Azad Kashmir claim on Gilgit Baltistan

Saiyan0321

Well-known member
Staff member
Think Tank Analyst
Pakistan Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 26, 2020
Messages
356
Reaction score
684
Points
93
Location
Pakistan
Azad Kashmir claim on Gilgit Baltistan
By
Saiyan0321​



There has been much hue and cry with the recent declaration by the Imran government to grant the region of Gilgit Baltistan a provincial status. Many have celebrated the step and have called it a positive reform that will surely help answer the growing grievances of the people of the Gilgit Baltistan whereas some have called it as a betrayal to the Kashmir cause and an illegal annexation of a territory that belongs to Kashmir. For this purpose it is prudent to study whether Azad Kashmir holds any strong claim to the region and these claims must be studied from a historical and legal aspect.

The modern day region of Gilgit Baltistan was not always so. It was home to various states and tribes that fiercely fought for their independent status and would fight armies coming from the vale and the western region. The current region itself was never such a Polity as it is right now. The region was home to three major areas that were known as the State of Hunza, State of Nagar and the areas of Gilgit. The region in itself saw local dynasties most notable of them being the Tarakhan Dynasty and the Raissiya Dynasty, both of whom are seen as historically being the drivers of the prosperity in Gilgit Baltistan and for a thousand years the tribes of the area, from Chitral to Haramosh ruled the region in genuine peace and prosperity. While region held separate identities, there was a sense of unity in defending the region and the dynasties themselves has tributary rule over the areas of Hunza and Nagar. This peace would last till the 1800s where conflict took birth from the conterminous region of Gilgit Baltistan and foreign invasions from Afghans to Sikh. Its most stunning example is in 1841, Sulaiman Shah, Raja of Yasin, conquered Gilgit. Then, Azad Khan, Raja of Punial, killed Sulaiman Shah, taking Gilgit; then Tahir Shah, Raja of Buroshall (Nagar), took Gilgit and killed Azad Khan. Tair Shah's son Shah Sakandar inherited, only to be killed by Gohar Aman, Raja of Yasin of the Khushwakhte Dynasty when he took Gilgit. Then in 1842, Shah Sakandar's brother, Karim Khan, expelled Yasin rulers with the support of a Sikh army from Kashmir which left a garrison over there to rule the region. Meanwhile Zarowar Singh captured the town of Skardu and with it the Balti region since after the fall of Skardu Fort, they went westward capturing the fort of Astor. A large part of the region came under the forceful occupation of the Sikh by 1842 however the rule was anything but peaceful. The tribes and the people rebelled repeatedly. The Sikh rule had been extended to Gilgit in 1842. The British transferred control of the territory to the Dogra rulers of Jammu and Kashmir by the Treaty of Amritsar of 1846. Six years later, a rebellion by local tribal leaders chafing under Dogra rule led to the ouster of the maharaja’s forces. In 1860, however, Ranbir Singh recaptured it and annexed it to the state of Jammu and Kashmir as the capital of the Gilgit Wazarat. Seizure of Dardistan’s geo-strategic potential, London agreed to give Ranbir Singh military aid in exchange for the stationing, in 1877, of a British agent in Gilgit to supervise the conduct of policy on this frontier. The existence of this agency, however, was short-lived, since relations between the maharaja and the political agent, Major John Biddulph, were strained. In 1881, the agency was withdrawn, freeing the maharaja of supervision. In 1889 Colonel Algernon Durand with his first challenge coming from the rulers of Hunza and Nagar who had joined forces with the tribes of Gilgit and Baltistan to fight against the Maharaja. The two states were quelled, under what would be known as the Hunza-Nagar campaign of 1891 and Hunza and Nagar were absorbed into Gilgit Agency by 1892-3. The aggression was another display of the imperialistic policies done by the British in the region. The war started when Durand decided to enhance the connectivity of the region by building roads and telecommunication networks to forts so that the area can be defended in case of any emergency. The rulers of Hunza and Nagar regarded this as a threat as the remoteness of the region was a major defense of the people that lived over there. In 1890 Durand started reinforcing the Chalt fort thinking that the mirs of Hunza and Nagar would attack. The mirs sent a warning to Durand to cease his activities on the fort and its road since the fort was on the Gilgit side of the border. Durand did not listen and started to finish the work in great haste. The mirs responded by closing their routes to the mail that came from the British residents that were posted in Chinese Turkestan and the British took this as an act of war and declared such and annexed the reason. Through this a historically diverse region with separate identities and separate statehood came under the control of the Dogra as the Gilgit Agency. The State of Hunza and State of Nagar always saw themselves as separate Princely States.

With the war in Kashmir at full swing by 24th October 1947 and the declaration of Azad government and the accession of the Maharaja to India, it was becoming perfectly clear that the Muslim dominated region and the Gilgit Scouts would not be willing to fight for the dogra nor for India and Major William Brown, the leader of the Gilgit Scouts was well aware of that and with the signing of the instrument, the people of Gilgit were inflamed including the scouts themselves and on 31st October 1947 Major Brown sent a platoon of Scouts to surround the residence of the maharaja’s governor of Gilgit Agency, Ghansara Singh. Other platoons took control of important locations in the city. On 1 November, Ghansara Singh surrendered, and a provisional government consisting of leaders of the victorious forces were brought to power with Raja Rais singh as President and MirzaHassan Khan as Commander in chief. There was great discussion on whether the state of Gilgit should announce its independence or should it join Pakistan. Major Brown had telegraphed Khan Abdul Qayyum asking Pakistan to take over the region since the region did not have the means to fight against the might of the Indian forces. Khan Muhammad Alam Khan reached the region and on 16th November he found them squabbling and arguing which angered him leading him to state openly;

"you are a crowd of fools led astray by a madman. I shall not tolerate this nonsense for one instance... And when the Indian Army starts invading you there will be no use screaming to Pakistan for help, because you won't get it."

This statement saw the provisional government disintegrate and join with Pakistan on 16th November 1947 and two days later the states of Hunza and Nagar followed. The region of modern day Gilgit Baltistan was now part of Pakistan.



Historically speaking the region was always distinct from the valley of Kashmir and was formed part of a larger conquests of Sikh and British and the people of Gilgit Baltistan never saw themselves as Kashmiri. The Central power of Kashmir never had historical claim to the region.

Now the Gilgit revolution could also be determined as a Revolutionary Constitutionalism however the important element of Revolutionary Constitutionalism, which is the introduction of constitutionalist system to the people, did not happen as the region became a black hole. Bangash, the raja orderly of Chilas stated that the entire region is pro-Pakistan and would never accept Indian rule and the only way to preserve the region would be through Independence of Kashmir rather than joining India. With the events of October 1947 happening, on 1st November the Gilgit scouts revolted and on 2nd November the flag of Pakistan was raised in different areas. The biggest problem was that although the fervor to join Pakistan was high, the entire operation was conducted by military scouts and the provisional government of an amalgamated agency formed through conquests done by the Sikh rulers, Afghan rulers and the British rulers, knew that it lacked the immediate consensus to create a proper representative government. Major Brown, by then had contacted Khan Abdul Qayoom who sent a political agent named Alam Khan to the region. The provisional government lacked effective control and knew that without proper support from the scouts and the Pakistani army, their position would not be stable in face of an Indian invasion. They tried to garner legitimacy but were refused immediately by Alam Khan who stated that they do not understand the gravity of the situation and joining Pakistan was the only way to keep India at bay. The 16 day provisional government decided to accede to Pakistan.

