should it would be independence or joining with Pakistan, either of which we should support

 

[pakistanigoneaussie]

Are Baltic disgruntled with Pakistan government for some reason?

plans are being made to make Gilgit officially a 5th province of Pakistan, that and people have to understand how politics works. India is going through a crap PR phase with whats happening in Kashmir, Pakistan's proxies are getting attention, so it wouldnt surprise me if this guy got a message as well, hence why he direcetly mentions India.

This is the way global politics works

 

[DW44]

If this was coming from certain parts of Balochistan, I'd at least consider the possibility of there being some merit to this statement but GB, seriously? It's just some guy talking out of his rear end and there's zero public support for this nonsense in GB.

 

[bleaf27]

Slap on the face for some of the posters here who have been living in denial over the Balochistan atrocities and so not in touch with the ground reality

 

[bleaf27]

Are Baltic disgruntled with Pakistan government for some reason?

Considering it's been Pakistan's biggest civil war, the list is quite lengthy

 

[pakistanigoneaussie]

Slap on the face for some of the posters here who have been living in denial over the Balochistan atrocities and so not in touch with the ground reality

At least read they title and article before commenting

Its BALISTAN not Baluchistan


Guess it shows your level of engagement

 

[TM Riddle]

At least read they title and article before commenting

Its BALISTAN not Baluchistan


Guess it shows your level of engagement

I think it might be Baltistan

 

[Syed1]

Slap on the face for some of the posters here who have been living in denial over the Balochistan atrocities and so not in touch with the ground reality

You just revealed your IQ level (not that we didn't know it already)

The guy is talking about Gilgit-Baltistan or Azad Kashmir, not Baluchistan.

 

[bleaf27]

You just revealed your IQ level (not that we didn't know it already)

The guy is talking about Gilgit-Baltistan or Azad Kashmir, not Baluchistan.

Oh my bad , misread the title. Doesn't reflect on my IQ - more an early morning read. Calm down bro

 

[Subaltern]

Not surprising, since India has played by the UN referendum, Pakistan hasn't, India has kept territorial integrity of J&K its top agenda, while Pakistan has already violated J&K territorial integrity by giving Shaksgam tract to China and while J&K is the top subsidized state in India, Balwaristan is the 2nd worst funded part of Pakistan after Baluchistan.
If one isn't brainwashed by 'unity of ummah' nonsense, they'd pick India too over Pakistan, if they are from PoK.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Not surprising, since India has played by the UN referendum, Pakistan hasn't, India has kept territorial integrity of J&K its top agenda, while Pakistan has already violated J&K territorial integrity by giving Shaksgam tract to China and while J&K is the top subsidized state in India, Balwaristan is the 2nd worst funded part of Pakistan after Baluchistan.
If one isn't brainwashed by 'unity of ummah' nonsense, they'd pick India too over Pakistan, if they are from PoK.

I think Kashmir and Balochistan should be given the opportunity to vote in referendum on their future, whether with India, Pakistan or independence. What do you say?

 

[Subaltern]

I think Kashmir and Balochistan should be given the opportunity to vote in referendum on their future, whether with India, Pakistan or independence. What do you say?

Absolutely. But for that to happen in Kashmir's case, the ball is in Pakistan's court. UNSC long since ruled that for referendum to happen in Kashmir, Pakistan must vacate PoK and remove all Pakistani citizens (who are not natives of Kashmir) from the region. That is step #1 of the resolution.
As soon as Pakistan complies to step #1, the burden shifts to India as the 'bad guy',if India does nothing. But for now, its Pakistan that is standing in the way of Kashmiri referendum and is the bad guy.

 

[Moiza]

In my experience Gilgitis are the most patriotic Pakistanis of all, a little too patriotic at times.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Absolutely. But for that to happen in Kashmir's case, the ball is in Pakistan's court. UNSC long since ruled that for referendum to happen in Kashmir, Pakistan must vacate PoK and remove all Pakistani citizens (who are not natives of Kashmir) from the region. That is step #1 of the resolution.
As soon as Pakistan complies to step #1, the burden shifts to India as the 'bad guy',if India does nothing. But for now, its Pakistan that is standing in the way of Kashmiri referendum and is the bad guy.

Sounds like utter BS. How would it be determined who are native Kashmiris and who aren't? If this is the sorry state of India's position ( let's not pretend it's UNSC) then the thread is a waste of time and little more than the usual trolling on this issue.

 

[Subaltern]

Sounds like utter BS. How would it be determined who are native Kashmiris and who aren't? If this is the sorry state of India's position ( let's not pretend it's UNSC) then the thread is a waste of time and little more than the usual trolling on this issue.

How is that BS ? UNSC recognizes India is the sovereign on Kashmir. For a sovereign to have a referendum in its territory, it has to be in control of it, to represent its rights. Give us an example, where independence referendum has happened in a land partially occupied by a foreign invading force.

As for how we'd determine who is Kashmiri and who isn't, i hope Pakistan keeps birth certificates since Independence. In keeping with the UNSC resolution, someone born to people inhabiting Kashmir circa 1947 would be considered kashmiri. People born to people arriving in Kashmir post 1947 are not going to be considered Kashmiris.

