0.1
Kashmir DisputeTerrorism and Freedom Fight Line of control;
boundaries in red
0.2
More than 60 year after the independence Pakistan and India are
still to behave as good neighbors. Both countries have their stand
for not having friendship and cordial relations. It has always been
the Issue of Kashmir. Several times during these past decades
leaders of India and Pakistan have tried to sit together to solve
the problems. India insists that Kashmir is part of India; Pakistan
argues that it is a disputed territory. One part is controlled by
India by deploying a very strong contingent of Indian army and the
rest is controlled by Pakistan of course not with the military
might. Indians argue that Pakistan should vacate the territory
under its control. Pakistan insists that Kashmir is the core issue
and should be solved according to the wishes of the people of
Kashmir. Several occasions have come when these two countries sat
together to discuss issues. Many a times it seemed as if finally
they will resolve the differences. Something drastic happens; every
time, either someone starts shooting in the galleries of Indian
parliament, or some mysterious hand burns several innocent people
in a train and as a repercussion hundreds of innocent die in the
riot and the train itself. Same has happened once again in Mumbai;
like always India has got out of the negotiations and insists that
there can be no talks unless Mumbai case is solved. Right from the
beginning India has tried to convince the world through its
lobbying and through the international forms that Kashmir is not an
issue. Both parts of Kashmir started with a prime minister
designated for each side. Kashmir with Pakistan still has a prime
minister, but India stripped off the title from its Prime Minister
Sheikh Abdullah and staged a play to include the disputed territory
in the Indian union. Indians seem convinced that what they have
done to include the territory of Kashmir into the Indian union has
been successful. But even after more than half a century voices
reverberate to say: India should realize that UN resolutions should
be the base for the settlement of the dispute. Miliband says settle
Kashmir issue, Delhi not amused http://www.indianexpress.com/news/
Mumbai: British Foreign Secretary David Milibands first visit to
India ended on a controversial note today as New Delhi took offence
to his comments seeking to link the Kashmir dispute to
Lashkar-e-Toiba and terrorism in the region even as he expressed
faith in Pakistans judicial system to try the perpetrators of 26/11
and referred to the poor status of Muslims in India. David Miliband
comments on Kashmir welcomed by 'terrorist' group
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ The statement will cause further
discomfort for Mr Miliband after India reacted angrily to his
'interference' in the issue and senior politicians branded his trip
a 'disaster'. In an article ahead of his visit to India last week,
the foreign secretary said the 'war on terror' had been mistaken
and that individual groups like LeT should be targeted and brought
to justice. But solving the Kashmir issue would deny LeT its 'call
to arms' and free Pakistan to fight al-Qaeda and Taliban militants
in its tribal areas. Miliband Comments Spark India Row Foreign
Secretary David Miliband is at the centre of a media storm in India
after his recent trip to the country.
http://news.sky.com/skynews
0.3
He has managed to stir up a hornet's nest of a controversy by
publicly airing his views on the most sensitive of Indian topics -
Kashmir - during his visit last week. He has apparently managed to
upset the Indian establishment so much that the current trip by the
Business Secretary Peter Mandelson looks like being overshadowed.
Newspapers here say the Indian Prime Minister has written to Gordon
Brown about the matter - although Downing Street stresses no such
letter has been received. And Mr Mandelson has found himself having
to explain away his cabinet colleague's remarks, which have dogged
his own trip. India rattled http://news.bbc.co.uk/ India is waiting
to see how President Obama deals with the nuclear agreement signed
with Bush. India has already been rattled by a comment by Mr Obama
on CNN that the US should help resolve the Kashmir dispute. The
Indian media has criticised an essay that I wrote with fellow
Afghan analysts, Barnett Rubin in Foreign Affairs magazine this
month urging the US to pressure Delhi to do more to resolve its
disputes with Islamabad so that the Pakistan army could feel less
threatened by India and divert more resources to fighting
militancy.
A couple of years back I used to take part in discussions on
different topics, which I usually do when I am jobless, Kashmir was
one of them. Following pages will give you an idea of how common
people in India, Pakistan and elsewhere in the world feel about the
Kashmir problem. A few threads covering the discussion have been
included in this collection. The participants, those who took part
in the discussions, have their profiles which have been kept as
these were chosen by those individuals and almost every thing has
been include without any correction, as much as possible, or change
in the format. I dedicate this collection of mine to those who took
part in the following discussions, to my My late Father Syed Allah
Bux, My late uncle Syed Najiullah, friends, and family who have
always helped me at the time of need.
Syed Jaffer
0.4
Contents (Discussion Threads)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Preface Bhuttos speech to the un Instrument of accretion on East
Pakistan the end game What s the solution of Kashmir in ur mind
Instrument of accession on IPFC Brazil in security council do you
agree India and Kashmir issue Kashmir issue Musharraf refused offer
of Indian helicopters Pakistans plea to India PLZ FOR GOD SAKE ITS
TIME FOR PEACE Terrorism strikes India once again Time to take
notice 0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1 10.1 11.1 12.1 13.1
to to to to to to to to to to to to to to 0.5 1.8 2.23 3.13 4.5
5.28 6.14 7.66 8.27 9.23 10.19 11.11 12.27 13.3
0.5
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in redCommunity Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
http://www.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=187664&tid=24310497&start=1
Topic: Bhutto's speech to the un Bhutto's speech to the un
9/17/2005 10:41 AM i really want to read the text of the speech
that bhutto gave to the un security council, i thnk in
1965......... the one where he said "we will wage war for a
thousand years......" i know that there are books on bhutto's
speeches but i would really like to get my hands on this particualr
speech ASAP. could some one be nice enough to tell me what website
i could look up. thanx 9/21/2005 10:18 AM yaaa he said that my
country izzz in danger n we r waisting our time over here n crop da
paper n all pakiz cum out from de assembly.......but sorry 2 say he
was drunk at dat time...i listen 4m my elderz...
Ayesha
A.J(asad) 9/22/2005 6:45 AM Jammu and Kashmir is not an integral
part of India and has never been an integral part of India. Jammu
and Kashmir is a territory disputed between India and Pakistan. It
is more a part of Pakistan than it can ever be of India, with all
the eloquence and with all the extravagance with words displayed by
India. The people of Jammu and Kashmir are part of the people of
Pakistan in blood, in flesh, in life-----kith and kin of ours, in
culture, in geography, in history and in every way and in every
form. They are a part of the people of Pakistan. We will wage war
for a thousand years, a war of defence. I told that to the Security
Council a year ago when that body, in all its wisdom and in all its
power, was not prepared to give us even a resolution. The Security
Council felt that we had brought a dead horse to this council that
we were trying to make internal propaganda. But the world must know
that the 100 million people of Pakistan will never abandon their
pledges and promises. The Indians many abandon their pledges and
promises; we shall never abandon ours, irrespective of our size and
of our resources. We shall fight to the end, but we shall fight in
self- defence; we shall fight for honor. We are not aggressors; we
are the victims of aggression. It was the duty of the Security
Council to pronounce itself on who is the aggressor and who is the
aggressed; it is Pakistan that is the victim of aggression. These
are two paragraphs form the Address to the Twelve Hundred and
Forty-fourth Meeting of the Security Council on September 22, 1965.
The book is Important Speeches and Press Conferences of Zulfikar
ali Bhutto Foreign Minister of Pakistan. The book has around 760
pages, printed at the Inter Services Press Ltd., Karachi J-228 June
1966 9/22/2005 6:46 AM Recalling those days I like to put my own
views here. Like it is today in those days also the UN was unable
to solve any of the problems which were contrary to the wishes of
the super powers the USSR and the USA. To each action which went in
favour of Pakistan USSR was always there to Veto the move. We the
youth in the weaker countries were seriously thinking of quitting
the UNO, I was a college boy in those days. It was speculated in
those days that Dr. Ahmed Suikarno of Indonesia was actually
planning such an event where all the poor and helpless countries of
the third world were to join the organization of the poor. Below I
like to copy the last paragraph of the same speech. It is very
difficult to feel the pain felt by ZAB due to the ineffectiveness
of the organization just by reading the extracts; you should read
the whole speech to grasp the heat of the event. I dont know how
many of you have faced a situation when you are on correct path and
still punished for no reason. I am not saying that in the form of
an ultimatum. I am saying it as I am honour bound to respect the
very purposes of the Charter. In leaving the United Nations,
Pakistan will be fulfilling the Charter of the United Nations. And
then one third or more of the world will be outside the
organization.
Syed
Syed
1.1
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in red9/22/2005 7:14 AM @A.J(asad) Dear Asad. What you
are referring to is the polish resolution. Your elders might have
given you their perspective. I like you to read what I have to say,
and judge for yourself, in the given situation what would you do.