Therefore in 1949 Pakistan faced a major challenge. With the war over, Pakistan now had a region that was 6 times larger than Azad Kashmir, wanted no amalgamation with Kashmir and had acceded to Pakistan in a separate manner. The Azad government legally claimed legitimacy over all of the state of Kashmir which included the Gilgit agency and with the condition of the war, losing the Gilgit agency would mean giving up an area of 72,971 km2 away. The biggest legal question in mind was that if such act was legal then the same argument could be used by Dogra which could claim a separate region away from the rule of Azad government, like the Gilgit agency, which drew its legitimacy from its separation and had thus acceded to a power like the Gilgit agency. Such an argument would complicate an already complicated situation and would weaken the legitimacy of the Azad government which claimed administrative right over all of Kashmir and was presented as such in front of the world. If Gilgit Baltistan could accede simply because there was no writ of the Azad government and they had their own provisional government then how could the very same action for the Dogra, be considered as illegitimate? This needed answer thus for a small period Pakistan saw the Gilgit agency as a legal part of Azad Kashmir but the region could not be administratively handed over to Azad Kashmir. Pakistan saw an inevitable rebellion if the region that had acceded to Pakistan was simply gifted to Azad Kashmir. For this purpose Pakistan recognized the Azad government as the successor government and the rightful authority of the Princely State of Kashmir and the Muslim Conference as the sole political party that represented the people of Kashmir and with them signed the Karachi Agreement 1949 where the leaders conceded to Pakistan the region of conterminous Gilgit Baltistan and Conterminous Ladakh. To legitimize the merger without weakening the claim of the Azad government, Pakistan needed the consent of the Azad government. If Pakistan would go ahead without consulting or giving the Azad government of an equal state, as a legal merger then it would weaken the position of Pakistan at the United Nations since such a merger would lead credence to the Dogra merger. The idea that the regions outside the writ of Azad government were free to merge with areas they felt as such would give legitimize the acceding of the state of Kashmir to India. Pakistan could not allow such thus the only way to solve the problem was to see the Azad government as the legitimate ruler of Gilgit Baltistan which, considering the aspirations of the people of Gilgit Baltistan and Ladakh and their existence as a separate nation which has always fought for freedom, would respect their wishes and have them join Pakistan as a separate entity. The approval needed to be perfect thus the Muslim Conference must also provide its consent so that there could be no loophole in this process. Lastly Pakistan took control of all affairs concerning Gilgit Baltistan and Ladakh. This was definitely something that Pakistan had to secure since as mentioned above that constitutional and legal balance was key here and the union of the area with Pakistan could not be established without the consent of the Azad government which was recognized by Pakistan as ruler of all of Kashmir. Now the most interesting thing is that despite the rebellion being in Gilgit, Pakistan also took control of the affairs of Ladakh which meant that Pakistan declared that the provisional government in Gilgit to have sufficient relevance in the affairs of Ladakh as well and their union with Pakistan included the areas of Ladakh too. This is a very interesting aspect of the agreement since this meant that concerning Ladakh, Pakistan declares itself as the sovereign ruler and not Kashmir and considers the dispute to be personal in that region. Although the events of the future, stopped Pakistan stopped from claiming Ladakh separate as a Pakistani territory occupied by a hostile power rather than a Kashmiri territory occupied by a hostile power, however it does determine this fact that Pakistan, at one time, thought along the lines of the former

The impact of this was that the region became a separate entity for Pakistan and the Azad government lost all sovereignty over the region itself. Through this Pakistan was able to keep the region in the dispute whilst establishing its separate nature of Azad Kashmir. Through this we can safely assume that Azad Kashmir conceded its claim on the region in 1949 and did not contest that said claim till 1970s. Now for some time the courts of Azad Kashmir and Pakistan treated each other as Foreign Courts and separate states and this was made through a number of precedents. In 1972 the Azad Kashmir government passed a resolution for the return of Gilgit Baltistan to the administration of Muzaffarabad but Pakistan did not heed and saw it as interference of the region in the internal affairs of Pakistan. There came upon another famous landmark judgment that would remain a major bone of contention between the two countries. As mentioned in the previous chapters that Azad Kashmir declared itself as the revolutionary government and the true representative of the people of Azad Kashmir and this was highlighted by the courts of Azad Kashmir in several judgments which I have mentioned above. Now in 1949 the Azad government under such authority had signed the Karachi Agreement where the state of Azad Kashmir had conceded the region of Gilgit Baltistan and Ladakh to Pakistan with all its affairs. Pakistan had thus continued to recognize Azad government to legitimize the Karachi Agreement and its revolutionary nature and since 1949 had treated Gilgit Baltistan as a separate territory from Azad Kashmir. Yet despite signing the courts of Azad Kashmir went one step further and declared the region as part of Gilgit Baltistan. The petition was filed in the High Court of Azad Kashmir in 1993 in the case titled Malik Muhammad Miskeen and 2 others vs The Federation of Pakistan and the case was based on the growing calls for autonomy and governance issues that were rising in the region of Gilgit Baltistan which were largely ignored. They had filed the petition asking to be recognized as citizens of Azad Kashmir and for their grievances to be answered. The court passed a stunning judgment that shocked Pakistan. The Court held that there was no legitimate cause to keep the Northern Areas and their residents detached from Azad Jammu and Kashmir and their residents are State Subjects thus validly citizens of Azad Kashmir. The judgment passed by Chief Justice Abdul Majeed Malik, directed Pakistan government in providing maximum support in amalgamation of the region with Azad Kashmir and in extension of the writ of the Azad government over the region, establishment of a legal system that is connected to the Azad Kashmir legal system and the forward implementation of the Interim Constitution 1974 over the region. The judgment was seen by many in Gilgit Baltistan to be an attempt to balance out the Shia-Sunni demographic in the region since the petitioners were Sunni and were from the Sunni dominated Diamer region and the Shia of Gilgit Baltistan did not look at the judgment kindly especially after the 1988 sectarian riots that shook the region. They were not alone in this since Pakistan also saw this with horror as the region, which was historically seen by Pakistan as its own territory and had went through hell and forth to make sure the territory would be part of the Kashmir dispute but not part of Azad Kashmir. The judgment was immediately appealed by the Government of Pakistan and the appealed case titled The Federation of Pakistan vs Malik Muhammad Miskeen and 2 others and the case was decided on 14th September 1994 where the courts declared that the High Court of Azad Kashmir had acted beyond its powers and the order was declared null and void. The court observed that while Gilgit Baltistan was indeed part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, however that was not the case for Azad Kashmir which had its territorial limits prescribed within the Interim Constitution 1974 Act and the courts of Azad Kashmir could not go beyond the constitutional limits that were set upon it and the government of Azad Kashmir could not establish constitutional administration over the region like that. Pakistan presented the Karachi Agreement to both the High Court and the Supreme Court however despite its perusal the former declared it a temporary arrangement whereas the former declared it as evidence of the fact that Gilgit Baltistan was not part of Azad Kashmir. While the judgment of the Superior Court did not mention to whom the region belonged, it did provide sufficient cause for Pakistan to declare its extremely controversial stance that while the region was part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, it was not part of Azad Kashmir. While the government of Azad Kashmir would pass resolutions on this however the legal chapter on the status of Gilgit Baltistan and the limitations of Azad Kashmir was now closed. This was cemented immediately in a landmark case titled ‘Al-Jehad Trust versus The Federation of Pakistan’ In May 1999, the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered a landmark judgement on the constitutional status of the Northern Areas in response to Constitutional Petition 17 of 1994, which sought the following remedies:

  • Enforcement of fundamental rights under the constitution of Pakistan;
  • Declaration of the Northern Areas’ constitutional status;
  • Declaration of the people of the Northern Areas as full citizens of Pakistan, with the right fully to participate in the affairs of the federation; and
  • Granting of provincial status.
Declaring that Pakistan exercised de facto as well as de jure administrative control over the Northern Areas, the Supreme Court ruled that the people of the Northern Areas were “citizens of Pakistan, for all intents and purposes… and their Fundamental Rights were protected within this very court”. Azad Kashmir did not file any response to the order nor contest the order itself.

The claim of Azad Kashmir over the region of Gilgit Baltistan is non-existent as by all intents and purposes the region is a separate entity from Azad Kashmir and this has been well established by the courts and actions of Azad Kashmir itself. The people of Azad Kashmir see any attempts of merger with Azad Kashmir as an attempt to weaken the Shia Majority status of the region by increasing the Sunni hold. The sectarian factor is another important element in the Azad Kashmir claim. The people historically see themselves as extremely different from the people of Azad Kashmir as well and trace their history with separate links. The entity of the Princely State of Kashmir was formed through blood and conquests and anything less than a separate status for the people of Gilgit Baltistan would be a great injustice to their history and identity.


