Azad Kashmir claim on Gilgit Baltistan

[Null/Void]

What exactly are you smoking? It's like Africa claiming Nile civilizations.


Where do you get this rubbish?

Pakistani ten Rupee note.

View attachment 4761


Pakistani twenty Rupee note.

View attachment 4762

Various Pakistan postal stamps

View attachment 4763

View attachment 4764

View attachment 4765

Pakistanis will only care about their past when they firgure out how to get rid of the pan-"ummah" fetish we need to reinvigorate ties with Tehran,Ankara but not from pan"ummah" lense

 

[Joe Shearer]

A fascinating thread, and a wonderful opportunity to discuss it in civilised company without fanatics jumping in.

I already answered, in a flippant kind of mood brought on by severe bodily pain, to @Saiyan0321, who had posted on PDF. Over here, there are very interesting points raised by @Saithan and by @Kaptaan, and, of course, by the ubiquitous @Nilgiri - we would have had to invent him, if he had not already existed! - where interesting is shorthand for I disagree but am not willing to risk life and limb getting into a knife-fight about it.

I look forward to reactions to what I am about to say.

 

[Saiyan0321]

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.

Sir ap puri duniya claim karlai if you are going to claim on links weaker than a 2 rupee thread. We had greek rule here as well so lets claim alexandria and since you are claiming alexandria, then it had links to carthage so all of north africa and spain and if we are going that route then that had links to the roman empire so claim all of roman empire and its holdings and since roman empire had links all the way to the isle of britain then britain was once linked with Modern day India so claim that and since we have that claim then the British empire holdings also have links to modern day india so lets claim the americas and canada so canada is the rightful territory of India occupied by foreigners. You see where nonsensical thinking goes.

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.

Well ofcourse there are many beneficiaries of the current setup and they are not happy at all. Just an example the sunni groups are definitely not happy since they feel that by providing provincial autonomy to the region, it will become home to a shia majority province, the first province of a religious minority in an otherwise religious majority state and you can see in the article where i mentioned the high court case in AJK well it was largely filed by sunni groups who want a merger with AJK to secure sunni majority and remain a powerplay. Think of it this way if GB has the provincial autonomy of other provinces and has large freedom and rights and laws then wouldnt the majority be the driver rather than the minority since the minority can pressurize the Council which draws power from sections of state where they are a majority but if provincial setup is given then the hand of the center will not be there and the majority in the province will become driver of the province. This is one religious angle so expect many to be pissed as some religious parties are but the people have been demanding this for sometime and are supportive of this and case in point is that all political parties that are campaigning in the region are entirely running their campaigns on provincial status. PPP has gone as far as to say that the status will be permanent. Because all politicians and electables know that this is the central point where win and loss will be determined and it has such an impact that the opposition considers governments timing as pre-poll rigging since by offering such they are taking others out of the race and the opposition has opposed reforms before the election because they feel that if PTI does so then they will win no contest.

Well we do have developments in media and articles and you can gauge it easily enough like i gauged it through campaigns and the benefit of interactions with the people of GB. Funnily enough most protests have been centered around taxes and its not as big as its made out to be. hardly close to it.

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

As we dont accept India's position. If either side accedes to the others position then their own will be brought down. If i was a conspiracy theorist i would say that in the meet with Trump both India and Pakistan agreed to the eventual demarcation of Kashmir with both sides absorbing their own pieces and the other raising hue and cry whilst secretly ending the dispute.

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.

The position of the Pakistani SC is a tough one in that there is to be considered the limitation in the constitution and in the fact that there was the karachi agreement 1949 and the historical acceding of the region. By utilizing the citizenship path, it opened the way for giving GB their due rights as the GB empowerment act 2009 was basically the implementation of the order of Aljehad trust case that they should be afforded their due rights as citizens of Pakistan post which it utilized judgments that it is the guardian of all citizens of Pakistan and since it is the guardian of all citizens and the people of GB are citizens of pakistan thus it is the guardian of the people of GB and such Pakistan supreme court litigates on any change the central government wishes to make on the region most notable of it being the elections act. Dont you feel that this pathway that is made is far more legal and proper than say a right wing government abrogating everything and annexing it.