It was the 1971 war and resulting UN meeting. This was the time
when Pakistan was about to breakup. India and its allies were
delaying any resolution and waiting for the Dhaka to fall in the
Indian hands. I have not seen the text of polish resolutions. But
know for sure that the resolution was not in favour of Pakistan and
all the movers of that resolution were worst enemies of our
country. All those in favour of the polish resolution were having
military pacts with India. Thank You 9/23/2005 5:32 AM First of
all, let me thank you Syed Sahib, for making us aware of our
national history. But beyond that i had like a favour, can you
please create an entire online version of this very speech...or do
you know where i could find the video on the internet.Thank You.
Regards
Syed
Ayesha 9/23/2005 8:13 PM It hurts to admit that we as a nation
have a very rich heritage and how we preserve it. The PTV had a
rich collection of videos and films pertaining to all the events
relating to Bhutto. During Zias regime that record was
systematically burnt, if at all the videos are available these will
be from the personal collections of people who love Bhutto. Syed As
for the speech subject of present discussion I have requested my
daughter to type it out. I will put that on this very thread
9/24/2005 1:38 AM Address by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to the twelve
Hundred and Forty-Fourth Meeting of the Security Council on
September 22, 1965 Mr. President, I am thankful to you and to the
members of the Security Council for having met at this late hour to
discuss a matter of vital importance to my people, to the
sub-continent, to Asia, and perhaps to the world at large. In
expressing my gratitude I would like to address not only the
permanent members but also the other members of the Security
Council for having taken the trouble to be with us this morning. I
have come direct from Pakistan, and I have requested this meeting
because the issues that face us are indeed so fundamental and
important that it is necessary for us to meet to dilate upon them.
I am thankful also to the Secretary-General for his endeavors to
bring about a meaningful settlement between India and Pakistan. We
are aware of all his efforts; we are grateful to him and to the
Security Council; we are grateful to all peace-loving countries for
having taken such a direct interest in a war which we do not want,
which has been imposed on us by a predatory aggressor. Syed
Pakistan is a small country. You have only to look at a map of the
world and see our size to be aware of our resources and our
ability. We are facing a great monster, a great aggressor always
given to aggression. During the sixteen or seventeen years of our
independence we have seen India commit aggression time and again.
Ever since 1947, India has followed the road of aggression. It
committed aggression against Junagadh, against Manavadar, against
Mangrol, against Hyderabad and against Gova. It brought about a
situation which has caused the Sino-Indian conflict. It has
committed aggression against Pakistan. And Pakistan, according to
Indian leaders, is its enemy number one. Pakistan is supposed to be
the country which is the fulcrum of Indias fundamental policies.
From 1947 we have been faced with this situation. We have always
known that India is determined to annihilate
1.2
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in red9/24/2005 1:39 AM food-neighbourly relations with
India. He knows that from the very beginning our President, from
the time he came into office, has made positive gestures to India
to establish goodneighbourly relations with his country. We have
taken many initiatives to bring peace, tranquility and friendship
between Pakistan and India. These are matters of record, not a
question of propaganda, of trying to get kudos. These are tangible
and well-known facts of history: that ever since he has become
President of Pakistan he has gone out of his way to establish good
relations with India by co-operation in every field-co-operation in
trade, in economics and in politics. Has the world forgotten that
in 1959 it was the President of Pakistan who made an offer to India
to disengage, to bring about a meaningful settlement so that our
armies do not face each other in an eyeball-to-eyeball stance, so
that we may take care of our own difficulties? These are matters of
record, matters of history. Thus we want good-neighbourly relations
with India; we want peace and friendship with India. But that peace
and friendship must be peace with honour and it must be peace of a
self-respecting sovereign State. India must accept that. India must
know that peace can be established only on the basis of selfrespect
and honour, on the basis of its own commitments, on the basis of
its won pledges, on the basis of its own promises to the people of
Pakistan, to the people of India, to the world at large and, above
all, to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir is not
an integral part of India and has never been an integral part of
India. Jammu and Kashmir is a territory disputed between India and
Pakistan. It is more a part of Pakistan than it can ever be if
India, with all the eloquence and with all the extravagance with
words displayed by India. The people of Jammu and Kashmir are part
of the people of Pakistan in blood, in flesh, in life-kith and kin
of ours, in 9/24/2005 1:40 AM Pakistan. Pakistans basic principle
was the bringing about of a permanent settlement between the two
major communities. For seven hundred years we sought to achieve
equilibrium between the people of the two major communities. We
believed eventually that the only way to live in lasting peace with
India was to establish our own homeland, to establish a country
smaller in are, but nevertheless capable of having a relationship,
a modus vivendi, with a great and powerful neighbor. That was one
of the prime factors responsible for the creation of Pakistan. We
know that in Europe certain countries have had the separate in
order to get closer together; Sweden and Norway, for instance, had
to separate in order to get closer to on another. We believed that
with the creation of Pakistan we would be able to establish a
permanent peace, a permanent understanding, b between the people of
India and people of Pakistan. Syed We are a smaller country and, as
said, our resources are limited; one has only to look at a map of
the world and a map of the sub-continent to see that. We are not
interested in war. We do not want aggression; we do not want
conflict. We want peace in order that our people can develop. This
is the age of rising expectation. We should like to see all our
energies and all our efforts directed towards economic well-being.
It is not the low of God that people in Asia and Africa should be
poor. It is not a predestined rule or an immutable law that they
should always remain in poverty. We want to break the barriers of
poverty; we want to give our people a better life; we want our
children to have a better future. The leaders of Asia and Africa
are determined to break the barriers and legacies of the past. In
order to do so we must channel all our resources for productive
ends, for a peaceful and purposeful future. This is a dire need for
a country such as Pakistan. 9/24/2005 1:41 AM We do not want
conflict. We are not for war. We do not want to see the
extermination of peoples. We respect and have regard for the people
of India. A few years ago we were part of the same country, but,
for the reason which I have stated, we were obliged to separate. By
means of separation we had thought that our people would be brought
closer together, that we should bring about harmony, understanding
and tranquility. The basic idea in the creation of Pakistan was
that the areas occupied by the Muslim majority should form
Pakistan. This basic principle was accepted by the Indian leaders.
All we ask is to live in peace, friendship and goodwill with India
on the basis of the understanding and agreements which the Indian
government and the Indian leaders themselves solemnly pledged to my
people and my country.
Syed
Syed
1.3
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in redToday we are fighting a war, a war imposed on us
by India, a naked, predatory, unwarranted aggression by 450 million
people against 100 million people, a war of chauvinism and
aggrandizement by a mighty neighbor against a smaller country. It
is as if, in Europe, France or Germany committed aggression against
Denmark. It is as if a small country in South America were
subjected to aggression by Argentina or Brazil. It is as if the
United States waged a war against a small country. We don not want
to be exterminated. We cherish life. We want to live; we want our
people to live; we want our people to progress. But today our
cities are being bombed indiscriminately by the might of India, by
the formidable machine of the Indian armed forces. This will not,
however, deter us from seeking justice. We are resolved to fight
for our honour, to fight for Pakistan, because we are the victims
of aggression. Aggression has been committed against the soil of
Pakistan. Irrespective of our size, irrespective of our resources,
we have the resolve, we have the will, to fight because ours is a
just cause. Ours is a righteous cause. We are wedded to principle.
We are wedded to our 9/24/2005 1:41 AM own pledges. We believe in
the right of self-determination------a Wilsonian right, as I told
you this evening, sir, a concept which has inspired the whole of
Asia and Africa. It is a phenomenon that cannot be stopped; and
that is why we are fighting. We are fighting with our backs to the
wall, but we shall fight with all determination, irrespective of
the odds and of all the forces that are pitted against us. The
secretary-general, as I have already said, has made some very
constructive suggestions, and we are grateful to him. He is not
only the Secretary-General of the United Nations; he is also a
great Asian from a great Asian neighbor of Pakistan and of India.
And we should like to co-operate with him both in his capacity as
the Secretary-General and as a leader of a great Asian country. We
have had useful discussions with him in Pakistan, and we told him
that are for peace. We do not want war, we do not want destruction
and we do not want disaster. But it should be a meaningful peace, a
purposeful peace, a peace for all time, a peace in which India and
Pakistan can live as good neighbours. We are neighbours and we want
to live as good neighbours. We do not want to have conflict and
trouble with India for all time. No people would want that We are a
smaller country. The cardinal principle of Pakistans foreign policy
has been to establish good-neighbourly relations with all
countries, with all its neighbours----and India is our principal
neighbours. All our efforts to establish good-neighbourly relations
with all other countries would be in vain if we are not able to
establish good-neighbourly relations with India, which, as I have
said, for historical political and geographical reasons is our
principal neighbor. We will make every endeavor to establish such
relations. The Indian representative, whom I know well and for whom
I have great regard, is aware of the efforts we have made to
establish 9/24/2005 1:42 AM principles to be negated and destroyed
by sheer force and power. Having made those remarks, I have the
honour to transmit the following message from the President of
Pakistan, which I have just received from Rawalpindi. Pakistan
considers Security Council resolution 211 of 20 September as
unsatisfactory. However, in the interests of international peace
and in order to enable the Security Council to evolve a
self-executing procedure which will lead to an honorable settlement
of the root cause of the present conflict_ Namely, the Jammu and
Kashmir dispute_ I have issued the following order to the Pakistan
armed forces they will stop fighting as from 1205 hours West
Pakistan time today. As from that time they will not fire on enemy
forces unless fired upon, provided the Indian Government issues
similar orders to its armed forces Thus, in response to the call of
international peace and international goodwill, we have ordered our
troops to cease hostilities, provided India agrees to such a
cessation of hostilities. But a cessation of hostilities is not
enough. The Security Council-the most important organ of the United
Nations-must now address itself to the heart of the problem. For
eighteen
Syed
Syed
1.4
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in redyears it has played and toyed with the future of
Kashmir. It can no longer make a plaything or a toy out of 5
million people. It is the moral responsibility of the Security
Council to address itself to a meaningful and lasting solution of
the problem of Jammu and Kashmir. The Security Council has been
seized of this problem for eighteen years. There are more
documents, more resolution on Jammu and Kashmir- the most
fundamental problem facing the world today-than on any other
problem. Is it not ironical that with regard to a conflict that may
lead to world conflagration-and the present situation has shown
that it is possible for this conflict to lead to world
conflagration-the Security Council has shown lethargy and
indolence? 9/24/2005 1:43 AM I was here a year ago, and the
Security Council was not prepared to give Pakistan a piece of paper
called a resolution. It did not even want to consider the problem.