@VCheng @Kaptaan @Waz @Nilgiri @Joe Shearer @T-123456 @Webslave @Saithan

What do you guys think about the historic and legal questions raised on Gilgit Baltistan
 
Last edited:

Saithan

Contributor
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 24, 2020
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
3,241
Points
113
I watched the documentary and historic development in that region.

It is an undeniable fact that K/J was moving towards democracy of some sort. The Maharaja giving the region to India was a last ditch to mess it all up. Because Pakistan moved in being impatient. 77% were muslims if not more.

Well Regardless of the outcome and connections, a province should have the freedom to have their own budget once they reach a growth level that requires establishing regional governing body.

A regions/provinces growth should not be postponed or jeapordized because of Kashmir.

I think the only way to achieve peace is tied to the rivers if possible land trade swap such that Pakistan controls one side of the side and India the other. Thus it should be impossoble to one sidedly build dams or other things
 

Nilgiri

Contributor
Staff member
Canada Moderator
India Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
883
Reaction score
2,026
Points
93
Location
Canada
What do you guys think about the historic and legal questions raised on Gilgit Baltistan

I will get to this a bit later in maybe some depth (along with the maryam nawaz march thread which I have yet to bring up a few matters to debate you on) and also give some time here for a few other replies maybe.

I already agreed in another thread (when this was announced) that Baltistanis etc preferably need own representation separate from Pakistan-Administered Kashmir strictly in the argument of their own (theoretical better) welfare in the defacto reality....much like I would hope a rational Pakistani would argue for same in India case (i.e for Kashmiris there to be a well represented in Indian political setup in defacto set up....whatever the dejure conflict and tension is).

AFAIK, the particular legal sensitivity comes by over whether this abandons the earlier position given to G-B.... in that it was in effectively a grey area given the original "Raja Orderly" seems to accede to Pakistan troop presence (rather than sovereignty) insofar to achieve independence for whole Kashmir (against the position of the Maharaja who acceded to India) rather than simply become part of Pakistan...i.e some kind of grey suzerainty position.

A whole course of events also seem to be simply what Pakistan asserts as the timeline and prioritisation of whomever as an authority of weight to add some credence to the defacto ground situation that arose after fog of war cleared.

I don't know if this was ever revisited legally inside Pakistan (especially given its own tumultous political landscape)....as now the (Supreme Court of Pakistan) position seems to be one of downstream "de facto" citizenship using "for all intents and purposes" argument to incorporate and greenlight federal representation of the area seperately.

Obviously India does not accept this for a clear reason (either occupation/ by Pakistan and/or absorbing of it into Pakistan's political setup).

I am seeing some protests in G-B over it too and some arrests of "agents" etc....not sure if these are status-quo beneficiaries or larger backlash against the move for other reasons. There is not a well developed independent media in Pakistan to really know especially given the sensitivity of this topic and the history involved broadly.

That is my opinion. I will add more later maybe.
 

Nilgiri

Contributor
Staff member
Canada Moderator
India Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
883
Reaction score
2,026
Points
93
Location
Canada
The Maharaja giving the region to India was a last ditch to mess it all up. Because Pakistan moved in being impatient. 77% were muslims if not more.

There is no real way to know this (if you imply what I think you are), given huge muslim population retained within India (including muslim majority areas in UP/Bihar and other places too). It also brings up interesting questions in areas where INC (and not muslim league) won elections in British dominion elections pre-partition in certain areas of current Pakistan.

A clarification for example came (from kashmiri locals themselves) in the 2nd "impatient" move in 1965 when operation gibraltar was attempted....and roundly exposed by the locals early (and thus causing Pakistan to escalate it into an official war when Indian security forces captured pretty much all the Pak army infiltrators thanks to early detection and the Kashmiri masses not starting an uprising as they planned).
a number of rational Pakistanis in PDF still talk about this to dissuade the war hawk types there about how "easy" and "forgone" certain assumptions about Valley Kashmiris (and those outside it) are in their exact persuasion on the issue at hand.

A further clarification came from the Indian Kashmiri leader (at the time) himself after he saw what Pakistan "muslim nationhood" argument lead to w.r.t its Eastern Wing (and quite quickly, brutally but also decisively in the end as to the argument's sustenance itself)...and what agreements he then made with the Indian disposition on the matter, taking stock of his people's wishes too in addition to his political ambitions.

Things started to then alter drastically in the late 80s due to a whole course of events (that is a long subject to get into and you will hear the most toxic opinions on it of all stripe, so its hard for neutral or outsider to really grasp the bulk of the reality below all that noise), but Indian Kashmir was relatively quite peaceful before it.
 

Saithan

Contributor
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 24, 2020
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
3,241
Points
113
There is no real way to know this (if you imply what I think you are), given huge muslim population retained within India (including muslim majority areas in UP/Bihar and other places too). It also brings up interesting questions in areas where INC (and not muslim league) won elections in British dominion elections pre-partition in certain areas of current Pakistan.

A clarification for example came (from kashmiri locals themselves) in the 2nd "impatient" move in 1965 when operation gibraltar was attempted....and roundly exposed by the locals early (and thus causing Pakistan to escalate it into an official war when Indian security forces captured pretty much all the Pak army infiltrators thanks to early detection and the Kashmiri masses not starting an uprising as they planned).
a number of rational Pakistanis in PDF still talk about this to dissuade the war hawk types there about how "easy" and "forgone" certain assumptions about Valley Kashmiris (and those outside it) are in their exact persuasion on the issue at hand.

A further clarification came from the Indian Kashmiri leader (at the time) himself after he saw what Pakistan "muslim nationhood" argument lead to w.r.t its Eastern Wing (and quite quickly, brutally but also decisively in the end as to the argument's sustenance itself)...and what agreements he then made with the Indian disposition on the matter, taking stock of his people's wishes too in addition to his political ambitions.

Things started to then alter drastically in the late 80s due to a whole course of events (that is a long subject to get into and you will hear the most toxic opinions on it of all stripe, so its hard for neutral or outsider to really grasp the bulk of the reality below all that noise), but Indian Kashmir was relatively quite peaceful before it.
Yes sometimes stupidity is the best wakeup call.

I think the entire blame falls upon the useless maharaja. He had a sovereign nation and failed to protect it both from Pakistan and India.

Indias claim to the region is based on the treaty with the maharaja according to the documentary.
 

Nilgiri

Contributor
Staff member
Canada Moderator
India Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
883
Reaction score
2,026
Points
93
Location
Canada

Kaptaan

Well-known member
Think Tank Analyst
Joined
Sep 12, 2020
Messages
309
Reaction score
748
Points
93
Location
United Kingdom
Indias claim to the region is based on the treaty with the maharaja according to the documentary.
Here is a fact for you to chew. The British had sold, literally sold Kashmir to the antecedent of the Maharajah which then was signed over the the said Maharajah to India. Majority of Kashmiri's don't feel, don't want to be Indians. They share precious little with India. Thus the massive use of Indian military to muzzle the Kashmiri's and just blame everything on Pakistan. Until yesterday the entire political class of Kashmir was locked up.

Under the terms of the Treaty of Amritsar that followed in March 1846, the British government sold Kashmir for a sum of 7.5 million Nanakshahee rupees to Gulab Singh, hereafter bestowed with the title of Maharaja.

Farooq Abdullah Says 'Kashmiris Do Not Feel Indian, Today They'd Rather Have the Chinese Rule Them - ex Chief Minister


 

Saithan

Contributor
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 24, 2020
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
3,241
Points
113
Not exactly sure what cards he could have played much differently given the stand-still agreement and then who reneged on it:

A referandum. If I recall K/J is/was 7 principal provinces.