PS: This isn't just India's position. This is UNSC's position. We went to the UNSC, we accepted the verdict. Pakistan is the one in violation of it. And therefore, there will be no independence, ever, for Kashmir, regardless of the bodycount, unless Pakistan withdraws and prevents India from using the legal position.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

How is that BS ? UNSC recognizes India is the sovereign on Kashmir. For a sovereign to have a referendum in its territory, it has to be in control of it, to represent its rights. Give us an example, where independence referendum has happened in a land partially occupied by a foreign invading force.

As for how we'd determine who is Kashmiri and who isn't, i hope Pakistan keeps birth certificates since Independence. In keeping with the UNSC resolution, someone born to people inhabiting Kashmir circa 1947 would be considered kashmiri. People born to people arriving in Kashmir post 1947 are not going to be considered Kashmiris.

PS: This isn't just India's position. This is UNSC's position. We went to the UNSC, we accepted the verdict. Pakistan is the one in violation of it. And therefore, there will be no independence, ever, for Kashmir, regardless of the bodycount, unless Pakistan withdraws and prevents India from using the legal position.

Please tell me how the UNSC proposes the vacation procedure of Kashmir to be implemented on Pakistan's side. Let's see the written proposal If you are claiming it is their position rather than Indian propaganda.

 

[Subaltern]

Please tell me how the UNSC proposes the vacation procedure of Kashmir to be implemented on Pakistan's side. Let's see the written proposal If you are claiming it is their position rather than Indian propaganda.

That is for Pakistan to figure out and for India to verify, under UNSC auspices. But fact remains, UNSC has stated Pakistan must butt out of kashmir before anything happens.

Here is the UNSC official document. Scroll to section A of S/726 on page 4. I shall remind you, this is official UN website and official UN document.
Also keep in mind, this document is officially endorsed by Argentina, Canada, USA, People's Republic of China, USSR , UK, France, Syria and Columbia.


http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/51(1948)

 

[PakLFC]

I don't see the people of Gilgit Baltistan walking around with Indian flags. Most likely this man making such comments has not even asked the people what they want. Also look at the source of the story as well, http://www.india.com/news/india/in-c...eader-2082481/#sthash.crsW2jeV.dpuf Probably Arnab Goswami is behind this so called report!

 

[Subaltern]

I don't see the people of Gilgit Baltistan walking around with Indian flags. Most likely this man making such comments has not even asked the people what they want. Also look at the source of the story as well, http://www.india.com/news/india/in-c...eader-2082481/#sthash.crsW2jeV.dpuf Probably Arnab Goswami is behind this so called report!

Yes, because waving Indian flags in Balawaristan while Pakistani Army is sitting there, is such a smart idea.
Your army has killed a far higher proportion AND NUMBER of Pakistani citizens in military action, than Republic of India has. Should you wish to challenge this, i can provide independent 3rd party evidence.

So yeah, i don't the residents of Balawaristan are mad enough to do that.

 

[PakLFC]

Yes, because waving Indian flags in Balawaristan while Pakistani Army is sitting there, is such a smart idea.
Your army has killed a far higher proportion AND NUMBER of Pakistani citizens in military action, than Republic of India has. Should you wish to challenge this, i can provide independent 3rd party evidence.

So yeah, i don't the residents of Balawaristan are mad enough to do that.

No they are not! I have been all over Pak even Baluchistan so know more then you do. Have you been to naxal infested regions, IoK or the seven sisters region. If you don't care what any reports says then why should I!! Anything you provide will dismissed at the blink of an eye. Equally I can also provide independent sources of atrocities of your soldiers an various parts of the country. The picture of many women standing holding a card with "Indian soldiers r..." us is" well know to everyone. There is a presence of the military in Pak Kashmir but no way near what yours is in IoK.

 

[hafeezrocks]

He is separatist traitor, and most of the people of GB are exactly opposite.

 

[enkidu_]

Abdul Hamid Khan is perhaps senior but not a "senior" even less "top" leader of GB. He's a well known separatist who perhaps has no real following in his own village, let alone mobilizing some ghostly legitimacy enough to become the Nelson Mandela of the hypothetically downtrodden masses of the region.

 

[syed abbas]

Top GB leader.Are you serious.He is not popular in GB.His words do not represent the wishes of majority in GB.GB residents do not want independence.
However,it is fact the national government has deprived GB of its rights.There is a growing sense of alienation among masses.If government does not take steps to address the concerns of GB,things will get worse.

 

[boomboomcheema]

Top GB leader.Are you serious.He is not popular in GB.His words do not represent the wishes of majority in GB.GB residents do not want independence.
However,it is fact the national government has deprived GB of its rights.There is a growing sense of alienation among masses.If government does not take steps to address the concerns of GB,things will get worse.

Anyone who spews anti -Pakistan venom becomes an influential leader in Indian media.

 

[Slog]

Are Baltic disgruntled with Pakistan government for some reason?

I was touring the region last year and the locals complained that they are not being given provincial status in Pakistan which is stopping. Them from getting their fair share of rights

 

[Slog]

In my experience Gilgitis are the most patriotic Pakistanis of all, a little too patriotic at times.