It thought that this was a dead issue, or that it was dormant. This
can never be a dead issue; it can never be dormant. This is now the
last chance for the Security Council to put all its force, all its
energy, all its moral responsibility behind a fair and equitable
and honorable solution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. History
does not wait for councils, organizations or institutions, just as
it does not wait for individuals. Ultimately we shall have to be
the final determiners of our own course. Let me tell the Security
Council, on behalf of my government, that if now, after this last
chance that we are giving the Security Council, it does not put its
full force, full moral responsibility and full weight behind and
equitable and honorable settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir
dispute, Pakistan will have to leave the United Nations. Syed We
have decided to give the untied nations a last opportunity to
determine what it can do towards a purposeful, peaceful and lasting
settlement of the problem of Jammu and Kashmir. We shall give the
United Nations a time-limit. Within a certain period of time, if
the Security Council is not able to act in accordance with the
responsibility placed on it, in accordance with its honour under
the Charter which believes in self-determination, Pakistan will
have to withdraw from the United Nations. I am not saying that in
form of an ultimatum. I am saying it as I am honour bound to
respect the very purposes of the Charter. In leaving the United
Nations, Pakistan will be fulfilling that charter of the United
Nations. And then one third or more of the world will be outside
this Organization. 9/24/2005 1:43 AM culture, in geography, in
history and in every way in every form. They are a part of the
people of Pakistan. We will wage war for a thousand years, a war of
defence. I told that to the Security Council a year ago when that
body, in all its wisdom and in all its power, was not prepared to
give us even a resolution. The Security Council felt that we had
brought a dead horse to this Council that we were trying to make
internal propaganda. But the world must know that the 100 million
people of Pakistan will abandon their pledges and promises; we
shall never abandon ours irrespective of our size and of our
resources. We shall fight to the end, but we shall fight in
self-defence; we shall fight for the honour. We are not aggressors;
we are the victims of aggression. It was the duty of the Security
Council to pronounce itself on who is the aggressor and who is the
aggressed; it is Pakistan that is the victim of aggression. I am
not referring here to some of the remarks made by countries which
have no right to be here; they are not even countries. I am
referring to the great powers; I am referring to those who believe
in the cause of justice, in the cause of righteousness and in the
cause of honour. After all, history is not in vain. Wars have been
fought in the past ad people have upheld great causes. I am
referring to the great powers and also to those other countries in
the Security Council which have espoused the cause of
righteousness. We are grateful to all of you for whatever you have
done to uphold the cause of justice because, finally and
ultimately, justice must prevail. We believe more than ever before
that justice is bound to prevail for the people of Jammu and
Kashmir. Five million people must have the right to decide their
own future. Why should they be made an exception? Should the whole
phenomenon of self-determination, stretching from Asia and Africa,
apply to the whole world excepting the people of Jammu and Kashmir?
Are they
Syed
1.5
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in red9/24/2005 1:43 AM some outcasts of Indian society?
Are they some untouchable pariahs that they should not be given the
right to self-determination, that they should not be allowed to
have the right to their own future? The great country of France
permitted the Algerians to exercise the right of
self-determination. The right of self determination is a Wilsonian
concept. The Soviet Union believes in the right of
self-determination of all peoples. The whole world believes in the
right of self-determination. Must it be denied to the people of
Jammu and Kashmir merely because power must prevail over principle?
Power shall never prevail over principle. Finally and ultimately,
principle must prevail over power. This is a Christian concept, it
is an Islamic concept, and it is a civilized concept. Those nations
which do not believe in such a concept must face the ultimate
consequences. India is isolated today. India, in spite of its size
and its resources, has no one to support it openly. The whole of
Asia and Africa supports the right of self-determination of the
people of Kashmir. The Arab countries, in Casablanca, have
supported the right of selfdetermination for the people of Kashmir.
European countries have supported the right of self-determination
for the people of Kashmir. The Secretary of State of the United
States of America, Mr. Dean Rusk, said that the historical position
is a plebiscite in Kashmir. On the one hand, you have the whole
world arrayed on the side of the cause of right and justice and
morality, and, on the other hand, you have a war machine, an
arrogant and chauvinistic state breaking its pledges, breaking its
promises and wanting to destroy the will and the spirit of people.
The will and spirit of our people can never be destroyed. Let me
tell you: you can have one cease-fire, you can have another
cease-fire, but the 100 million people of Pakistan shall face
extermination rather than forsake their principles or allow their
9/24/2005 5:40 AM principles or allow their principles to be
negated and destroyed by sheer force and power. Having made those
remarks, I have the honour to transmit the following message from
the President of Pakistan, which I have just received from
Rawalpindi. Pakistan considers Security Council resolution 211 of
20 September as unsatisfactory. However, in the interests of
international peace and in order to enable the Security Council to
evolve a self-executing procedure which will lead to an honorable
settlement of the root cause of the present conflict_ Namely, the
Jammu and Kashmir dispute_ I have issued the following order to the
Pakistan armed forces they will stop fighting as from 1205 hours
West Pakistan time today. As from that time they will not fire on
enemy forces unless fired upon, provided the Indian Government
issues similar orders to its armed forces Thus, in response to the
call of international peace and international goodwill, we have
ordered our troops to cease hostilities, provided India agrees to
such a cessation of hostilities. But a cessation of hostilities is
not enough. The Security Council-the most important organ of the
United Nations-must now address itself to the heart of the problem.
For eighteen years it has played and toyed with the future of
Kashmir. It can no longer make a plaything or a toy out of 5
million people. It is the moral responsibility of the Security
Council to address itself to a meaningful and lasting solution of
the problem of Jammu and Kashmir. The Security Council has been
seized of this problem for eighteen years. There are more
documents, more resolution on Jammu and Kashmir- the most
fundamental problem facing the world today-than on any other
problem. Is it not ironical that with regard to a conflict that may
lead to world conflagration-and the present situation has shown
that it is possible for this conflict to lead to world
conflagration-the Security Council has shown lethargy and
indolence? 9/24/2005 5:41 AM I was here a year ago, and the
Security Council was not prepared to give Pakistan a piece of paper
called a resolution. It did not even want to consider the problem.
It thought that this was a dead issue, or that it was dormant. This
can never be a dead issue; it can never be dormant. This is now the
last chance for the Security Council to put all its force, all its
energy, all its moral responsibility behind a fair and equitable
and honorable solution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. History
does not wait for councils, organizations or institutions, just as
it does not wait for individuals. Ultimately we shall have to be
the final determiners of our
Syed
Syed
Syed
1.6
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in redown course. Let me tell the Security Council, on
behalf of my government, that if now, after this last chance that
we are giving the Security Council, it does not put its full force,
full moral responsibility and full weight behind and equitable and
honorable settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, Pakistan
will have to leave the United Nations. We have decided to give the
untied nations a last opportunity to determine what it can do
towards a purposeful, peaceful and lasting settlement of the
problem of Jammu and Kashmir. We shall give the United Nations a
time-limit. Within a certain period of time, if the Security
Council is not able to act in accordance with the responsibility
placed on it, in accordance with its honour under the Charter which
believes in self-determination, Pakistan will have to withdraw from
the United Nations. I am not saying that in form of an ultimatum. I
am saying it as I am honour bound to respect the very purposes of
the Charter. In leaving the United Nations, Pakistan will be
fulfilling that charter of the United Nations. And then one third
or more of the world will be outside this Organization. Thank u
SYED Sahib... 9/30/2005 6:22 AM Dear Syed Sahib, I don't know about
other's but i am very thankful to you for this speech i love Bhutto
sahib very much but i love also those people's who love's Bhutto.