Even Nehru only moved in until Kargil because until Kargil ppl spoke Punjab-kashmir and beyond was kashmir-kashmir. In my perspective he seemed to stop and avoid areas that were overwhelmingly muslim.

Past incidents in 80-90 made Indian parliament declare intent to capture all of K/J with reference to the treaty with maharaja which effectively means Pakistan must have same goal.

As explained in the documentary, which makes sense. Pakistan is very much reliant on the water from the 3 rivers and until that is solved, which in PAF eyes would mean control, the conflict cannot be replaced by peace.

Only referandums can solve this problem and India is not in favor of this until after the biography of the region is changed in Indias favor.

@Kaptaan I know the part. UK thought it would go Pakistans way. But their plans got screwed over by removal of the governor I think. Or some such.
 

Saithan

Contributor
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 24, 2020
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
3,241
Points
113
Btw what would happen if Kashmir forcefully makes a referandum. I know the Indian army will forcefully break it apart. But shooting unarmed ppl trying to let their voices for freedom be heard would likely not be ignored
 

Nilgiri

Contributor
Staff member
Canada Moderator
India Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
883
Reaction score
2,026
Points
93
Location
Canada
The British had sold, literally sold Kashmir to the antecedent of the Maharajah which then was signed over the the said Maharajah to India.

Maybe the British should have also restored the previous kingdom they took over in Punjab...Sikh Empire I believe?...going strictly by the "remove what the British did" logic.

Majority of Kashmiri's don't feel, don't want to be Indians.

Yeah like they showed in the midst of operation gibraltar.

Thus the massive use of Indian military to muzzle the Kashmiri's and just blame everything on Pakistan.

This was done previously to Pakistans re-assigning of certain types from AFG theater to Kashmir?

Even Nehru only moved in until Kargil because until Kargil ppl spoke Punjab-kashmir and beyond was kashmir-kashmir. In my perspective he seemed to stop and avoid areas that were overwhelmingly muslim.

I have no idea what you mean by "spoke Punjab kashmir" w.r.t "Kashmir Kashmir" or how this plays into what Nehru/Indian Army conducted the following war (as opposed to topography and logistics and relieving a lot of sieges) by methodology of prioritisation (given the catch up needed from late intervention)

The punjabi-related speaking dialects are by far mostly found in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (Mirpuri etc).

Seemed to stop and avoid areas that were overwhelmingly muslim? Erm....the Vale of Kashmir is exactly what?

Past incidents in 80-90 made Indian parliament declare intent to capture all of K/J with reference to the treaty with maharaja which effectively means Pakistan must have same goal.

What incidents in 80-90? What intent was changed as compared to before given the Accession?

As explained in the documentary, which makes sense. Pakistan is very much reliant on the water from the 3 rivers and until that is solved, which in PAF eyes would mean control, the conflict cannot be replaced by peace.

"PAF" eyes?

There is such a thing as the indus water treaty btw. Already signed and followed in current defacto set up of the situation.

Only referandums can solve this problem and India is not in favor of this until after the biography of the region is changed in Indias favor.

India is originally not in favour of it...without Pakistan withdrawing from the part it occupied first so that a referendum may then proceed (the UN ceasefire agreement).

This later was subsumed by the Simla agreement in 1972 (a move to solving through bilateral negotiation, with no such stipulation)...which you can read yourself. The precedent being Pakistan had completely failed its own "muslim majority" nationhood argument with ENTIRE half of its country....so any "muslim majority" argument it uses after is null and void to be frank. They signed onto this btw.

If referendums can solve everything, there is lot for the world at large to do for far worse situations and set some basic precedent there. When such things are in raw living memory with so much at stake, a country wont do it.

Will Pakistan do one for Baluchistan or the territories that Afghanistan say belong to it? Or will another argument be used for why

Should India run referenda in any area of conflict and tension within its borders (that exist/existed for whatever reason?).

I'm sure you know the situations regarding Turkey that are similar....so would Turkey do so?...that to some resolution asked for by a grieving party?

Heck even Canada govt totally rejected any result that could come of the Quebec referendum. Spain and Catalonia (again federal rejection of it)...the list continues. These two are far more developed countries too.

Btw what would happen if Kashmir forcefully makes a referandum. I know the Indian army will forcefully break it apart. But shooting unarmed ppl trying to let their voices for freedom be heard would likely not be ignored

Again refer to the above.

How would anyone forcefully make a referendum?

That too when the other party is one that hewed off half its own country because it couldn't accept a PM from that part.

That cabal runs the show with no repentance for that kind of stuff, doubles down in its degeneracy...well we don't extend any credibility to it.
 

Saithan

Contributor
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 24, 2020
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
3,241
Points
113
Maybe the British should have also restored the previous kingdom they took over in Punjab...Sikh Empire I believe?...going strictly by the "remove what the British did" logic.



Yeah like they showed in the midst of operation gibraltar.



This was done previously to Pakistans re-assigning of certain types from AFG theater to Kashmir?



I have no idea what you mean by "spoke Punjab kashmir" w.r.t "Kashmir Kashmir" or how this plays into what Nehru/Indian Army conducted the following war (as opposed to topography and logistics and relieving a lot of sieges) by methodology of prioritisation (given the catch up needed from late intervention)

The punjabi-related speaking dialects are by far mostly found in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (Mirpuri etc).

Seemed to stop and avoid areas that were overwhelmingly muslim? Erm....the Vale of Kashmir is exactly what?



What incidents in 80-90? What intent was changed as compared to before given the Accession?



"PAF" eyes?

There is such a thing as the indus water treaty btw. Already signed and followed in current defacto set up of the situation.



India is originally not in favour of it...without Pakistan withdrawing from the part it occupied first so that a referendum may then proceed (the UN ceasefire agreement).

This later was subsumed by the Simla agreement in 1972 (a move to solving through bilateral negotiation, with no such stipulation)...which you can read yourself. The precedent being Pakistan had completely failed its own "muslim majority" nationhood argument with ENTIRE half of its country....so any "muslim majority" argument it uses after is null and void to be frank. They signed onto this btw.

If referendums can solve everything, there is lot for the world at large to do for far worse situations and set some basic precedent there. When such things are in raw living memory with so much at stake, a country wont do it.

Will Pakistan do one for Baluchistan or the territories that Afghanistan say belong to it? Or will another argument be used for why

Should India run referenda in any area of conflict and tension within its borders (that exist/existed for whatever reason?).

I'm sure you know the situations regarding Turkey that are similar....so would Turkey do so?...that to some resolution asked for by a grieving party?

Heck even Canada govt totally rejected any result that could come of the Quebec referendum. Spain and Catalonia (again federal rejection of it)...the list continues. These two are far more developed countries too.



Again refer to the above.

How would anyone forcefully make a referendum?

That too when the other party is one that hewed off half its own country because it couldn't accept a PM from that part.

That cabal runs the show with no repentance for that kind of stuff, doubles down in its degeneracy...well we don't extend any credibility to it.

Turkeys borders were pretty much decided back in Lausanne. There were many areas with Turkish speakers, but we couldn’t get them. But as you may know we got the Lausanne treaty.

What do you have for K/J ? A Maharaja undecidedly flees into the arms of India who is the only salvation for the Maharaja, which btw had to abdicate and thereby actually gained nothing, but condemned K/J to this situation.

After indian parliament was attacked in the 80 or 90’s India declared their intent of full control over K/J with reference to the treaty the maharaja signed with India. I can recommend the documentary I posted it’s actually pretty informative with regard to timeline.

There is no doubt Pakistan messed up. But if the Maharaja can decide the fate of the nation regardless of the democratic forces at work even back then I can understand why they moved like they did.

But you don’t seem to refute that the Maharaja had a role in the current state of affairs, hereby I mean to blame.

Borders of countries are pretty much set, are they to be split up because they accept so many refugees from neighboring countries ?

Syria accepted some 300k kurds during iraq wars. Turkey took in 1 mio kurds fleeing from Saddam. Does that mean we should give up that part of our land. Then nations with high population are bound to expand.
 