Secondly its not just citizenship. The pakistani courts have litigated greatly on the fact that Azad Kashmir is a separate region and its courts are foreign courts however for GB they have not done so and while the process of governance has been painful for GB, the region was specifically held to be separate from Azad Kashmir and it was shown that the Karachi agreement did not just speak of military protection but actual sovereignty of GB and Ladakh over to Pakistan. We have always seen this region as separate from AJK and the people as well and this could be seen from the legal treatment both regions are shown.

Annexing GB was a tough call in 1948 and for that i will write on when i answer Joe. There were few things that needed to be considered.

A fascinating thread, and a wonderful opportunity to discuss it in civilised company without fanatics jumping in.

I already answered, in a flippant kind of mood brought on by severe bodily pain, to @Saiyan0321, who had posted on PDF. Over here, there are very interesting points raised by @Saithan and by @Kaptaan, and, of course, by the ubiquitous @Nilgiri - we would have had to invent him, if he had not already existed! - where interesting is shorthand for I disagree but am not willing to risk life and limb getting into a knife-fight about it.

I look forward to reactions to what I am about to say.

Let me answer that one in a non-flippant attitude. Each point so raised

 

[Saiyan0321]

I am gonna post the answer here as well

Now i remember you once telling @M. Sarmad that the aggressor is using great legal arguments to justify his position in a legal manner. You dont like it when we do that but we have a history of Constitutionalism and when there was fighting for Kashmir, K. Khurshid had already stated that the Azad government had revolutionary constitutionalism to gain a legitimate status in the eyes of Pakistan and they are the evidence that the maharaja had lost the mandate of the people and the people have chosen the Azad government and the muslim conference as the sole representative of the people of Kashmir. 'Mandate of the people'. its a very interesting subject isnt it. One phrase and it can shake the very foundation of the state. Are you aware that it was considered extremely improper for an elected president to declare that it had the 'Mandate of the People' within the United states and i think it was jhonson who used it for the first time in Congress and received a backlash that he uttered such words. Why? this is the most democratic of the statements. Well it was the center of the trichotomy of power. Is that wrench that is thrown because the very phase 'mandate of the people' is a declaration that i have the power of supremacy over all since that power which is given to the people has been handed to me and not to the courts nor to the congress but to me. The one who has the mandate. Anyway this is offtopic. We were talking about Kashmir. So coming to Kashmir.

Joe Shearer said:
The elephant in the room is that the princely state of J&K was a construction, an artificial construction like many other states, of the Dogra rulers of Jammu. Therefore to claim at one stroke both that the authority of the Maharaja was superseded by the Azad Kashmir government, and that the authority of that government, without any background, extended to, severally, Gilgit, Baltistan, Ladakh, and Jammu, is a piece of legal and constitutional piety that will convince nobody, not even the residents of the several portions named. Once the authority of the Maharajas is denied, there is no other legal justification for a continuation of the entity known as the personal domain of these Maharajas; there was no link between them before the Dogras, and what stares us all in the face is that there is no link between them after the Dogras.

Pakistan's discomfort is easy to understand; it may prove impossible to resolve.
Click to expand...

Indeed it was and it is not constitutional piety but the role of successor government and Ofcourse this was was brought forth that whether being the successor government of the princely state was synonmous with the princely state in the legal evolution of Azad Kashmir and it was held by the courts of Azad Kashmir that it was not and Azad Kashmir, whilst being the successor state to the princely state of Kashmir is not synonymous to the Princely state and the Azad Kashmir is governed under the limitations imposed by the 1974 interim constitution which are territorial in nature and this was held in multiple cases and that is where the AJK claim falls short. They claim based on them being successor state to the Princely state but their own courts and legal minds have held that Azad Kashmir is now a separate entity and whilst a portion of it may be occupied, it does not have the territorial limits of the Princely state itself.

I understand the point that the Princely state was extremely artificial however the legal loophole is its continuation as a separate state and if the suzerainty of the British had ceased to exist by 15th August 1947 then was the state of Kashmir an independent country till 27th October. If it was recognized as such then that means the territories so mentioned were recognized as part of the Princely state which means that only the government of Kashmir whether the Maharaja, as recognized legitimate by India or the Azad government as recognized by Pakistan as legitimate, held the power to concede its territory or accede to a region. This is where the problem comes in.