Syed Sahib you are included in my ideal personalities & one day
inshallah i'll meet u when i am able to meet u, if you don't mind
may i add you in orkut i promise i don't disturb you i think i can
learn much from you thank you 10/1/2005 8:27 PM Audio recording of
the last part of the speech:
http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_19.html
ATI
Mujji Back 2 da future... 10/5/2005 4:52 AM you should go the
www.bhutto.org where there are all the speeches Martyr Bhutto, did.
Thanks. SsarFarazZ 10/5/2005 10:18 AM i once read an itneresting
detail in a very interesting book. it was regarding the much
romanticized speech that dear zulfi cut short while tearing his
notes in a sensational gesture, and saying, with all his eloquence,
"my country harkens me.." left the UN, at the time of war with
india. the interesting detail in the book says that bhutto sahab
had it all planned out, his theatrics, and so excited was the
teenage benazir about it all, that she called up one of her friends
and told her to watch the UN proceedings the next day and see how
dashingly her famous papa will behave. none of my making up. its in
the book. a very interesting one, i must say. called "The Terrorist
Prince" about Mir Murtaza Bhutto 10/20/2005 9:01 PM Not all the
books are to bring you what is true. Please always remember that
the book reflects the political philosophy of the respective author
and made colourful to make it commercially viable. Leave alone a
particular book, the contemporary history 99 % of the time is
biased in favour of the ruler. Please see the following link and
the following paragraphs copied for you convenience. You will find
some discussion on a related topic you may find it interesting.
http://www.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=927339&tid=5043269&start=1&na=2&nid=
Syed Bajwa and Rabbani are not honest people if they were honest
they should have produced the text of the Simla Agreement in the
text books and argued point by point to make their point. I know of
these books my own children have read these books in their O Levels
and in foundation year of professional degree. I taught to them
that this is the truth but you
Hussain
1.7
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in redmust write what is taught to you in the schools
and colleges. As a student of O Levels you have the liberty to put
both the views and can get away securing the marks. But if you are
appearing through some Pakistani board you have no chance of
getting marks and praising Bhutto at the same time. Our ruling
clique can do any thing to remain in absolute power. Bhutto died 28
years ago but our ruling establishment and bureaucrats with or
without uniform are afraid of him. They can mislead their own
coming generations to discredit Bhutto. My additional post is to
make sure that trying to speak the truth you may fail in your
exams. In my BSc I have been a victim of such situation. I failed
trying to write the logic and truth in the examination. If the
examiner is a Bhutto fan you will get away but if the examiner
happens to be one of the disciples of Bajwa/Rabbani then you had
it. All the kids please take care.
1.8
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in
redhttp://www.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=4608&tid=20216690
United Nations Topic: Kashmir - Instrument of Accession! Kashmir -
Instrument of Accession! 8/12/2005 6:02 AM The Instrument of
Accession is a standard document which India used to sign in as
many as 550 odd Princely States and Kingdoms into the Indian Union.
This legal document was an unconditional document entered into by
the said Principlaity/Kingdom and India. This was the standard
document that was signed by the Maharaja of Kashmir on October 26,
1947. Read the scanned copy of the Original Instrument of Accession
and note that the entire agreement has been filled in a
standardised format. The signatory for India was the Governor
General of independent India, Lord Mountbatten. I specifically
created this thread so that the international community may read
the document as also the Pakistanis who have been fed lies on the
subject as part of their curriculum. The Instrument of Accession
forms the basis of India's claim of Jammu and Kashmir. Naturally,
only one country can have a sole and legal claim over land and in
this case it is India. It is a legally binding and valid claim on
Kashmir just as India has a legal and valid claim on all the 550
odd states that were thus signed and incorporated into the Indian
Union in 1947. ----------------------------------------Do not post
on this thread unless you have anything meaningful and relevant to
say about the Instrument of Accession. That is the topic here.
----------------------------------------8/15/2005 4:26 AM I have
gone through the scanned images of the so called document. The
quality of the images does not reflect the advancement India claims
to have made in information technology. The official website of
your home office where the document in question exists is designed
and hosted by National Informatics Centre (NIC) Driving the next
generation Government. The page entitled Accession and
Consolidation under Jammu and Kashmir has links to Overview History
& Civilization Accession & Consolidation Militancy, Peace.
The link militancy and peace lead us to no where. The home office
is yet to decide what to write about militancy and peace how to
feed their population with lies and twisted facts. This webpage
gives you the chronology of event full of twisted facts and half
truths which the Indian government has always been feeding to its
subjects. If you go through the image the so-called document of
accession does not bear any seal of the governor general of India
or the maharaja. Mount Batten being poor in English like me did not
ask his secretary for editing correcting and retyping the document
before putting his signature on it. And the clauses 5, 7 and 8 of
the so-called instrument of accession say: 5. The terms of this my
Instrument of Accession shall not be varied by any amendment of the
Act or the Indian Independence Act, 1947, unless such amendment is
accepted by me by Instrument supplementary to this Instrument. 7.
Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit in any way to
acceptance of any future constitution of India or to fetter my
discretion to enter into arrangement with the Government of India
under any such future constitution. 8/15/2005 4:29 AM 8. Nothing in
this Instrument affects the continuance of my Sovereignty in and
over this State, or, save as provided by or under this Instrument,
the exercise of any powers, authority and rights now enjoyed by me
as Ruler of this State or the validity of any law at present in
force in this State. Syed Bhasker when will you grow up why you and
your leaders are so stupid?
Bhaskar
Syed
2.1
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in red
Your web page says: The All Jammu & Kashmir National
Conference - resolution - convening a constituent assembly - adult
suffrage - determining its future shape and affiliation, including
its accession to India - to frame a Constitution - October, 1950.
The Constituent Assembly formed after elections - September, 1951.
The historic "Delhi Agreement" - Kashmiri leaders and the
Government of India - dynamic nature of constitutional relationship
between the state of Jammu & Kashmir and the Indian Union -
reaffirmed its accession to India - July 24, 1952. The Constitution
of Jammu & Kashmir adopted by the Constituent Assembly -
November, 1956 - came into effect - January 26, 1957 Un Resolution
adopted by the Security Council at its 765th meeting on 24 January
1957, concerning the IndiaPakistan Question says Reminding the
Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in
its resolutions of 21 April 1948 (S/726), 3 June 1948 , 14 March
1950 (S/1469) and 30 March 1951 (S/2017/Rev. 1), and the United
Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August
1948 (S/1100, para. 75) and 5 January 1949 (S/1196, para. 15), that
the final disposition of that State of Jammu and Kashmir will be
made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through
the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted
under the auspices of the United Nations, 8/15/2005 4:32 AM 1.
Reaffirms the affirmation in its resolution of 30 March 1951 and
declares that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as
recommended by the General Council of the All Jammu and Kashmir
National Conference and any action that Assembly may have taken or
might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation
of the entire State or any part thereof, or action by the parties
concerned in support of any such action by the Assembly, would not
constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above
principles; 2. Decides to continue its consideration of the
dispute. Your web site says: The historic "Shimla Agreement" -
between India and Pakistan - all previous pronouncements on Kashmir
superceded - all issues relating to Jammu & Kashmir to be
settled bilaterally - the cease-fire line converted to the Line of
Control (LOC) - July 3, 1972. The Kashmir accord concluded - Prime
Minister of India - "Clock cannot be put back"; Kashmiri leadership
- "Accession of the state of Jammu & Kashmir to India is not a
matter in issue" - February, 1975. Syed The simla pact says: In
Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the
cease-fire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides
without prejudice to the recognised position of either side.
Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of
mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further
undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in
violation of this line. Both Governments agree that their
respective heads will meet again at a mutually convenient time in
the future and that in the meanwhile the representatives of the two
sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements
for the establishment of durable peace and normalisation of
relations, including the questions of repatriation of prisoners of
war and civilian internees, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir
and the resumption of diplomatic relations. 8/15/2005 4:35 AM Your
say: I specifically created this thread so that the international
community may read the document as also the Pakistanis who have
been fed lies on the subject as part of their curriculum. I write:
I specifically reply this thread so that the international
community may read the document as also the Indians who have been
fed lies on the subject as part of their curriculum. Who says that
people from the international community want to read what you
write. Syed 8/15/2005 4:39 AM I notice that as usual you have
nothing meaningful to say other than remark on the quality of the
scan put up, comment on the non-availability of certain links in
this particular govt web-site and comment on the English. I presume
you have kept other imaginative avenues of digression from topic
for future use.
Syed
Bhaskar
2.2
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in redThough nothing can be done about the English in an
already signed original document that is now close to 58 years old,
India would definitely try to work on scan quality and updation of
all its links to better suit your tastes. Syed 8/15/2005 4:47 AM 13
August 1948 (S/1100, para. 75) and 5 January 1949 (S/1196, para.
15), that the final disposition of that State of Jammu and Kashmir
will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed
through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite
conducted under the auspices of the United Nations, There you go
again bringing in the UN whenever it suits you. When I ask you
questions you suddenly disappear from the thread and only to spout
the same garbage months later. I repeat my question to you. The UN
asked Pakistan in 1948 to vacate the Kashmir area occupied by
Pakistan as a result of invasion, of all its civilians, material
and army, so that a plebiscite could be held.