Nilgiri

Contributor
Staff member
Canada Moderator
India Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
883
Reaction score
2,026
Points
93
Location
Canada
What do you have for K/J ? A Maharaja undecidedly flees into the arms of India who is the only salvation for the Maharaja, which btw had to abdicate and thereby actually gained nothing, but condemned K/J to this situation.

But why did he accede? Would he have done so if Pakistan didn't break their own standstill agreement and start the ingress (with great violence)?

Have to go to the initial root of it rather than solely blame the Maharaja.

If Pakistan was so sure about Kashmiri persuasion on it, why the instigation/rush in the 1st attempt...and why that result (with Kashmiri locals again) for the 2nd attempt in 1965?

Why did a huge chunk of muslims (by far a much much larger majority than decided to move) stay in India is the larger question too....governing the whole (faulty) basis of muslims to be 100% correlated to Pakistan in subcontinent.

Turkeys borders were pretty much decided back in Lausanne. There were many areas with Turkish speakers, but we couldn’t get them. But as you may know we got the Lausanne treaty.

Well this didn't happen willy nilly out of the blue, it happened after a succession of wars (of varying success for Turkey in each one, though it reclaimed a huge deal in the final one).

Or should we revisit Treaty of Sevres etc as an argument basis to be applied today?

So that's why I mean when I refer to the last all out war in our region being 1971 (and the underlying reasons why it occurred).

The treaty established after it was Simla. That's the parallel if we are to compare to Lausanne.

After indian parliament was attacked in the 80 or 90’s India declared their intent of full control over K/J with reference to the treaty the maharaja signed with India. I can recommend the documentary I posted it’s actually pretty informative with regard to timeline.

Sure please post this documentary. I seem to have missed it. I don't remember any Indian parliament attack in the 80s/90s.

There was an attack on the Indian parliament in 2001. But that prompted a strategic theatre mobilisation rather than any specific change for intent of control (which has always existed but has been stated to be one done peacefully in the status quo after 71).

Indian official position that all of Kashmir is belonging to it and is to be reclaimed (peacefully + bilaterally if larger peace status quo prevails) has not changed in long time.

Pakistan already specifically upset this by the insurgency (leading to grievous consequence in India's own relationship with lot of Kashmiris given the security clampdown in response)...that Pakistan activated since the late 80s and then Kargil in 1999....but both were done after cold war objectives met in AFG (in alliance with US) and the nuclear deterrence it achieved around same time....so that it could break the spirit of Simla agreement with not much threat of immediate and incisive payback that India could have earlier brought to bear.

This is why significant peace was prevailing before this period (i.e during 70s and most of 80s) after Simla.

There is no doubt Pakistan messed up. But if the Maharaja can decide the fate of the nation regardless of the democratic forces at work even back then I can understand why they moved like they did.

I don't get what you mean. If the Maharaja wanted to simply have standstill agreements with both Pakistan and India and keep a status quo till he could let an appropriate civic structure within Kashmir take shape so a democratic result could be achieved on any larger question (this was the intent given)....why did Pakistan send its forces in (that too after agreeing to the stand still agreement) and instigate what it argues would be the democratic result anyway?

What was the Maharaja doing that say the Nizam was doing in Hyderabad (later, to bring a parallel with major differences) to warrant such an intervention in such a short period of time too after the standstill agreement?

But you don’t seem to refute that the Maharaja had a role in the current state of affairs, hereby I mean to blame.

He is not clean handed fellow. Neither is Pakistan or India for that matter. All have apportion of blame in how it turned out. British included too.

But which one is more which one is less, is matter of perspective. To me it comes to which were the major instigations done without much recourse.

Borders of countries are pretty much set, are they to be split up because they accept so many refugees from neighboring countries ?

Syria accepted some 300k kurds during iraq wars. Turkey took in 1 mio kurds fleeing from Saddam. Does that mean we should give up that part of our land. Then nations with high population are bound to expand.

No, I fail to see how this relates to this subject since this is downstream movements of people far removed from the initial set up of the borders by the treaties, agreements and such recognised by peers etc.

What the rough equivalents would be the population transfers between Turkey and Greece for example after lausanne and how that differed to the earlier sevres agreement (that Greeks and foreign powers reneged on and started the next war as you know). Thats an example of an instigation while treaty and agreement ink was still fresh and partitions and displacements of people were still recent or ongoing....due to a major breakup of an earlier political existence in the area.
 

Kaptaan

Well-known member
Think Tank Analyst
Joined
Sep 12, 2020
Messages
309
Reaction score
748
Points
93
Location
United Kingdom
Some context to this issue. My intention is not to convert the Indian position as that is well nigh impossible. But more to sway those who might hold a neutral position or are pro Pakistan and that position needs reinforcing.

British India contrary to what people think was not one single unit. It was constructed and named "India" by the Anglo invaders. This construction was piecemeal and was spread over 150 years. The only commonality that existed was all the conquered became "subjects" of the crown. This was achieved by military force. Not one peoples of the Raj elected, chose, volunteered or assigned to become "Indian" and subjects of the crown.

They say the best lies are simple lies. This is so true. The impression given of British India today is as if it was one generic unit. It never was. The only uniformity was the masters - the British. A entire continent with twice the population of Europe and three times the diversity was chained together. My and @Nilgiri forefathers fought not to be British Indian. The bizzare thing ids British India was made with blood of British soldiers as they fought battle after battle subjugating the future subjects.

Perhaps one analogy for the British Raj might be the German Riech built up from late 1930s by using the military might of the Wehrmacht. By 1944 France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Poland, Romania, Norway, Czekia, Slovakia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Albania, Hungary, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, parts of Russia and in North Africa, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and sliver of Egypt were under the Reich with the swastika fluttering. This encompassed almost entire continent of many peoples, many languages mostly of the Christian tradition but North Africa of mostly Muslim tradition. The British Raj was as diverse geographically, ethnically, religiously if not more than the German Riech.

If you look at the German Reich you will find Berlin used differant administrative precepts to carry it's sway across this huge geography. So for instance Vichy France was technically independant but subject to Berlin's overlordship. Then there was "allies" like Italy or Romania. Then there regions which had been appropriated by Berlin like Poland which had German officials running the region. Whether the Reich rule was direct, semi-direct or a ally the fact was the Riech held sway. If Berlin wanted to it could easily use force to change that relationship and that happened in Italy and Vichy France.

So it was the British Raj. The vast geography made up of a galazy of peoples, religions, languages, conquered by British soldiers had various administrative arrangement with the differant entities it held sway over. Like the Reich had direct, semi-direct or all ally rule ditto with the Raj. Some regions were ruled directly by London through the Viceroy [the Germans used the term "Reichsprotektor" I believe for officials posted to the regions to run them] whereas others indirectly or even subject ally.

There were about 11 provinces directly ruled by British and about 500 princely states indirectly ruled by British through a local "Prince" who would carry some local name as Maharajah, Sultan, Emir, Khan etc. About 40% of British India was ruled by semi-independant princely states which were of course under the British Raj overlordship.

This huge structure of Raj had been built up from 17th century and reached it's apex by mid 1800s a period of over 200 years. Interesting the last region to be forced into the British Raj was the area that makes Pakistan today. We fell under the British sword in 1849 [when the conquered the provinces that make Pakistan today] which lasted till 1947 a period of 98 years contrasted with what is today India which saw over 200 years of British rule. This is not just academic. I believe it being behind the reason why Pakistan is more wild, averse to modern ideas. The long rule in India resulted in deeper diffusion of British ideas, education, English language etc.

As a interesting sidenote many may not know this but Aden [Yemen], Trucial States [UAE], Straits Settlements [Singapore] were part of the British India at various times. Also modern Myanmar [Burma] was also part of British India. On the map below I have annotated some relevant facts. The red shaded provinces are directly ruled by the Raj. The yellow are Princely states ruled by native rulers.