Haha yea

They were complaining of not being given provincial status in Pakistan. Lol at wanting to seperate

 

[JaDed]

Haha yea

They were complaining of not being given provincial status in Pakistan. Lol at wanting to seperate

Maybe that's what he wants Pakistan to do,could be a good game if that's true,for an Indian GOV that would be the best gift from Pakistan.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

That is for Pakistan to figure out and for India to verify, under UNSC auspices. But fact remains, UNSC has stated Pakistan must butt out of kashmir before anything happens.

Here is the UNSC official document. Scroll to section A of S/726 on page 4. I shall remind you, this is official UN website and official UN document.
Also keep in mind, this document is officially endorsed by Argentina, Canada, USA, People's Republic of China, USSR , UK, France, Syria and Columbia.


http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/51(1948)

It's from 1948. What next? Will you be producing some document signed by the Sultan of Mysore decreeing the British must withdraw from land held by the Moghuls before their arrival in the 19th century?

 

[Subaltern]

It's from 1948. What next? Will you be producing some document signed by the Sultan of Mysore decreeing the British must withdraw from land held by the Moghuls before their arrival in the 19th century?

No, we are going to produce the last valid resolution that Pakistan hasn't complied with.
Otherwise we will be setting the precedent of officially accepting ' anyone can barge in part of our land, sit there for 70 years and then claim legitimacy there'. No country would allow that.

 

[Subaltern]

No they are not! I have been all over Pak even Baluchistan so know more then you do. Have you been to naxal infested regions, IoK or the seven sisters region. If you don't care what any reports says then why should I!! Anything you provide will dismissed at the blink of an eye. Equally I can also provide independent sources of atrocities of your soldiers an various parts of the country. The picture of many women standing holding a card with "Indian soldiers r..." us is" well know to everyone. There is a presence of the military in Pak Kashmir but no way near what yours is in IoK.

I too have been in Pakistan. I am not an Indian passport holder. Haven't been for longer than most kids have been alive on this forum. True, I haven't been to PoK, but I have to Baluchistan. So keep your propaganda for the Indians who don't know what Pakistan is actually like.

It doesnt change the fact that Paksitani army has murdered far more citizens of Pakistan than Indian army has.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I too have been in Pakistan. I am not an Indian passport holder. Haven't been for longer than most kids have been alive on this forum. True, I haven't been to PoK, but I have to Baluchistan. So keep your propaganda for the Indians who don't know what Pakistan is actually like.

It doesnt change the fact that Paksitani army has murdered far more citizens of Pakistan than Indian army has.

Your referral to Pakistan territory as PoK pretty much sums up your one-eyed view on this matter so pointless debating anyway. Enjoy your welcome on Pakistan boards.

 

[Subaltern]

Your referral to Pakistan territory as PoK pretty much sums up your one-eyed view on this matter so pointless debating anyway. Enjoy your welcome on Pakistan boards.

It is not Pakistani territory because Pakistan has no legal sovereign rights over Kashmir. That isn't one-eyed, that is following international convention and protocol.
One doesn't call illegally annexed territory as 'legal domains'.

The reason this debate is pointless is because Pakistanis have not demonstrated a legally valid position over Kashmir and are unable to accept that simple fact.

 

[big_gamer007]

Your referral to Pakistan territory as PoK pretty much sums up your one-eyed view on this matter so pointless debating anyway. Enjoy your welcome on Pakistan boards.

So every Pakistani here can call Indian Kashmir as IOK but one if Indian says POK he's biased? Hypocrites..

 

[big_gamer007]

It is not Pakistani territory because Pakistan has no legal sovereign rights over Kashmir. That isn't one-eyed, that is following international convention and protocol.
One doesn't call illegally annexed territory as 'legal domains'.

The reason this debate is pointless is because Pakistanis have not demonstrated a legally valid position over Kashmir and are unable to accept that simple fact.

You are new here mate, first of all welcome to the board.. The points you are raising has been raised multiple times ultimately you will get bored and stop the discussion on Kashmir else quit the forums.. Whatever you say no one here is going to believe it similarly whatever the other side say no Indian will believe.. But enjoy debating while it's fun for you..

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

So every Pakistani here can call Indian Kashmir as IOK but one if Indian says POK he's biased? Hypocrites..

Refusing to accept outside arbitration or UN plebiscite and saying Kashmir is India's internal matter when it suits you, then producing UN reports from 1948 when it doesn't....that is what I call hypocrisy.

Oh, and we don't need half a million soldiers to subdue citizens in Pakistani Kashmir. That is why we don't need to call it occupied territory. Understand now?

 

[Subaltern]

You are new here mate, first of all welcome to the board.. The points you are raising has been raised multiple times ultimately you will get bored and stop the discussion on Kashmir else quit the forums.. Whatever you say no one here is going to believe it similarly whatever the other side say no Indian will believe.. But enjoy debating while it's fun for you..

If Pakistanis don't want to believe official UNSC judgment, that shows denial of reality. As i said, i am not interested in he-said/she-said media skullduggery. I am interested in legally valid, internationally endorsed facts.

And the legally valid, internationally signed fact is, Pakistan is the road-block to Kashmiri self determination. That is not an opinion, that is a fact substantiated by official UN documents.