Bhaskar
1. Why didn't Pakistan do it? 2. Why is Pakistan talking about
the UN after being a signatory to the Simla Agreement in 1972 that
all Kashmir related issues will be resolved bilaterally? Answer
this and don't run away again without doing so. Syed 8/15/2005 4:59
AM There is absolutely no contradiction between what the website
states and the Simla Agreement. The website only reiterates that
the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir is not under any question,
contention or dispute and this reaffirms the fact that Kashmir
acceded to India. Are you disputing the fact that Kashmir acceded
to India, like you disputed the fact that Pakistanis invaded
Kashmir in Sep-Oct 1947 and then had to keep quiet when confronted
with proof, earlier in this very community? Further, it only
indicates your deep felt embarrassment and resultant hatred at
being shown poorly by India that Kashmir rightfully belongs to it,
when you say nobody in this community would bother to read the scan
of the original Instrument of Accession of Kashmir to India . You
shouldn't have then been replying to this topic at all in the first
place. It must really burn your heart to see the scan and prove the
liars that you all are. Guys like you have shamelessly lied to
several generations of Pakis and feel no remorse for it. You should
be really proud of the Paki school curriculum that preached hate
for India and Hindus that I had put up earlier. So proud that you
did not dare comment on it here. 8/15/2005 3:31 PM Bhaskar &
Co. is failed to bash Pakistan this time.. I must say "Well done
Bhaskar". If you dont waist time here to degrade Pakistan & use
this time for the development of your own country, I'm sure, your
country will progress. The Patriotic Such long posts help no body,
reality doesn't change with such topics/posts on Orkut. Reality is
something different. Try to realize that you've done good for your
country, I mean to say, you're running on the track your Govt
provided. Now its time to do something extraordinary for your
dearest country. Happy Independence Day! May God make your country
peaceful. 8/16/2005 11:38 AM May God make your country peaceful.
Kedar look who is speaking!!!
Bhaskar
2.3
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in red8/16/2005 12:00 PM
http://www.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=4608&tid=19025678 i
remember there were more posts in there than 7 n i have asked u a
question there i m still waiting
Mutawassam
8/17/2005 11:33 PM Poor Bhasker I specifically created this
thread so that the international community may read the document as
also the Pakistanis who have been fed lies on the subject as part
of their curriculum. I was waiting to see the reaction of the
international community on your post. I conclude that no one takes
you seriously. Every one knows that what you write and the official
stand of your Indian government is based on lies. Syed If at all
there was any instrument of accession in existence as early as
October 26, 1947, why India failed to make it official and bring it
on the official record of UN. Please check and let me know if it is
on the UN record. I will take your reply to answer it point by
point giving time gaps so that the topic remains highlighted and is
able to attract the attention of international community as you
desire. Syed et al 8/17/2005 11:43 PM If at all there was any
instrument of accession in existence as early as October 26, 1947,
why India failed to make it official and bring it on the official
record of UN. Please check and let me know if it is on the UN
record. You seem to suffer from a terrible case of foot in the
mouth disease, as do several of your countrymen. The copy of the
Instrument of Accession is very much part of the UN records. A
couple of months back, I gave you several links on the topic
including one that presented India's case on Kashmir to the UN in
1957. You obviously didn't bother to read it. If you had, you
would've known that all Kashmir related documentation copies
related to India's case formed part of the document set provided to
the UN then. You still function from your own hole of ignorance and
denial despite being pointed to the fact that Pakistan has never
have questioned the authenticity of the IoA at the UN. I've on
several occasions asked many a Paki for Pakistan's official
position on the matter, but have never got a response on the
matter. Do you guys even know what your country's position is? I
have no doubt that you don't. 8/17/2005 11:45 PM You have
mischievous mind and child like attitude it becomes necessary to
explain why we respond to you posts. To keep the record straight.
Syed 8/17/2005 11:49 PM Give me the UN link not the Indian one or
some private web by an Indian.
Bhaskar
Syed 8/17/2005 11:58 PM Give me the UN link not the Indian one
or some private web by an Indian.
2.4
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in redBhaskar Why don't you read the links that I've
already given you, you moron. And I have given you a scanned copy
of the document, and that seems to have kept you tongue tied. The
scanned copy of an original official document of India will only be
hosted by India on its official webistes and not by the UN which
was not disputing or questioning the Accession in any case.
Pakistan didn't go to the UN disputing the Accession. They just
decided to invade Kashmir instead even before the Maharaja could
make up his mind, and present the Maharaja with a fait accompli. As
usual you have nothing of substance to say on the Kashmir issue.
8/18/2005 12:02 AM To keep the record straight. You guys are
neither straight nor do you have records that you can furnish.
Little wonder Pakis pull out all their arguments, on any subject,
out of the air and are unable to back them up or substantiate them.
8/18/2005 12:08 AM JUST TELL ME IS IT ON THE UN OFFICIAL RECORD OR
NOT. If it is give me the link. 8/18/2005 12:19 AM JUST TELL ME IS
IT ON THE UN OFFICIAL RECORD OR NOT. Bhaskar When documents are
provided to the UN they go on official record don't they, as part
of the submissions made by a country on an issue? Did I have to
explain this to you? 8/18/2005 12:33 AM It means only you and the
Indian government are the ones who know that the instrument of
accession is on the UN record. Your profile: passion says Dreaming.
Please wake up you are wasting peoples time. 8/18/2005 12:48 AM
I'll say it slowly this time. When documents get submitted to the
UN they go on record as having been provided to the UN. The fact of
submission is known to not only India and the UN but to PAKISTAN
too. Since morons like you didn't know about it, you also now know
about it. You couldn't have trusted your army govt to have kept you
posted can you? Bhaskar Have you asked yourself why Pakistan has
never ever questioned the Instrument of Accession at the UN? You
are really pathetic. 8/18/2005 12:56 AM The fact remains that you
are tongue tied by the scanned copy of the Instrument of Accession.
Now that it is on display, what can you say, eh? Please show the
same to me at another website? How pathetic! The Instrument of
Accession thus conclusively proves that Pakistan has no locus
standi let alone any claim on Kashmir. The only option for them is
to stop dreaming about Kashmir and walk out of the land occupied by
them.
Bhaskar
Syed
Syed
Bhaskar
2.5
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in redYes, that and change the name of their country. K
in Pakistan will no longer represent Kashmir! LOL! 8/18/2005 1:09
AM Morons = a taboo term that deliberately insults somebodys
intelligence Calm down I can understand you state of mind you may
hurt yourself. I know how the records are kept; have an experience
of 40 years here and abroad. Syed As I said earlier I like to give
some time for the international community to see your state of mind
and console you. 8/18/2005 1:33 AM Yeah. Your state of mind is
pretty dead right now and understandably so, as you have now come
across the dreaded Instrument of Accession. Your experience counts
for nothing, from what I have seen of you so far in this community
over the last 6 months. Some people remain idiots all their lives.
Syed. Why are you so scared of this legal document? It speaks for
itself and exposes your country doesn't it? C'mon don't hide inside
a hole. Tell us all how the Instrument of Accession makes you feel.
It further hurts your case that Kashmir was sold to the Maharaja
Gulab Singh, Maharaja Hari Singh's forefather, by the British for a
consideration and that is recorded by another official document
signed in the 1840s. Have you read that document too? LOL. y r u
ppl fighting?? 8/18/2005 3:55 AM bhaskar, isn't it good if we let
the govts decide wht should they do abt kashmir?? i hope everyone
here knows that "bilateral talks" in simla accord doesn't at all
refer to each n every indian n pakistani, its abt govts, so we
better let them do it while we all should atleast try to live
peacefully:) Sadia take care........dia 8/18/2005 11:43 AM @bas kar
i already asked this question to u in some other thread n u never
came to answer me now i ask it again if u think all kashmiries love
to live ith india y than u dont hold referendomn in kashmir ?
Bhaskar
Mutawassa m 8/18/2005 2:13 PM Indian looser (Bhaskar) is trying
again & again to win verbal war here on Orkut. But reality
doesn't change my looser brother. We know the facts, you dont need
to come with such shits like Instrument of Accession. The Patriotic
Such posts will never change the facts that Indian army have killed
more than 90,000 innocent Kashmiri Muslims in Kashmir. It will not
change the fact that India is denying Kashmiri Muslims their right
of self determination as per UNSC resolutions which was also
promised to them by Nehru. It can not change the fact that Indian
Army is slaughtering, raping, burning and killing innocent Kashmiri
Muslims and denying their freedom. 8/18/2005 10:27 PM The document
posted on an Indian web has got no legal standing Be very clear in
you mind that The document posted on an Indian web has got no legal
standing. Suppose I agree with your wrong stand than how do you
explain the clause 5 and 7 of the instrument. 5. The terms of this
my Instrument of Accession shall not be varied by any amendment of
the Act or the Indian Independence Act, 1947, unless such amendment
is accepted by me by Instrument supplementary to this Instrument.