I have placed the modern name of countries over the map which of course starting from west
is Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Myanmar. When Rehmat Ali put forth the idea of Pakistan in 1930 he called for the five provinces/states on the far left all of which were Muslim dominant to unite and form a country. I have numbered those provinces/states from 1 to 5 in black. Rehmat Ali combined the five to make the acronym PAKSTAN on the following formula -

1. Punjab [ Punjabi ethnic group mostly Muslim with Sikh minority]
2. Afghania [ today called Khyber Pakhtunkwa made up of Pakhtun ethnic group and 99% Muslim]
3. Kashmir [the Pricely state with Muslim majority]
4. Sindh [Muslim majority]

These formed the PAKS and

5. Balochistan provided the suffix "tan" to make PAKSTAN. Later a "i" was added to ease the flow. The acronym PAK conveniently in Persian and Urdu means "Pure" and "Istan" means land of so the acronym also read as "land of the pure" or PURE-LAND.

Copy of Rehmat Ali's Now or Never pamphlet printed in 1930 while he was a student at Cambridge University, England calling for establishment of "PAKSTAN".

1603030166723.png



The geography of these five Muslim dominant units was and is dominated by Indus River and today the Indus River forms the spine of Pakistan. I by time constraint am covering the subject at lightening speed to be definition I have to focus and which will leave much out so do excuse me if readers find things missing. Below is map of the present rendition of those five provinces/units within the Pakistan federation.

1603030944821.png




As we moved forward the four provinces by elective choice opted to form the federation to be called Pakistan. Note people often use the term "partition of India". That is incorrect. Strictly speaking Sindh, Balochistan, Afghania [K-Pk] province were not partitioned but in block joined the federation with their borders intact to this day. Punjab had a Muslim majority bit a significant Sikh minority. Furthermore there was a scheme to the population profile. Most Punjabi Muslims were found in Western Punjab with Punjabi Sikhs in Eastern Punjab. This is where partition came into it. Punjab was split. The western portion would go to Pakistan [Muslim majority] and the eastern portion to India [Sikh majority. This is where a line had to be drawn which I have shown in white. In Pakistani and Indian context this is the only "artificial border".

If you look at the first map you can see contact between what was princely state of Kashmir and what would become Indian Republic. However this does not quite tell the facts on the ground. Most of that 'contact' is mountains which had no roads in 1940s. The real contact what would become India Republic was just a 10 mile neck with one road going into Kashmir. Even that road would go through a district called Gurdaspur which was Muslim majority. Had Gurdaspur been included when the line dividing Punjab gone to Pakistan as it should have given it's Muslim majority India would never have had any real access to Kashmir. However for variety of reason this was frustrated and given to India thus enabling India down the road a roue into Kashmir.

The map below is of the united Punjab during British rule with each district coloured along religion majority. You can see the Muslim dominance on the west. I have marked a arrow pointing to the crucial Gurdaspur district that was given to India DESPITE having Muslim majority and thus allowing that country access to Kashmir along the "neck". Pakistan "lost" out the Muslim majority districts coloured in turquoise.

india division 3.png


I will cover the crucial events that led to the Kashmir imbroglio in the next post later in the evening but for now please have a look at the evolution of British India to the successor states today. People confuse the Raj with India anbd Pakistan. The real picture is more complicated as I mentioned even parts of Yemen, UAE, Singapore were British Raj where the legal tender was British Crown Rupee.

Before 1947

1603032478855.png


Post 1947

1603032502569.png


And a infographic showing the flowchart of the succession.


1603032558246.png


Ps. The analogy with the German Reich is crude as we know it only lasted less than a decade but that was because the allies defeated it. Imagine if it had lasted over 100 years. That would have left the entire Europe. Mediteranean, North Africa with a deep German influence including widespread use of German etc. From Nordic Christians of Norway to Slavic Ukrainans to Orthodox Greeks to Muslim Arabs of Libya to Muslim Berbers of North Africa all would have carried a deep German imprint of the Reich. Ditto British Raj and South Asia. Indeed I would argue South Asia has greater religious, racial, cultural, historical diversity then the regions that fell to the Reich.

@Saithan @T-123456 @Saiyan0321 @Webslave @KKF 2.0 @Kartal1 @Blackeyes90 @others
 
Last edited:

Kaptaan

Well-known member
Think Tank Analyst
Joined
Sep 12, 2020
Messages
309
Reaction score
748
Points
93
Location
United Kingdom
And map highlighting how the Indus River system [in turquoise] forms Pakistan's spine contrasted with India which is dominated by the river Hindus regard as holy - River Ganga.

1603033196475.png
 

Saiyan0321

Well-known member
Staff member
Think Tank Analyst
Pakistan Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 26, 2020
Messages
356
Reaction score
684
Points
93
Location
Pakistan
And map highlighting how the Indus River system [in turquoise] forms Pakistan's spine contrasted with India which is dominated by the river Hindus regard as holy - River Ganga.

View attachment 4444

This has been something that has vexed me for sometime. This is offtopic to my thread but it has vexed me for sometime. The civilizations of long past and the religions that were practiced there always created a legend of the holy river in their religion and the river that gave life to them took part of something beyond holy and as a symbol of life and paradise in their legends and religion. Like for example the Nile was considered as connected to Paradise itself and it flowed from there in early civilizations. The Euphrates, oh boy, it was considered holy even in islamic hadith and the sumerians called it KIB NUN which indicates its divine nature. The Yellow river of China has such importance that all of their legends and ancient versions have an image of that river even the samsara, river of life is basically a form of the yellow river. It was considered divine and great and life giver. In hinduism that status is given to the Ganga, the great holy river. The importance it has, is not given to any other river, not even the saraswati river which some say is the milky way which hindu astrologists pointed to and others say the the ghagha river network. Just highlighting how Civilizations formed around rivers divined their rivers as holy and hinduism did the same thing. It divined the river it was formed near.
 

Saithan

Contributor
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 24, 2020
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
3,241
Points
113

I shared this in the Kashmir thread Waz made.

I find it quite informative and educational. I am sure finer details has been left out. But as oong as the timeline fits ppl can catch ip on the finer details.
 

Nilgiri

Contributor
Staff member
Canada Moderator
India Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
883
Reaction score
2,026
Points
93
Location
Canada

I shared this in the Kashmir thread Waz made.

I find it quite informative and educational. I am sure finer details has been left out. But as oong as the timeline fits ppl can catch ip on the finer details.

I will give it a watch later, thanks!
 

suryakiran

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
6
Reaction score
22
Points
3
Location
India
Let's put a spanner in the works and use the Chinese playbook. Documents are historical pieces of paper. That's about it. Nothing more, nothing less.

It depends on the time frame you want to start with. If the time frame to start with is the Indus Valley, the entire region is ours. Nobody in the current setup of Pakistan respects or believes it is their history. The region of the Indus, is well documented as belonging to the natives of current day India. Going up north the entire region of GB and west towards Afghanistan belongs to the current Indian state.

To the east, Kailas and Mansarovar have been linked to India culturally for eons. Buddhism was spread under the aegis of an Indian emperor. Tibet has been culturally ours since the advent of Buddhism. It is time to take back what is rightfully ours.

Documents can be signed later. Like the 1971 agreement.
 

Joe Shearer

Active member
Professional
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
99
Reaction score
196
Points
33
Location
Hyderabad, India
Azad Kashmir claim on Gilgit Baltistan
By
Saiyan0321​



There has been much hue and cry with the recent declaration by the Imran government to grant the region of Gilgit Baltistan a provincial status. Many have celebrated the step and have called it a positive reform that will surely help answer the growing grievances of the people of the Gilgit Baltistan whereas some have called it as a betrayal to the Kashmir cause and an illegal annexation of a territory that belongs to Kashmir. For this purpose it is prudent to study whether Azad Kashmir holds any strong claim to the region and these claims must be studied from a historical and legal aspect.