Hey we are trying our best. Cut us some slack. Do you think its easy? The legal minds of our founding fathers deserve some praise because a mess was raised in 1949 and we needed a solution. Let me give you an excerpt of the book i am writing 'constitutional Governance of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan'

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.....................................

Pakistan had to assure two things out of this agreement. Firstly that the areas of Gilgit Baltistan would be given to Pakistan and secondly that Pakistan would have maximum control on Azad Kashmir. The reason behind the former is discussed above as the area had merged with Pakistan separately and saw itself a separate entity from both Dogra and from the Azad government. The fact that the people of the region felt no affiliation with the Kashmiris and repeatedly fought against the Kashmiri rule along with the moment they felt that they could be independent, they started a rebellion and created their own provisional government. While the legitimacy of the government can be argued, but it doesn’t change the fact that it was formed immediately and no matter how thinly it may have felt its rule, it was not contested by anybody. In fact the merger with Pakistan was met with jubilation and unlike areas of Indian held Kashmir, which fought against the tribal Lashkar, Azad army and Pakistani army, they did not resist anywhere and played an important role in the securing of the region by taking Skardu.

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.

So this was a legal problem that we immediately faced as how to secure the region without breaking the princely state of Kashmir. Declare it an artificial construct and you have gifted India its piece. So we had this problem and we had to solve it thus this was the way. Declare Azad Kashmir the revolutionary government and the successor government and then have it agree to the separation of the region. Legally speaking, its not half bad.

Joe Shearer said:
What our blindingly stupid political rulers of the moment in Delhi have not realised is that the writ of the Maharaja was the only binding thread between these territories, and by their cavalier dismissal of the constitutional framework set up by their successors, the J&K Constituent Assembly, to whom they had voluntarily relegated the sovereignty in this regard, they have effectively nullified J&K, the princely state. It may be remembered that the Maharaja had only handed over three specific rights to the Dominion of India, and its successor, the Union of India. By doing that, they justify the Chinese who effectively claim whatever they do as the rights of conquest, and they effectively encourage all the adventurism that we have witnessed from the west these last seven decades. Brilliant.

Good luck to Pakistan in its efforts to square the circle.
Click to expand...

Yeah that was a major and crude thing that they did and they didnt bother with the slow legal path that we tried to pave. It was very crude and it impacted the indian position greatly. You see India had done the same thing we had done. A recognized government as the successor to the Dogra thus the successor to the Princely state of Kashmir. The entire state and by doing so they would keep the dispute alive that the region in name was a legal sovereign nation that acceded to us on such points and thus the successor government lays claim to all the territory that its previous successor held. The difference was that we actually got the successor government that we recognized to declare a large body as not part of its government. By throwing all norms aside, India basically did what we feared to do above. We can talk more on this .

Joe Shearer said:
Good luck, also, in tiptoeing around the rude reality that the cis-Pamir rulers had been tributary to the Khan of Kashgar. A little browsing will explain why it would seem to an external observer that Pakistan has with great panache and dash jumped into a rather deep hole. Marcus Curtius is alive and well, it would appear, and has imbued an entire nation with his spirit. The external observer is happy to stand and applaud the patriotic spirit and the elan on display. From a safe distance.

Are you talking about the Sino-Pak Treaty 1963 and the fear that they would incorporate the area under them like they are doing for India. You didnt read my book 'Sino-Pak Treaty 1963; a Legal Study' did you?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Let me answer that one in a non-flippant attitude. Each point so raised

This is addressed to your post, and there will be a separate post for others as appropriate.

We cannot, if the editorial 'we' is permitted, have our cake and eat it too.

Pakistan either recognises that the Maharaja's rule was legitimate or it does not. The consequences are simple - starkly simple.

If the rule of the Dogras was legitimate, then the territory of Gilgit is in armed rebellion and is liable to be reconquered with no legal consequences whatsoever; the dispute over Indian sovereignty has been a very effective red herring over the decades, but ultimately, it boils down to the transfer of power: who was entitled to transfer power, and to whom did that entity transfer power?