Where is the supplementary to this instrument?
Syed
2.6
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in red"7. Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to
commit in any way to acceptance of any future constitution of India
or to fetter my discretion to enter into arrangement with the
Government of India under any such future constitution". Mean that
the Indian government did deceive and tricked the Maharaja also. I
repeat again The document posted on an Indian web has got no legal
standing Syed 8/18/2005 11:10 PM [ The document posted on an Indian
web has got no legal standing] Syed, do you believe US govt
documents put up on US govy websites and those of Pak put up on Pak
govt websites. The fact that the scan of an official copy is put up
on a website and that too a govt one, does not take away the merit
of the document in any way. You really have all sense of reason,
how pathetic.
Bhaskar
[5. The terms of this my Instrument of Accession shall not be
varied by any amendment of the Act or the Indian Independence Act,
1947, unless such amendment is accepted by me by Instrument
supplementary to this Instrument.] Where is the supplementary to
this instrument? Did you even understand the clause before you
wrote the question? And you calim to have 40 years of international
experience? Read it again, I'm not going to spoon feed you.
8/18/2005 11:37 PM Syed, do you believe US govt documents put up on
US govy websites and those of Pak put up on Pak govt websites. NO I
judge them on merit and the reaction of the honest people with
credibility. Example:
Syed
All the references by Collin Powell at the presentation to
United Nations regarding the WMD and al-Qadir links of Saddam were
a pack of lies. So is the document you are referring to. 8/18/2005
11:56 PM Did you even understand the clause before you wrote the
question? And you calim to have 40 years of international
experience? Read it again, I'm not going to spoon feed you. NO I
specifically created this thread so that the international
community may read the document as also the Pakistanis who have
been fed lies on the subject as part of their curriculum.
Syed
Can you please enlighten me, Pakistanis and the international
community? Ironically no one from the international community seems
interested in reading and replying to your lies. 8/19/2005 1:05 AM
[Syed, do you believe US govt documents put up on US govy websites
and those of Pak put up on Pak govt websites.] NO I judge them on
merit and the reaction of the honest people with credibility.
Disbelieving a scan? What more credible evidence can one ask for.
It just goes to show that you are intellectually dishonest.
Bhaskar
All the references by Collin Powell at the presentation to
United Nations regarding the WMD and al-Qadir links of Saddam were
a pack of lies.
2.7
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in red
Colin Powell put up a presentation to prove a point based on
lies. This is fact, but I'm hardly surprised that you can't tell
fact from lies. 8/19/2005 1:09 AM [Did you even understand the
clause before you wrote the question? And you claim to have 40
years of international experience? Read it again, I'm not going to
spoon feed you.] NO Bhaskar Clearly indicates your state of mind
that lives in deep denial inside an even deeper hole. 8/19/2005
1:13 AM Collin Powels presentation and Indian presentation are lies
of same category; to support an unjust action.
Syed 8/19/2005 1:20 AM Why dont you elaborate and explain the
clause so that I pull you in to more stupid position of yours.
Syed 8/19/2005 2:01 AM Entree in your profile: from my past
relationships i learned: You scribe: I need to grow up! Why dont
you do the needful? An Indian king once had a donkey with frozen
neck and would not move his neck. The king called all the
specialists from all over the world. Many took chance reward for
the success was plentiful but the punishment was death. All who
took chance failed except one; he went to the donkey and said
something in his ear. The donkey started swinging his head at the
neck joints. King was astonished and asked the person the secret of
his remedy. The person said it is my secret. King offered more
reward. The person who cured the donkey said. mai ney kadhay say
pucha oos kay kan mey tu bihari tow nahi hai. (I asked the donkey
in his ear if he is a bihari, bihar is the place in India to which
Mr. Bhasker belongs.) No offences to other Biharies some of my very
dear friends are form Bihar. They accept that being Bihari is a
feeling that can attack any body in the world. Which part of east
India do you belong to? 8/19/2005 2:16 AM Collin Powels
presentation and Indian presentation are lies of same category; to
support an unjust action. Bhaskar You saying that an original
scanned copy is a lie, which stares you in the face, is a lie
doesn't make it so. It just goes to show that you have lived an
entire life believing and propagating a lie. 8/19/2005 2:18 AM Why
dont you elaborate and explain the clause so that I pull you in to
more stupid position of yours. What's the matter, 40 years of
international experience finds you inept to understand a simple
sentence? You just proved my point that experience doesn't count
for anything when one is an idiot. 8/19/2005 2:20 AM Entree in your
profile: from my past relationships i learned: Having run out of
arguments, not that you had any to begin with, you are searching
for clues to replies for the Instrument of Accession in my profile?
How pathetic.
Syed
Bhaskar
Bhaskar
2.8
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in red8/19/2005 2:28 AM bihar is the place in India to
which Mr. Bhasker belongs. No offences to other Biharies some of my
very dear friends are form Bihar. They accept that being Bihari is
a feeling that can attack any body in the world. Which part of east
India do you belong to? If this is what you have inferred from my
profile, then you are not only ignorant but stupid and any Indian
here would confirm that. But that's no news. All Pakis are stupid
and every Indian knows that. No offense to some Pakis who may read
this who are my dear friends. In any case, I see the senile Paki
here has run out of arguments and is now trying to figure out about
my Indianness. What a moron. 8/19/2005 2:30 AM Actually I was
trying to ascertain your age so that I approach you at your level.
And came across you ethnicity and recalled a joke to share with
you. No offence. As for further arguments you will have to wait for
the next time when I have the time. In the mean time be patient and
behave like a good kid. 8/19/2005 2:58 AM Check out the Replies
Bhaskar received ,esp. the Crabby's smashes to Bhaskar. They are
awesome.- Smashes to Bhaskar-
Bhaskar
Syed
Tanzeel 8/19/2005 3:00 AM And came across you ethnicity Pray
tell me, how did you figure out I was a Bihari or from East India?
I'm still rolling in laughter. Bhaskar As for my age, you sure
don't match up intellectually and that is self-evident. Only a fool
would think that he doesn't need to grow up, at any age. That's age
old wisdom for you, not to be found in any BOOK. 8/20/2005 7:39 AM
Thanks Tanzeel I liked the following Para. But looks like you are
only interested in showing the document, and not dealing with the
history how it came...just one suggestion for your mental
satisfaction...take a print-out, and then put it on a frame, and
hang it in your bed room so that every morning you wake up you can
see it and shout "Kashmir is mine, Kashmir is mine"... Just a
friendly suggestion... Crabby and I second. Agreements treaties are
serious documents a number of copies of such documents are normally
made and every signatory gets one. In this case the record of India
Pakistan, Kashmir, and UK should posses the true copies. Check all
the UK libraries and let me know if you find any trace. Syed This
document doesnt exist any where in the world except for Indian
links. People who have written books about it have never admitted
having seen it any where until Bhasker pointed out the existence of
its scanned copy on an Indian government website. What they have
displayed is a forged document. Raja Singh signs the document on 26
and Mountbatten on the 27 as the dates are available on the forged
document venue may be miles apart. There are three different hand
writings means three different persons using these papers.
Ironically all are using the same ballpoint pen even before it was
invented. Enlarge the images with some good image editor change the
contrast brightness you will
2.9
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in redfind out that the document was forged then a
black/white photocopy was made out of the forged on and there after
scanned. If one ever gets to see the original forgery it will not
be difficult to note down the quality of the ball pen how it
missing the gell deposit at every rollover of certain alphabet.
Bashkar, 8/20/2005 10:07 AM There is some controversy on the
authenticity of the document. It was not submitted to the UN until
the 90's, being reported as missing. How come? Some analists even
say that the Maharaja wasn't even in office at the day it was
supposedly signed. How did that happen? I'm not taking sides, by
any mean, since my comprehension on the subject is very limited.
These are just some questions I'd like to see answered. Dani
8/20/2005 10:33 AM Can you substantiate any of what you say?
Bhaskar 8/20/2005 10:51 AM "Alastair Lamb (in his book, Kashmir - A
disputed legacy 1846-1990)points out that the Instrument of
Accession could not have been signed by the Mahrajah on 26th
October as he was travelling by road to Jammu (a distance of over
350 Km). There is no evidence to suggest that a meeting or
communication of any kind took place on 26th October 1947. In fact
it was on 27th October 1947 that the Mahrajah was informed by his
MC Mahajan and VP Menon (who had flown into Srinagar), the the
Instrument of Accession had already been negotiated in Dehli. The
Mahrajah did not in fact sign the Instrument of Accession, if at
all, until 27th October 1947."
Dani
Dani
Bhaskar
"Finally, there is some doubt as to whether the treaty was ever
signed. 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.27 The Instrument of Accession
was neither presented to the United Nations nor to Pakistan. While
this does not void the treaty, it does mean that India cannot
invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.28
Moreover, further shedding doubt on the treatys validity, in 1995
Indian authorities claimed that the original copy of the treaty was
either stolen or lost." Vikas Kapur and Vipin Narang / Stanford
Journal of IR. Dani 8/20/2005 11:04 AM 1. Alastair Lamb has written
a book based on conjecture. The dates that he provides or the
setting that he describes as the situation is not borne out by any
reference that can be corroborated. This has been discussed
threadbare in another community. Writers have the ability to mix
and sell a book based on half truths and that is what he has done.