 

[big_gamer007]

Refusing to accept outside arbitration or UN plebiscite and saying Kashmir is India's internal matter when it suits you, then producing UN reports from 1948 when it doesn't....that is what I call hypocrisy.

Oh, and we don't need half a million soldiers to subdue citizens in Pakistani Kashmir. That is why we don't need to call it occupied territory. Understand now?

What a load of crap if you say Kashmir is a disputed territory then fine mean t for both Indian and Pakistani Kashmir... Anyways I don't wanna get into a debate with people like you over Kashmir issue so you can keep believing what you want, I'll just point out the hypocrisy in posts whenever I see..

 

[Subaltern]

Refusing to accept outside arbitration or UN plebiscite and saying Kashmir is India's internal matter when it suits you, then producing UN reports from 1948 when it doesn't....that is what I call hypocrisy.

Oh, and we don't need half a million soldiers to subdue citizens in Pakistani Kashmir. That is why we don't need to call it occupied territory. Understand now?

What hypocrasy has been shown by me ? I have said that India is the legal sovereign of Kashmir. That is recognized in the UNSC resolution indirectly, since it stipulates that India is allowed to post troops all over Kashmir, after Pakistan withdraws, to maintain minimum law and order. UN charter recognizes that ONLY THE SOVEREIGN of a territory has legal rights to position military in said territory without invitation. Ergo, India is the legal sovereign of Kashmir. This is also substantiated by the fact that sovereigns status of Kashmir directly and bilaterally passed from sovereign of Kashmir (Maharaja) to Republic of India.


PoK is officially occupied territory, since Pakistan has no sovereign rights in kashmir, its forces are therefore, occupying forces in Kashmir. Just like how Pakistani troops in Sindh are not occupying forces but present in their own sovereign lands, so too are Indian troops in Indian Kashmir.

Those are not opinions, those are legally established facts in the international committee. This is why Kashmir is no longer in the UN list of disputed territory. Because a dispute requires legally valid position from both sides. In Kashmir's case, only one side has legally valid position. Therefore, Kashmir is a partially occupied territory, not disputed. UN also recognizes this.

 

[big_gamer007]

If Pakistanis don't want to believe official UNSC judgment, that shows denial of reality. As i said, i am not interested in he-said/she-said media skullduggery. I am interested in legally valid, internationally endorsed facts.

And the legally valid, internationally signed fact is, Pakistan is the road-block to Kashmiri self determination. That is not an opinion, that is a fact substantiated by official UN documents.

Mate point I was making is that whatever legal proof or any other proof you produce the other side won't accept.. There is 1 thread a week on Kashmir here on PP same old people post same old things.. You'll understand it in a few months what I mean..

 

[Subaltern]

Mate point I was making is that whatever legal proof or any other proof you produce the other side won't accept.. There is 1 thread a week on Kashmir here on PP same old people post same old things.. You'll understand it in a few months what I mean..

And i am fine with that. If two plaintiffs go to courts for a judgement and then one plaintiff wants to negotiate the award or reject it, it is worthwhile exposing the said plaintiff as in violation of the procedure and thus, having no case.

Most Pakistanis who argue over Kashmir and 'want to negotiate' the UNSC judgement, do not realize, that verdicts are appeal-able, not the awards. Ie, if the court pronounces you guilty of murder and awards you 20 years in jail, you can appeal the guilty verdict. You cannot appeal the award (20 years in jail).
This is simple legalism 101.
That is why, UNSC award is non-negotiable. If Pakistan thinks it disputes UNSC verdict, it is free to go to ICJ to challenge it. But since it has not gone to ICJ and challenged it, the verdict of UNSC stands, until such a point. Again, this is basic legalism.

 

[big_gamer007]

And i am fine with that. If two plaintiffs go to courts for a judgement and then one plaintiff wants to negotiate the award or reject it, it is worthwhile exposing the said plaintiff as in violation of the procedure and thus, having no case.

Most Pakistanis who argue over Kashmir and 'want to negotiate' the UNSC judgement, do not realize, that verdicts are appeal-able, not the awards. Ie, if the court pronounces you guilty of murder and awards you 20 years in jail, you can appeal the guilty verdict. You cannot appeal the award (20 years in jail).
This is simple legalism 101.
That is why, UNSC award is non-negotiable. If Pakistan thinks it disputes UNSC verdict, it is free to go to ICJ to challenge it. But since it has not gone to ICJ and challenged it, the verdict of UNSC stands, until such a point. Again, this is basic legalism.

I did not know all that good to learn new things.. Are you a lawyer by profession?

 

[Subaltern]

I did not know all that good to learn new things.. Are you a lawyer by profession?

No, but i have worked in international affairs before career change. This is why I've been to Pakistan several times in the past, representing 'Khan'. International affairs is heavily centred around international law. We are not as educated in law as lawyers, but we are educated in the legal procedure and legalism in the narrower, international affairs context.


PS: 'Khan' is the code-name for USA in international affairs arena.

 

[big_gamer007]

No, but i have worked in international affairs before career change. This is why I've been to Pakistan several times in the past. International affairs is heavily centred around international law. We are not as educated in law as lawyers, but we are educated in the legal procedure and legalism in the narrower, international affairs context.