The modern day region of Gilgit Baltistan was not always so. It was home to various states and tribes that fiercely fought for their independent status and would fight armies coming from the vale and the western region. The current region itself was never such a Polity as it is right now. The region was home to three major areas that were known as the State of Hunza, State of Nagar and the areas of Gilgit. The region in itself saw local dynasties most notable of them being the Tarakhan Dynasty and the Raissiya Dynasty, both of whom are seen as historically being the drivers of the prosperity in Gilgit Baltistan and for a thousand years the tribes of the area, from Chitral to Haramosh ruled the region in genuine peace and prosperity. While region held separate identities, there was a sense of unity in defending the region and the dynasties themselves has tributary rule over the areas of Hunza and Nagar. This peace would last till the 1800s where conflict took birth from the conterminous region of Gilgit Baltistan and foreign invasions from Afghans to Sikh. Its most stunning example is in 1841, Sulaiman Shah, Raja of Yasin, conquered Gilgit. Then, Azad Khan, Raja of Punial, killed Sulaiman Shah, taking Gilgit; then Tahir Shah, Raja of Buroshall (Nagar), took Gilgit and killed Azad Khan. Tair Shah's son Shah Sakandar inherited, only to be killed by Gohar Aman, Raja of Yasin of the Khushwakhte Dynasty when he took Gilgit. Then in 1842, Shah Sakandar's brother, Karim Khan, expelled Yasin rulers with the support of a Sikh army from Kashmir which left a garrison over there to rule the region. Meanwhile Zarowar Singh captured the town of Skardu and with it the Balti region since after the fall of Skardu Fort, they went westward capturing the fort of Astor. A large part of the region came under the forceful occupation of the Sikh by 1842 however the rule was anything but peaceful. The tribes and the people rebelled repeatedly. The Sikh rule had been extended to Gilgit in 1842. The British transferred control of the territory to the Dogra rulers of Jammu and Kashmir by the Treaty of Amritsar of 1846. Six years later, a rebellion by local tribal leaders chafing under Dogra rule led to the ouster of the maharaja’s forces. In 1860, however, Ranbir Singh recaptured it and annexed it to the state of Jammu and Kashmir as the capital of the Gilgit Wazarat. Seizure of Dardistan’s geo-strategic potential, London agreed to give Ranbir Singh military aid in exchange for the stationing, in 1877, of a British agent in Gilgit to supervise the conduct of policy on this frontier. The existence of this agency, however, was short-lived, since relations between the maharaja and the political agent, Major John Biddulph, were strained. In 1881, the agency was withdrawn, freeing the maharaja of supervision. In 1889 Colonel Algernon Durand with his first challenge coming from the rulers of Hunza and Nagar who had joined forces with the tribes of Gilgit and Baltistan to fight against the Maharaja. The two states were quelled, under what would be known as the Hunza-Nagar campaign of 1891 and Hunza and Nagar were absorbed into Gilgit Agency by 1892-3. The aggression was another display of the imperialistic policies done by the British in the region. The war started when Durand decided to enhance the connectivity of the region by building roads and telecommunication networks to forts so that the area can be defended in case of any emergency. The rulers of Hunza and Nagar regarded this as a threat as the remoteness of the region was a major defense of the people that lived over there. In 1890 Durand started reinforcing the Chalt fort thinking that the mirs of Hunza and Nagar would attack. The mirs sent a warning to Durand to cease his activities on the fort and its road since the fort was on the Gilgit side of the border. Durand did not listen and started to finish the work in great haste. The mirs responded by closing their routes to the mail that came from the British residents that were posted in Chinese Turkestan and the British took this as an act of war and declared such and annexed the reason. Through this a historically diverse region with separate identities and separate statehood came under the control of the Dogra as the Gilgit Agency. The State of Hunza and State of Nagar always saw themselves as separate Princely States.

With the war in Kashmir at full swing by 24th October 1947 and the declaration of Azad government and the accession of the Maharaja to India, it was becoming perfectly clear that the Muslim dominated region and the Gilgit Scouts would not be willing to fight for the dogra nor for India and Major William Brown, the leader of the Gilgit Scouts was well aware of that and with the signing of the instrument, the people of Gilgit were inflamed including the scouts themselves and on 31st October 1947 Major Brown sent a platoon of Scouts to surround the residence of the maharaja’s governor of Gilgit Agency, Ghansara Singh. Other platoons took control of important locations in the city. On 1 November, Ghansara Singh surrendered, and a provisional government consisting of leaders of the victorious forces were brought to power with Raja Rais singh as President and MirzaHassan Khan as Commander in chief. There was great discussion on whether the state of Gilgit should announce its independence or should it join Pakistan. Major Brown had telegraphed Khan Abdul Qayyum asking Pakistan to take over the region since the region did not have the means to fight against the might of the Indian forces. Khan Muhammad Alam Khan reached the region and on 16th November he found them squabbling and arguing which angered him leading him to state openly;

"you are a crowd of fools led astray by a madman. I shall not tolerate this nonsense for one instance... And when the Indian Army starts invading you there will be no use screaming to Pakistan for help, because you won't get it."

This statement saw the provisional government disintegrate and join with Pakistan on 16th November 1947 and two days later the states of Hunza and Nagar followed. The region of modern day Gilgit Baltistan was now part of Pakistan.



Historically speaking the region was always distinct from the valley of Kashmir and was formed part of a larger conquests of Sikh and British and the people of Gilgit Baltistan never saw themselves as Kashmiri. The Central power of Kashmir never had historical claim to the region.

Now the Gilgit revolution could also be determined as a Revolutionary Constitutionalism however the important element of Revolutionary Constitutionalism, which is the introduction of constitutionalist system to the people, did not happen as the region became a black hole. Bangash, the raja orderly of Chilas stated that the entire region is pro-Pakistan and would never accept Indian rule and the only way to preserve the region would be through Independence of Kashmir rather than joining India. With the events of October 1947 happening, on 1st November the Gilgit scouts revolted and on 2nd November the flag of Pakistan was raised in different areas. The biggest problem was that although the fervor to join Pakistan was high, the entire operation was conducted by military scouts and the provisional government of an amalgamated agency formed through conquests done by the Sikh rulers, Afghan rulers and the British rulers, knew that it lacked the immediate consensus to create a proper representative government. Major Brown, by then had contacted Khan Abdul Qayoom who sent a political agent named Alam Khan to the region. The provisional government lacked effective control and knew that without proper support from the scouts and the Pakistani army, their position would not be stable in face of an Indian invasion. They tried to garner legitimacy but were refused immediately by Alam Khan who stated that they do not understand the gravity of the situation and joining Pakistan was the only way to keep India at bay. The 16 day provisional government decided to accede to Pakistan.