8/20/2005 11:16 AM "Finally, there is some doubt as to whether the
treaty was ever signed. 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.27 The
Instrument of Accession was neither presented to the United Nations
nor to Pakistan. While this does not void the treaty, it does mean
that India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United
Nations.28 Moreover, further shedding doubt on the treatys
validity, in 1995 Indian authorities claimed that the original copy
of the treaty was either stolen or lost." Vikas Kapur and Vipin
Narang / Stanford Journal of IR. 1. You put up a quote from yet
another book without questioning it. 2.In January 1957, when the
Indian representative gave a seven hour marathon lecture to the UN
on the Kashmir issue, several documents were given to the UN as
annexures to the speech and there was specific reference to the
Instrument of Annexure by Krishna Menon in that speech. I have
already provided the entire transcript of that speech by way of a
link in this community. 3. The Instrument of Accession was a
standard document that both India and Pakistan used to sign up 565
Princely States into the Union. This was approved by the British
and the British had notified the Princes about the fact that they
would have to either India/Pakistan. 4. This was an irrevocable
Instrument of Accession and not a 'treaty' between member sovereign
states of the world community, let alone of the UN. Most of the
princely states
Bhaskar
2.10
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in redautomatically merged with India/Pakistan on the
day the 2 countries got their independence but for a few which took
some time. So the registeration part does not apply. 5. Pakistan
has no locus standi between the agreement between 2 sovereign
states, so there is no reason to share anything with Pakistan on
the subject. 6. I have already mentioned that reference to the
Instrument of Accession was made as late as 1957 at the UN.
contd... Dani 8/20/2005 11:32 AM 6. The issue was taken by India to
the UN in Jan 1948 only to highlight the fact that a Pakistani
invasion had taken place on a State which had formally acceded to
India. The reason for approaching the UN was to set out the
sequence of events and get them to persuade Pakistan to withdraw
its people from a State which was India's legally. 7. The
Instrument of Accession that Kashmir signed with India was never
ever questioned by Pakistan in the UN nor was the authority of the
Maharaja of Kashmir ever called into question. 8. The signatories
of the IoA were the Maharaja of Kashmir who died in 1961 and Lord
Mountbatten, as India's first Governor General who died in 1979.
Lord Mounbatten was asked by free India to continue as Governor
General after India got its independence from the UK. So the
British government too were completely in the loop on this. 9. A
document is produced by a country in front of any legal/world body
only when required and the Instrument of Accession was never called
into question by the UN. Bhaskar 10. India's position on Kashmir is
very clear and it has been so from day one. It has absolute and
unquestionable legal right over Kashmir. Since the situation
involved an occupation of Kashmir by Pakistan before the Instrument
of Accession was signed, the UN suggested a plebiscite there which
India agreed to, provided that all of Pakistani people and army
were withdrawn from the area so that the free will of the Kashmiri
people could be exercised. The UN accordingly passed resolutions in
1948 itself and later, which Pakistan refused to abide by, in the
meanwhile indulging in forceful resettling of people in the region
from outside. Thus no plebiscite was ever held. 11. Since the
ground reality of Kashmir based on extensive resettlement and
bifurcation of the area by PAkistan, had undergone a change, India
and Pakistan realised that it was futile involving the UN anymore.
They signed the 1972 Simla Agreement that the matter henceforth
would be sorted out bilaterally. contd. Lastly 8/20/2005 11:40 AM
All the Instrument of Accession agreements signed by India with the
other 550 Princely States too form part of the confidential set of
official documents. So it is only recently that India decided to
put up a scan on its govt website of the Kashmir Instrument of
Accession. Not surprisingly this has in one stroke demolished the
conspiracy theory floated around by some authors of books that the
document did not exist simply because they were not granted access
to it. Bhaskar The point which needs to be remebered time and again
that Pakistan, India, Britain ( through Lord Mountbatten) as well
as the Maharaja and his son, who is still alive, as well as India
know about the Instrument of Accession and the illegality of
Pakistan's presence in Kashmir. The question to be asked then and
now is what is Pakistan doing in Kashmir occupying a part of it,
when they don't have a shred of a legal claim on it? I see...
Thanks for clearing that up... 8/20/2005 12:46 PM Well, even though
they have no legal right to claim the territory they might have a
legitimate reason to do so (I'm not saying they actually do, just
that they may). We all know that International Law has fragile
limitations and must not be considered absolute. The control of the
Kashmir region is a matter of great geopolitical importance for
Pakistan although most claims are made in favor of the religious
and demograpgic dispute. Isn't it legitimate to seek autarcy?
Dani
2.11
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in redDani 8/20/2005 1:15 PM Kashmir has been used by
Pakistan to whip up religious passion within Pakistan for political
purposes and this often goes side by side with strong anti-Hindu
anti-India hate campaigns. Politicians who indulge in this are
traditionally favored by the masses when it comes to power. That is
the strong reason for the Mullah-Army nexus in Pakistan. All this
pre-dates Afghanisan and even the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Pakistan thus converted itself as a country formed as a 'Muslim
majority area' during independence, through ethnic cleansing into a
97.5% Muslim ruled area. They beleieve that Pakistan now is only
for Muslims and have propagated terrorism in Kashmir since 1988 to
arouse the civilian population there through acts of terrorism -
terrorism carried out by Pakistan deliberately targeting Hindus, so
much so that more than 300,000 Hindus, indigenous Kashmiris, fled
Kashmir abandoning their property in 1990 and are now settled in
refugee camps outside Delhi. Thus while Pakistan believes that it
is a country only for Muslims, India believes it is a country for
all religions. It is a secular country. The majority of Muslims in
modern India realised the political game that the Muslim League
that created Pakistan was playing, and opted to stay back in India.
India thus has states with Hindu majority, Muslim majority,
Chrisitan majority and even communist majority. So India obviously
doesn't buy any argument on the basis of religion. North Ireland,
Palestine and Pakistan were bad enough precedents set up by the
British under the assumption that multi-religious cultures cannot
co-exist. That mistake cannot be further compounded. 8/20/2005 1:40
PM The control of the Kashmir region is a matter of great
geopolitical importance for Pakistan Every part of every country is
geopolitically important particularly when it neighbours several
countries. Kashmir in this case neighbours Pakistan, Afghanistan
and China. Pakistan occupying a territory through invasion doesn't
provide legitamcy to its occupation or to its claim as a result of
such occupation particularly under a situation when another country
has indisputable legal claim over that area. That is the reason
India doesn't consider the Kashmir matter to be a 'dispute', as the
title of India over Kashmir is clear cut. Pakistan at all times
like to tag on the word 'dispute' so that they can provide a
semblance of legitamacy to their occupation there. Since 1947,
India has held multi party elections in Kashmir, several times,
with Kashmiris exercising their free choice of vote to elect their
own representatives for local governance as well as for
representation in the Indian Parliament just as the people of other
states of India do. Kashmir also has a separate constitution
drafted and approved by the Kashmir legislative assembly in the
mid-1950s, which further ratifies the fact that Kashmir is
irrevocably acceded to India. Thus through democratic
representation the voice, feelings and the will of the people of
Kashmir is being exercised by India for more than 50 years now.
Pakistan on the other hand, split Kashmir into 2 halves, one
administered largely by the Army and a very small geographical
piece which was called 'autonomous'. It also granted China a part
of Kashmir in 1964. Given that Pakistan itself has a poor track
record of democracy let alone elections, the situation is worse so
in Pakistan occupied Kashmir where the people do not enjoy the same
rights as the people of the 4 Pakistani provinces. Literacy levels
and other social indicators in Pak occupied Kashmir are lower than
the country avg. Such is the situation. 8/20/2005 9:04 PM UNITED
NATIONS E Economic and Social Council Distr. GENERAL
E/CN.4/1999/SR.6 8 October 1999 ENGLISH Original: FRENCH COMMISSION
ON HUMAN RIGHTS Fifty-fifth session SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 6th
MEETING Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Friday, 26 March
1999, at 10 a.m. Chairperson: Ms. ANDERSON (Ireland) page 8 Syed
37. Kashmir had been occupied by India since 27 October 1947,
although it had never
Bhaskar
Bhaskar
2.12
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in redformed part of that country. It would be
interesting to know how the Indian authorities justified what they
called the integration of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into
India; they created the impression that the transfer of the
sovereignty of the State of Jammu and Kashmir had taken the form of
a treaty known as an instrument of accession. But that instrument
had never been produced; did it really exist? On that point, the
International Court of Justice had adopted a very clear position,
holding that the integration of territory into a State could not
take place without ascertaining the freely expressed will of the
people. In its resolutions on Kashmir, the Security Council had
stated that the final disposition of the State had to be through an
impartial plebiscite organized under United Nations auspices. While
presenting itself as the biggest democracy, India was trampling on
human rights to satisfy its expansionist aims. Indias official
representative present in the meeting did not refute or object.