Ahh ok that's cool, well welcome to PP again.. Looking forward to reading your posts in future..

 

[Subaltern]

Ahh ok that's cool, well welcome to PP again.. Looking forward to reading your posts in future..

Thank you.

 

[Subaltern]

And i am fine with that. If two plaintiffs go to courts for a judgement and then one plaintiff wants to negotiate the award or reject it, it is worthwhile exposing the said plaintiff as in violation of the procedure and thus, having no case.

Most Pakistanis who argue over Kashmir and 'want to negotiate' the UNSC judgement, do not realize, that verdicts are appeal-able, not the awards. Ie, if the court pronounces you guilty of murder and awards you 20 years in jail, you can appeal the guilty verdict. You cannot appeal the award (20 years in jail).
This is simple legalism 101.
That is why, UNSC award is non-negotiable. If Pakistan thinks it disputes UNSC verdict, it is free to go to ICJ to challenge it. But since it has not gone to ICJ and challenged it, the verdict of UNSC stands, until such a point. Again, this is basic legalism.

I will expand on the bolded part slightly:

It is within the defendant's legal rights to challenge a verdict, until all mechanisms of challenge are exhausted.
Ie, court calls you guilty, you can challenge to higher court, all the way to the highest court allowable in the system.

Awards are almost never challengeable (unless the judge literally mis-speaks or there is a later verdict of mistrial, etc- it is very, very rare and usually a new legal scenario never seen before where such awards can be challenged).
Because awards are the domain of legal theory of equal rights. Ie, you, along with all individuals the law is applicable to, are equals in the eye of the law. Therefore, whats good for the goose, is good for the gander. Your award is determined by the judge, after deliberation, based on precedents, averages, etc. All this, is actually spelt out in most legal filings of award.
So there is very little scope to negotiate awards. Don't think 'parole/plea-bargains' are scopes of negotiation of awards, because those are, technically, not awards or inbuilt into the award (parole for e.g.).

This is why, in relation to Kashmir, Pakistan can challenge the UNSC verdict, should it wish, in ICJ. It cannot 'negotiate with India' regarding the stipulations of the verdict, from a legal perspective. And until Pakistan lodges formal challenge in ICJ or gets such a verdict in its case, Pakistan is in de-jure agreement of the verdict, though de-facto in violation of it. India has full legal basis to deny such 'exceptionalism' towards a hostile, invasive nation.

 

[santos11]

I will expand on the bolded part slightly:

It is within the defendant's legal rights to challenge a verdict, until all mechanisms of challenge are exhausted.
Ie, court calls you guilty, you can challenge to higher court, all the way to the highest court allowable in the system.

Awards are almost never challengeable (unless the judge literally mis-speaks or there is a later verdict of mistrial, etc- it is very, very rare and usually a new legal scenario never seen before where such awards can be challenged).
Because awards are the domain of legal theory of equal rights. Ie, you, along with all individuals the law is applicable to, are equals in the eye of the law. Therefore, whats good for the goose, is good for the gander. Your award is determined by the judge, after deliberation, based on precedents, averages, etc. All this, is actually spelt out in most legal filings of award.
So there is very little scope to negotiate awards. Don't think 'parole/plea-bargains' are scopes of negotiation of awards, because those are, technically, not awards or inbuilt into the award (parole for e.g.).

This is why, in relation to Kashmir, Pakistan can challenge the UNSC verdict, should it wish, in ICJ. It cannot 'negotiate with India' regarding the stipulations of the verdict, from a legal perspective. And until Pakistan lodges formal challenge in ICJ or gets such a verdict in its case, Pakistan is in de-jure agreement of the verdict, though de-facto in violation of it. India has full legal basis to deny such 'exceptionalism' towards a hostile, invasive nation.

Brilliant explanation. Kudos to your effort.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Absolutely. But for that to happen in Kashmir's case, the ball is in Pakistan's court. UNSC long since ruled that for referendum to happen in Kashmir, Pakistan must vacate PoK and remove all Pakistani citizens (who are not natives of Kashmir) from the region. That is step #1 of the resolution.
As soon as Pakistan complies to step #1, the burden shifts to India as the 'bad guy',if India does nothing. But for now, its Pakistan that is standing in the way of Kashmiri referendum and is the bad guy.

Yawn.

India must first accept and declare a plebiscite will take place in Kashmir. I assure you if India make such a promise Pakistan will quickly remove troops as the outcome is certain, removal from Indian occupation.

 

[Subaltern]

Yawn.

India must first accept and declare a plebiscite will take place in Kashmir. I assure you if India make such a promise Pakistan will quickly remove troops as the outcome is certain, removal from Indian occupation.

India has said that it will declare it as soon as Pakistan is out of Kashmir, as the verdict dictates. Nothing happens before step #1 buddy. Verdict stipulates that.

 

[KingKhanWC]

India has said that it will declare it as soon as Pakistan is out of Kashmir, as the verdict dictates. Nothing happens before step #1 buddy. Verdict stipulates that.

Youre new so ill be gentle. Firstly you dont remove anything until there is a signed decleartion promising a vote for self determnation. Do you understand the logicistics of moving troops?