Therefore in 1949 Pakistan faced a major challenge. With the war over, Pakistan now had a region that was 6 times larger than Azad Kashmir, wanted no amalgamation with Kashmir and had acceded to Pakistan in a separate manner. The Azad government legally claimed legitimacy over all of the state of Kashmir which included the Gilgit agency and with the condition of the war, losing the Gilgit agency would mean giving up an area of 72,971 km2 away. The biggest legal question in mind was that if such act was legal then the same argument could be used by Dogra which could claim a separate region away from the rule of Azad government, like the Gilgit agency, which drew its legitimacy from its separation and had thus acceded to a power like the Gilgit agency. Such an argument would complicate an already complicated situation and would weaken the legitimacy of the Azad government which claimed administrative right over all of Kashmir and was presented as such in front of the world. If Gilgit Baltistan could accede simply because there was no writ of the Azad government and they had their own provisional government then how could the very same action for the Dogra, be considered as illegitimate? This needed answer thus for a small period Pakistan saw the Gilgit agency as a legal part of Azad Kashmir but the region could not be administratively handed over to Azad Kashmir. Pakistan saw an inevitable rebellion if the region that had acceded to Pakistan was simply gifted to Azad Kashmir. For this purpose Pakistan recognized the Azad government as the successor government and the rightful authority of the Princely State of Kashmir and the Muslim Conference as the sole political party that represented the people of Kashmir and with them signed the Karachi Agreement 1949 where the leaders conceded to Pakistan the region of conterminous Gilgit Baltistan and Conterminous Ladakh. To legitimize the merger without weakening the claim of the Azad government, Pakistan needed the consent of the Azad government. If Pakistan would go ahead without consulting or giving the Azad government of an equal state, as a legal merger then it would weaken the position of Pakistan at the United Nations since such a merger would lead credence to the Dogra merger. The idea that the regions outside the writ of Azad government were free to merge with areas they felt as such would give legitimize the acceding of the state of Kashmir to India. Pakistan could not allow such thus the only way to solve the problem was to see the Azad government as the legitimate ruler of Gilgit Baltistan which, considering the aspirations of the people of Gilgit Baltistan and Ladakh and their existence as a separate nation which has always fought for freedom, would respect their wishes and have them join Pakistan as a separate entity. The approval needed to be perfect thus the Muslim Conference must also provide its consent so that there could be no loophole in this process. Lastly Pakistan took control of all affairs concerning Gilgit Baltistan and Ladakh. This was definitely something that Pakistan had to secure since as mentioned above that constitutional and legal balance was key here and the union of the area with Pakistan could not be established without the consent of the Azad government which was recognized by Pakistan as ruler of all of Kashmir. Now the most interesting thing is that despite the rebellion being in Gilgit, Pakistan also took control of the affairs of Ladakh which meant that Pakistan declared that the provisional government in Gilgit to have sufficient relevance in the affairs of Ladakh as well and their union with Pakistan included the areas of Ladakh too. This is a very interesting aspect of the agreement since this meant that concerning Ladakh, Pakistan declares itself as the sovereign ruler and not Kashmir and considers the dispute to be personal in that region. Although the events of the future, stopped Pakistan stopped from claiming Ladakh separate as a Pakistani territory occupied by a hostile power rather than a Kashmiri territory occupied by a hostile power, however it does determine this fact that Pakistan, at one time, thought along the lines of the former

The impact of this was that the region became a separate entity for Pakistan and the Azad government lost all sovereignty over the region itself. Through this Pakistan was able to keep the region in the dispute whilst establishing its separate nature of Azad Kashmir. Through this we can safely assume that Azad Kashmir conceded its claim on the region in 1949 and did not contest that said claim till 1970s. Now for some time the courts of Azad Kashmir and Pakistan treated each other as Foreign Courts and separate states and this was made through a number of precedents. In 1972 the Azad Kashmir government passed a resolution for the return of Gilgit Baltistan to the administration of Muzaffarabad but Pakistan did not heed and saw it as interference of the region in the internal affairs of Pakistan. There came upon another famous landmark judgment that would remain a major bone of contention between the two countries. As mentioned in the previous chapters that Azad Kashmir declared itself as the revolutionary government and the true representative of the people of Azad Kashmir and this was highlighted by the courts of Azad Kashmir in several judgments which I have mentioned above. Now in 1949 the Azad government under such authority had signed the Karachi Agreement where the state of Azad Kashmir had conceded the region of Gilgit Baltistan and Ladakh to Pakistan with all its affairs. Pakistan had thus continued to recognize Azad government to legitimize the Karachi Agreement and its revolutionary nature and since 1949 had treated Gilgit Baltistan as a separate territory from Azad Kashmir. Yet despite signing the courts of Azad Kashmir went one step further and declared the region as part of Gilgit Baltistan. The petition was filed in the High Court of Azad Kashmir in 1993 in the case titled Malik Muhammad Miskeen and 2 others vs The Federation of Pakistan and the case was based on the growing calls for autonomy and governance issues that were rising in the region of Gilgit Baltistan which were largely ignored. They had filed the petition asking to be recognized as citizens of Azad Kashmir and for their grievances to be answered. The court passed a stunning judgment that shocked Pakistan. The Court held that there was no legitimate cause to keep the Northern Areas and their residents detached from Azad Jammu and Kashmir and their residents are State Subjects thus validly citizens of Azad Kashmir. The judgment passed by Chief Justice Abdul Majeed Malik, directed Pakistan government in providing maximum support in amalgamation of the region with Azad Kashmir and in extension of the writ of the Azad government over the region, establishment of a legal system that is connected to the Azad Kashmir legal system and the forward implementation of the Interim Constitution 1974 over the region. The judgment was seen by many in Gilgit Baltistan to be an attempt to balance out the Shia-Sunni demographic in the region since the petitioners were Sunni and were from the Sunni dominated Diamer region and the Shia of Gilgit Baltistan did not look at the judgment kindly especially after the 1988 sectarian riots that shook the region. They were not alone in this since Pakistan also saw this with horror as the region, which was historically seen by Pakistan as its own territory and had went through hell and forth to make sure the territory would be part of the Kashmir dispute but not part of Azad Kashmir. The judgment was immediately appealed by the Government of Pakistan and the appealed case titled The Federation of Pakistan vs Malik Muhammad Miskeen and 2 others and the case was decided on 14th September 1994 where the courts declared that the High Court of Azad Kashmir had acted beyond its powers and the order was declared null and void. The court observed that while Gilgit Baltistan was indeed part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, however that was not the case for Azad Kashmir which had its territorial limits prescribed within the Interim Constitution 1974 Act and the courts of Azad Kashmir could not go beyond the constitutional limits that were set upon it and the government of Azad Kashmir could not establish constitutional administration over the region like that. Pakistan presented the Karachi Agreement to both the High Court and the Supreme Court however despite its perusal the former declared it a temporary arrangement whereas the former declared it as evidence of the fact that Gilgit Baltistan was not part of Azad Kashmir. While the judgment of the Superior Court did not mention to whom the region belonged, it did provide sufficient cause for Pakistan to declare its extremely controversial stance that while the region was part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, it was not part of Azad Kashmir. While the government of Azad Kashmir would pass resolutions on this however the legal chapter on the status of Gilgit Baltistan and the limitations of Azad Kashmir was now closed. This was cemented immediately in a landmark case titled ‘Al-Jehad Trust versus The Federation of Pakistan’ In May 1999, the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered a landmark judgement on the constitutional status of the Northern Areas in response to Constitutional Petition 17 of 1994, which sought the following remedies:

  • Enforcement of fundamental rights under the constitution of Pakistan;
  • Declaration of the Northern Areas’ constitutional status;
  • Declaration of the people of the Northern Areas as full citizens of Pakistan, with the right fully to participate in the affairs of the federation; and
  • Granting of provincial status.
Declaring that Pakistan exercised de facto as well as de jure administrative control over the Northern Areas, the Supreme Court ruled that the people of the Northern Areas were “citizens of Pakistan, for all intents and purposes… and their Fundamental Rights were protected within this very court”. Azad Kashmir did not file any response to the order nor contest the order itself.

The claim of Azad Kashmir over the region of Gilgit Baltistan is non-existent as by all intents and purposes the region is a separate entity from Azad Kashmir and this has been well established by the courts and actions of Azad Kashmir itself. The people of Azad Kashmir see any attempts of merger with Azad Kashmir as an attempt to weaken the Shia Majority status of the region by increasing the Sunni hold. The sectarian factor is another important element in the Azad Kashmir claim. The people historically see themselves as extremely different from the people of Azad Kashmir as well and trace their history with separate links. The entity of the Princely State of Kashmir was formed through blood and conquests and anything less than a separate status for the people of Gilgit Baltistan would be a great injustice to their history and identity.


@VCheng @Kaptaan @Waz @Nilgiri @Joe Shearer @T-123456 @Webslave @Saithan


What do you guys think about the historic and legal questions raised on Gilgit Baltistan
I replied to this on PDF, having gone there first after several days.
 

Kaptaan

Well-known member
Think Tank Analyst
Joined
Sep 12, 2020
Messages
309
Reaction score
748
Points
93
Location
United Kingdom
If the time frame to start with is the Indus Valley, the entire region is ours.
What exactly are you smoking? It's like Africa claiming Nile civilizations.

Nobody in the current setup of Pakistan respects or believes it is their history.
Where do you get this rubbish?

Pakistani ten Rupee note.

1603487831464.png



Pakistani twenty Rupee note.

1603487912713.png


Various Pakistan postal stamps

1603487976187.png


1603487999194.png


1603488021958.png
 
Top Bottom