8/20/2005 9:07 PM UNITED NATIONS E Economic and Social Council
Distr. GENERAL E/CN.4/2005/NGO/203 28 February 2005 ENGLISH ONLY
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Sixty-first session Item 5 of the
provisional agenda THE RIGHT OF PEOPLES TO SELF-DETERMINATION AND
ITS APPLICATION TO PEOPLES UNDER COLONIAL OR ALIEN DOMINATION OR
FOREIGN OCCUPATION Written statement* submitted by Jammu and
Kashmir Council for Human Rights (JKCHR), a non-governmental
organization in special consultative status The Secretary-General
has received the following written statement which is circulated in
accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31. [11
February 2005] It is a pity that when India and Pakistan emerged as
two sovereign states in exercise of a Right to Self Determination
in August 1947, the People of Jammu and Kashmir who were one people
up until 27 October 1947, as a result of a Tribal invasion became a
people divided under three administrations. The 70 year old
(1877-1947) Rights Movement lost its course and an independent
State lapsed into the respective controls of India and Pakistan.
Under the Instrument of Accession (disputed by the people) India
accrued an obligation to protect the life, property and honour of
the people of Jammu and Kashmir. This obligation extended to all
the people living under the three administrations on either side of
the Line Of Control. In early 1947 the political environment in
India and Pakistan was bedevilled by a communal bias and mistrust.
Due to a paucity of information, lack of interaction and
communication people did not have the ability to make a mature
judgement and an informed choice. Hindu religious sentiment was
pitched and poised against the Muslim sentiment and vice versa.
Indian Governments erred to rule Kashmir through a mechanism of
proxy-politics. It enraged the Muslim sentiment and Pakistan
stepped in to advantage itself from the Muslim sentiment. 8/20/2005
9:47 PM
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN016754.pdf
I can give you more, may be in thousands like the above link. The
above link is for Consolidated Fund of Goa - Capital Account
Disbursements (India). Isnt it funny that an insignificant document
like the above is searchable on the UN record and at the same time
isnt it treacherous and a conspiracy that a document which can
change the lives of millions of people of Kashmir is inaccessible?
What Indian government has displayed on its official website is a
fraud and forged document. 8/20/2005 9:48 PM UNITED NATIONS E
Economic and Social Council Since when did the UN Economic and
Social Council start commenting on such matters, eh? Particularly
when the UNSC was handling the matter at that time in the
1940s-50s? The Indian representative did not comment on the matter
becuase the said council had no business to comment let alone act
on that matter. And that after Pakistan had clearly agreed with
India way back in 1972 that the matter was to be handled
bilaterally. Syed, you just get increasingly stupid by the day. I
gave you a link of the Indian representative's speech to the UN in
Jan 1957 where all such matters are discussed with the UNSC
including the IoA. You refused to read it or acknowledge it in your
patently dishonest style.
Syed
Syed
Bhaskar
2.13
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in redYou refuse to accept that your country has never
questioned the IoA ever in the UNSC and you who has basic problems
in understanding a one sentence legal clause in the document want
to call it a fraud? You are more of an idiot than I had imagined.
8/20/2005 10:25 PM Bhasker as stupid a person as I am fail to
understand that submissions at the economic and social council
placed by the NGOs are circulated to the members - to the extent
that what India spent in Goa is the part of UN record; what India
submitted as an official record, the so called instrument of
accession, was never circulated? Syed Why UN chose to brush aside
the submission of the Indian government on a matter termed a
nuclear flashpoint? Is it the credibility of the Indian documents?
8/20/2005 10:50 PM Does the UN take your instrument of accession as
fraud? If at all something emerges from the UN graveyard now,
stupid people like me will be justified in thinking that it is some
kind of magic by a crook out of the strong international fraudulent
Indian lobby.
Syed Syed 8/20/2005 11:05 PM You are not only dumb but stupid
too as I have repeatedly pointed out. 1. What India spent in Goa
did not come out of the UNSC records definitely, but from another
arm of the UN. It came out of a context where the said document
itself was part of the basic submission for circulation and not an
annexure. 2. I have explained India's postion clearly on numerous
occasions in this forum. I'll also reiterate the fact which I
repeatedly mentioned that a whole host of documents were submitted
to the UN as part of an annexure to the speech made by India's
representative to the UN in Jan 1957. These documents included
everything that Krishna Menon gave reference to his speech. If you
had but read the link that I gave you, instead of trolling around
here with your replies, you would realise that Krishna Menon as
well as the UNSC council members remarked on the voluminous
submissions made by India along with the case. The contents of the
speech itself were circulated and not the annexures which became UN
records available for examination if and when specifically required
by the UNSC. 3. Either you are dishonest which you are well likely
to be, or you are absolutely ignorant of how these things work,
which is also very likely. In either case, your inferences and
insinuations are just the crazed ravings of an ignoramus idiot.
8/20/2005 11:13 PM Does the UN take your instrument of accession as
fraud? Having said all that, the UN never itself calls into
question any document submitted by a member nation. Neither did
they find cause to remark on it, nor did Pakistan, an interested
party in the whole affair and which was making a case against India
to justify its aggression in Kashmir, find it necessary to bring
the document into question or remark on its authenticity in the UN.
Bhaskar When your own Paki government has recognised the truth of
the matter in this regard, why are you raving like a crazed idiot
and questioning it? The only answer to this, is that you have as
much credibility as the next Paki imbecile around you. Your only
salvation is to keep feeding yourself on more lies and hate. Such
food will help keep you in a state of psychosis that you deserve.
And yes. Go read some more conspiracy sites in the meanwhile which
mix half truths and outright lies to cocncoct stories. That is all
that you and your like are fit for. 8/20/2005 11:40 PM To display
the expenditure in Goa the UN has several arms for the so-called
instrument of accession the UN is armless? How pityfull? What has
not been objected or not said by Pakistani representative does not
matter what has been put on record for all to see is important? Has
it ever been argued by a majority and accepted by a Pakistani at
the UN that the Kashmir is a settled issue on the basis of the
instrument of accession?
Bhaskar
Syed
2.14
Kashmir Dispute; Terrorism and Freedom Fight, Line of control;
boundaries in redWhat ever names you like you may call me, that is
your state of mind. Universally Kashmir is taken as a dispute and
flashpoint historically the IoA is a fraudulent tactic. 8/20/2005
11:50 PM What has not been objected or not said by Pakistani
representative does not matter Of course it matters. When the legal
accession of Kashmir to India is not questioned by Pakistan, then
who are you to question it, eh? This brings us to the point that
Pakistan has been solely appealing to the UN on emotional grounds,
having illegally occupied a part of Kashmir through invasion, to
settle the 'dispute'. And when the UN passed its resolutions
ordering Pakistan to vacate from Kashmir so that a free and
plebiscite could be held by the Kashmiris, it refused! Bhaskar This
sums up Pakistan and Pakistani attitude on the subject. They don't
recognise civil law or legal documents, neither do they believe in
keeping up their word to the UN, when it comes to implementation,
after agreeing to the terms and conditions involved in the
resolution that was passed! Pakistan behaves like a lawless
criminal society on the world stage, time and again and this case
stands mute testimony to that. 8/22/2005 1:35 AM i think v r in
united nation community so in solving international problems u must
abide by the united nation's resolution or u shud say that u dont
consider united nation as a just 3rd party in such case bhaskar u
shud immediately leave the community n if u think united nation is
good enough u shud solve all probs as per united nations resolution
and as i know united nation wants a referendom in kashmir pakistan
is agreed to it i dont know y india is not, coz as they say that,
all kashmiries r with them n a small group of pakistani millitant
is causing probs there than they shud hold referendom there n shut
up all critics wat u say bhaskar ? 8/26/2005 4:35 AM I notice that
there is not much activity and interest of people in the topic
Kashmir Instrument of Accession!. I like to sum up the whole thing
and for the benefit of the readers have copied below the parts of
different resolutions and the complete list of resolutions on India
and Pakistan. There is no mention of the instrument of accession
any where on the UN record, to the extent, there is no mention of
the word accession any where in any of the UN resolutions. As
Bhasker mention the instrument was allegedly signed on October 26
47 while India and Pakistan as per resolution 126 and as late as
1957 accept and recognize the UN resolution 38 of 17 January 1948.
Syed All the resolutions after 126 pertain to actions of the UN
after wars of 1965 and 1971 between India and Pakistan. There is
even mention in resolution 122 of 24 January 1957 in very explicit
term that the actions taken and will be taken in future by All
Jammu & Kashmir National Conference are not acceptable to the
UN. up till now as per UN record the Kashmir is a disputed
territory. Hence the scanned copy of the instrument of accession on
an Indian government website is a fraud and has no legal bearing
and not recognized by the United Nations. 8/26/2005 4:36 AM 91
(1951) Resolution of 30 March 1951 Observing th