Secondly where has India made this promise?

 

[Subaltern]

Youre new so ill be gentle. Firstly you dont remove anything until there is a signed decleartion promising a vote for self determnation. Do you understand the logicistics of moving troops?

Secondly where has India made this promise?

Again, you clearly demonstrate your lack of understanding of jursiprudence. What you are suggesting, is disputing the award. What you are also doing, is being in default of the verdict, while de-jure acceptance of it.

India has plenty of times said Pakistan has to comply with step #1 of the process before anything happens, as step #1 of the UNSC declaration clearly stipulates.

Why is India obligated to make a promise to Pakistan, that is beyond the scope of the award ?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Again, you clearly demonstrate your lack of understanding of jursiprudence. What you are suggesting, is disputing the award. What you are also doing, is being in default of the verdict, while de-jure acceptance of it.

India has plenty of times said Pakistan has to comply with step #1 of the process before anything happens, as step #1 of the UNSC declaration clearly stipulates.

Why is India obligated to make a promise to Pakistan, that is beyond the scope of the award ?

lol

It's simple. Use common sense. The majority of Kashmrii's DO NOT want to be part of India. I assume you agree with this as only a foold wouldn't?

Why would India then promise a vote of self determination?

Pakistan just needs an assurance this vote will take place and believe me they will move the troops out so quick you won't be able to finish your Bollywood flick.

Would you move all the furniture out of your house when you know it's not up for sale?

 

[Subaltern]

lol

It's simple. Use common sense. The majority of Kashmrii's DO NOT want to be part of India. I assume you agree with this as only a foold wouldn't?

We have no basis to make a generalization for all of Kashmir. I've never seen or heard of a demonstration involving majority of Kashmiri citizen. There has been no referendum. No polls. Nada.
So i am inclined to not care about your personal belief, i deal in facts only.
Facts are, it is unsubstantiated.

Why would India then promise a vote of self determination?

Because India has said it will comply with the UNSC and that is step 3 in the process.

Pakistan just needs an assurance this vote will take place and believe me they will move the troops out so quick you won't be able to finish your Bollywood flick.

India stating it accepts UNSC resolution, is all the assurance that India needs to legally provide to a hostile entity.
What you are asking for, is not the completion of a pact between two enemies, but your enemy must kiss you before you complete the pact. Sorry but that is totally unrequired of India and stupid to expect.

Would you move all the furniture out of your house when you know it's not up for sale?

I would do whatever the law compels me to do. I am a legalist, which means i don't EVER agree with breaking the law.If i don't like a law, i advocate for its change through legal mechanism. Not whine and refuse to comply.

 

[KingKhanWC]

We have no basis to make a generalization for all of Kashmir. I've never seen or heard of a demonstration involving majority of Kashmiri citizen. There has been no referendum. No polls. Nada.
So i am inclined to not care about your personal belief, i deal in facts only.
Facts are, it is unsubstantiated.

lol. Youre hillarioius. It is one of the MOST militrarised areas in the world. India doesn't have hundreds of thousands of troops in Kashmir to protect the Kashmiri's from snakes. It is to oppress the people who want nothing to do with India. Frankly its embarrasing having to spell this out.

I would try using a search engine to find polling data, its out there.

But out of interest do you believe the majoirty of Kashmiri's want to remain with India? Facts will be established once India agrees to such a vote. What is the position of the Indian government? Is Kashmir part of India or disputed territory?

Because India has said it will comply with the UNSC and that is step 3 in the process.

So why hasn't Inida made a public statement which will get the ball rolling?

India stating it accepts UNSC resolution, is all the assurance that India needs to legally provide to a hostile entity.
What you are asking for, is not the completion of a pact between two enemies, but your enemy must kiss you before you complete the pact. Sorry but that is totally unrequired of India and stupid to expect.

Not sure what Shah Rukh Khan flick you've got this from but there is no need for dramatics. A simple statement from the government is all that is required.

I would do whatever the law compels me to do. I am a legalist, which means i don't EVER agree with breaking the law.If i don't like a law, i advocate for its change through legal mechanism. Not whine and refuse to comply.

Being an upholder of law, what are your views on the crimes of the Indian forces in Kashmir? Why hasn't the law took its course here?

 

[waqar goraya]

I say why don't we start a new thread on "Kashmir; a legal perspective" ?

 

[Subaltern]

I say why don't we start a new thread on "Kashmir; a legal perspective" ?

Because thread is about referendum in Kashmir, which is part of the legal perspective on kashmir.

 

[Subaltern]

lol. Youre hillarioius. It is one of the MOST militrarised areas in the world. India doesn't have hundreds of thousands of troops in Kashmir to protect the Kashmiri's from snakes. It is to oppress the people who want nothing to do with India. Frankly its embarrasing having to spell this out.

No, it is to deter invasion from Pakistan and China, who've both invaded sovereign Indian lands in the past.
What sort of a fool expects to unsuccessfully invade another's territory multiple times and then not expect them to post a huge military presence ?!

I would try using a search engine to find polling data, its out there.

No, there is zero evidence. You and Pakistan would've produced this evidence if it existed.

But out of interest do you believe the majoirty of Kashmiri's want to remain with India? Facts will be established once India agrees to such a vote. What is the position of the Indian government? Is Kashmir part of India or disputed territory?

Position of India is, Kashmir is legally part of India, who's continued legal participation in India is subject to referendum, subject to Pakistan complying with UNSC resolution.

So why hasn't Inida made a public statement which will get the ball rolling?

India has already made public statement that it does not dispute UNSC resolution. Ergo, it has accepted the decision.

Not sure what Shah Rukh Khan flick you've got this from but there is no need for dramatics. A simple statement from the government is all that is required.

Which has already been made, that India accepts UNSC resolution.

Being an upholder of law, what are your views on the crimes of the Indian forces in Kashmir? Why hasn't the law took its course here?

Law is taking its course there. India is not a first world nation, its law moves slowly. Indian security personnel have been punished by the law in cases involving rape, murder, etc. in Kashmir. Why would these processes move any faster in Kashmir, than in rest of India ?

 

[waqar goraya]

Because thread is about referendum in Kashmir, which is part of the legal perspective on kashmir.

There is nothing about legality here. It is purely a political issue. Although International law itself derives from the realm of politics.

Your govt sees Kashmir through security lenses and you have worn legal glasses where as in reality it is a matter of politics.

 

[Subaltern]

There is nothing about legality here. It is purely a political issue. Although International law itself derives from the realm of politics.

Your govt sees Kashmir through security lenses and you have worn legal glasses where as in reality it is a matter of politics.

Referendum in Kashmir is 100% the domain of internal legalism. All sovereign rights issues are, sorry.
Law does not derive from Politics, its again, a basic fallacy of people not actually educated in law. Law is executed by politics.

Kashmir is a matter of legalism, because its issue is that of sovereign rights. Which is 100% legal matter, not political, since independence is granted on legal basis, not political.

 

[waqar goraya]

Again, Subcontinent's Independence was a culmination of purely political struggle.

Just show us where your government has made an announcement or expressed a commitment of plebiscite. Rather, i hear from your govt that UNSC resolutions are too old, Pandits have left, Kashmir is India's "Janam bhoomi" etc.......

 

[Subaltern]

Again, Subcontinent's Independence was a culmination of purely political struggle.

Just show us where your government has made an announcement or expressed a commitment of plebiscite. Rather, i hear from your govt that UNSC resolutions are too old, Pandits have left, Kashmir is India's "Janam bhoomi" etc.......

Politicians saying whatever, is not official government position. Official government position is the official position of the Prime Minister of India's Office.

All you are doing, is showing you have no concept of what is political, what is legal issues.

As i said, India isn't obligated to do anything, till Pakistan complies with step #1 of UNSC resolution.

 

[waqar goraya]

Politicians saying whatever, is not official government position. Official government position is the official position of the Prime Minister of India's Office.

All you are doing, is showing you have no concept of what is political, what is legal issues.

As i said, India isn't obligated to do anything, till Pakistan complies with step #1 of UNSC resolution.

Politicians working as ministers are not state functionaries? And what is PM's official position on Kashmir?

By all means, you can guide us how subcontinent's independence is a legal matter and not a political one.

 

[Subaltern]

Politicians working as ministers are not state functionaries? And what is PM's official position on Kashmir?

By all means, you can guide us how subcontinent's independence is a legal matter and not a political one.

Politicians can voice their own individual opinions, as well as the official position of the post held. MMS saying 'i love jalebi' means MMS, the individual, loves jalebi. it doesnt mean the office of the PM officially loves jalebi.
See the difference ?

Independence, whether it is of the subcontinent or anywhere else, is based on legal procedure. Independence of India is the passage of sovereign power from British India to India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. I can't help you, if you don't understand this.

 

[waqar goraya]

Politicians can voice their own individual opinions, as well as the official position of the post held. MMS saying 'i love jalebi' means MMS, the individual, loves jalebi. it doesnt mean the office of the PM officially loves jalebi.
See the difference ?

Independence, whether it is of the subcontinent or anywhere else, is based on legal procedure. Independence of India is the passage of sovereign power from British India to India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. I can't help you, if you don't understand this.

So, make it clear and tell me what is the PM's official position on Kashmir and how it is different from general political class in India?

That procedure is preceded by a political struggle or settlement and then the formality takes place. Politics lead to that process and not the law dictated Britain to leave subcontinent.

 

[Subaltern]

So, make it clear and tell me what is the PM's official position on Kashmir and how it is different from general political class in India?

That procedure is preceded by a political struggle or settlement and then the formality takes place. Politics lead to that process and not the law dictated Britain to leave subcontinent.

The law dictated HOW Britain left India and the formal transfer of power is always the domain of legalism. Independence was precipitated by politics. The actual execution of independence is a legal act, not a political. Therefore, legalese matter and that is why sovereign rights is the domain of legalism, not politics.

I don't think i can make it any clearer.

 

[maverick85]

What's the legality of the right for self determination? Shouts for Azadi is all that we hear coming from IoK.

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

Can we just fight a war be done with this ???!!!!!

Jesus man #smh

 

[Subaltern]

Can we just fight a war be done with this ???!!!!!

Jesus man #smh

Your military is incapable of that, as they've tried 3 times and failed 3 times. Your military also knows, with a super-majority in Indian parliaments, give us an excuse to dismember Pakistan one more time and we will. Hence their shift towards terrorist infiltration and not outright confrontation.

 

[Black Zero]

I will take such statements seriously if i see 2% turnout in general elections.

 

[waqar goraya]

The law dictated HOW Britain left India and the formal transfer of power is always the domain of legalism. Independence was precipitated by politics. The actual execution of independence is a legal act, not a political. Therefore, legalese matter and that is why sovereign rights is the domain of legalism, not politics.

I don't think i can make it any clearer.

Still, waiting for PM's official stance on Kashmir and its difference with the general political class in India.

Transfer of power was a result of political struggle and settlement. You may call the process which followed that political settlement a lawful transfer of power but the fact is that it is followed by politics and not preceded by politics.

 

[Subaltern]

Still, waiting for PM's official stance on Kashmir and its difference with the general political class in India.

Transfer of power was a result of political struggle and settlement. You may call the process which followed that political settlement a lawful transfer of power but the fact is that it is followed by politics and not preceded by politics.

Politics creates the need. Legalism facilitates/blocks the said need. The actual process of sovereign power transfer, is a legal issue.

This is the official standpoint of the MEA regarding Kashmir :

https://web.archive.org/web/2009111...mbassy.org/policy/Kashmir/Kashmir_MEA/UN.html

 

[uberkoen]

No, it is to deter invasion from Pakistan and China, who've both invaded sovereign Indian lands in the past.
What sort of a fool expects to unsuccessfully invade another's territory multiple times and then not expect them to post a huge military presence ?!




No, there is zero evidence. You and Pakistan would've produced this evidence if it existed.




Position of India is, Kashmir is legally part of India, who's continued legal participation in India is subject to referendum, subject to Pakistan complying with UNSC resolution.










India has already made public statement that it does not dispute UNSC resolution. Ergo, it has accepted the decision.




Which has already been made, that India accepts UNSC resolution.





Law is taking its course there. India is not a first world nation, its law moves slowly. Indian security personnel have been punished by the law in cases involving rape, murder, etc. in Kashmir. Why would these processes move any faster in Kashmir, than in rest of India ?

LOL!

Once again. UN Resolution 80.

Go read up.

Educate yourself bro.

 

[Subaltern]

LOL!

Once again. UN Resolution 80.

Go read up.

Educate yourself bro.

UN resolution 80 is :

a) Not in contradiction of UNSC resolution
b) Is not an arbitration decision, as it was not bilaterally sought
c) Republic of India did not participate and thus, is not party to it. Resolution 47 had both India and Pakistan as respondents. Resolution 80 had India as an abstainee.

 

[cricketjoshila]

LOL!

Once again. UN Resolution 80.

Go read up.

Educate yourself bro.

India was not part of UN resolution 80. The ceasefire and India's acceptance was to UNSC resolution 47 and not 80.

Also educate yourself on the happening of UNSC before that. Why USSR was absent?Which countries supported USSR etc etc.

 

[KingKhanWC]

No, it is to deter invasion from Pakistan and China, who've both invaded sovereign Indian lands in the past.
What sort of a fool expects to unsuccessfully invade another's territory multiple times and then not expect them to post a huge military presence ?!

There are many areas of the border where these two nations can invade. This is a lame excuse and we know the soldiers spend most of their time trying to stop people from voicing their demands for freedom by all types of criminal and immoral means.

No, there is zero evidence. You and Pakistan would've produced this evidence if it existed.

Chatam House produced one many years ago which showed the vast majority want independence. Search it and see if you yourself can find others.

Position of India is, Kashmir is legally part of India, who's continued legal participation in India is subject to referendum, subject to Pakistan complying with UNSC resolution.

Can you show me a quote from the current or the previous Indian government confirming they will offer a vote if Pakistan pull out?

 

[Subaltern]

There are many areas of the border where these two nations can invade. This is a lame excuse and we know the soldiers spend most of their time trying to stop people from voicing their demands for freedom by all types of criminal and immoral means.

What lame excuse. Your COAS and PMs have said in the past that 'Kashmir is integral to Pakistan'. If an enemy says they like a particular border territory of yours and attacks 3 times to conquer it, one doesn't need to be a genius to beef up defences of that territory the most.

Chatham House produced one many years ago which showed the vast majority want independence. Search it and see if you yourself can find others.

You are passing the burden of proof that lies on you. You claimed there is evidence, its your job to present it. So far you've presented no evidence that the valley wants independence, never mind Jammu or Ladakh.

Can you show me a quote from the current or the previous Indian government confirming they will offer a vote if Pakistan pull out?

We've said in the past that we will follow UNSC resolution.
http://www.na.gov.pk/en/content.php?id=85

This is the official PMO's office's stance regarding J&K, retrieved from your government's own website.

So as I said, Pakistan is the one standing in the way, not India. Comply with step #1 or understand your nation does not have a leg to stand on.

 

[Enigma_]

Honestly the whole LOC breaking of ceasefire has a pretty simple solution. We just need a wall of cows and then the Indians will never shoot. Or use cow shields and advance. There saved the army so much time.