If the Maharaja was an illegitimate imposition on the people of Gilgit, its people had - have - a right to throw off his rule and declare themselves independent. If they had a right to do that, then joining or not joining a third country is well within their rights.

However, nobody declaring themselves an heir to the Dogra rule can insert themselves into this space. If the Maharaja's rule was illegitimate, it cannot be inherited (=devolved). There is no question of the declaration of independence by the people of Gilgit and the assumption of ruling rights over that territory by the self-declared government of so-called Azad Kashmir co-existing. Either one or the other must prevail.

If the rule of the Dogras was legitimate, to go back, then the transfer of power by him was likewise legitimate. He himself 'divided' his sovereignty - a perfectly admissible procedure, for instance, under European feudal law, and gave the Government of India his rights in respect of military establishment for military action, of foreign relations and of communications.

The claim of the Azad Kashmir government to hold his powers is nonsense. The constituents of that government had no locus standi in the Vale or in Jammu, or in Ladakh, Baltistan or Gilgit; it held only local power in the trans-montane area of west Jammu. It had no representation or military presence in Baltistan, in Ladakh, in the Vale or in Jammu (east Jammu). Certainly the rules of the transfer of power to the two Dominions of India and Pakistan had absolutely no provision for accepting a self-declared transferee as a satisfactory substitute for the Maharaja's nominee, nor did any interested party have any authority to designate that provisional authority of a province in armed rebellion as the proper administrative authority. So the headache that the Government of Pakistan has, deciding how to pry loose Gilgit from Azad Kashmir is a non-issue, shall we say.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You dont like it when we do that but we have a history of Constitutionalism and when there was fighting for Kashmir, K. Khurshid had already stated that the Azad government had revolutionary constitutionalism to gain a legitimate status in the eyes of Pakistan and they are the evidence that the maharaja had lost the mandate of the people and the people have chosen the Azad government and the muslim conference as the sole representative of the people of Kashmir.

How can a part become representative of the whole, when the other parts of that whole had their own independent ideas of how matters should be settled? How did that Azad government and the rump Muslim Conference, the majority of whose members were now the National Conference, decide that all power belonged to them, and that none of the other constituents had a say in that matter? Least of all the Maharaja?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Indeed it was and it is not constitutional piety but the role of successor government

Considering that the successor government was not clearly defined nor recognised except by one of the interested parties, how can this be anything but a constitutional piety?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Ofcourse this was was brought forth that whether being the successor government of the princely state was synonmous with the princely state in the legal evolution of Azad Kashmir and it was held by the courts of Azad Kashmir that it was not and Azad Kashmir, whilst being the successor state to the princely state of Kashmir is not synonymous to the Princely state and the Azad Kashmir is governed under the limitations imposed by the 1974 interim constitution which are territorial in nature and this was held in multiple cases and that is where the AJK claim falls short.

Any addition to this is superfluous. Further that the 1974 Constitution is a piece of constitutional engineering by hindsight, as fallible as our own idiots declaring Art. 370 of the Indian Constitution inoperative, is self-evident.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I understand the point that the Princely state was extremely artificial however the legal loophole is its continuation as a separate state and if the suzerainty of the British had ceased to exist by 15th August 1947 then was the state of Kashmir an independent country till 27th October. If it was recognized as such then that means the territories so mentioned were recognized as part of the Princely state which means that only the government of Kashmir whether the Maharaja, as recognized legitimate by India or the Azad government as recognized by Pakistan as legitimate, held the power to concede its territory or accede to a region. This is where the problem comes in.

Precisement, monsieur.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Hey we are trying our best. Cut us some slack. Do you think its easy?

Good Heavens, why on earth should I? Given an opportunity to explain the untenable position to someone with an insight into jurisprudence and constitutionalism, I will do my best to grind the point home.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

Again, two different situations arise: one, if the Maharaja's rule was legitimate, another if it was not. That has been explained in an earlier message.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

Reasonably argued, and I would agree without quibbling, except for the unfortunate fact that in the Vale, the majority part of the National Conference had already received the endorsement of the Maharaja. Further, its relations with its associated and absorptive Dominion was marked at all times by strict constitutionalism (on paper; the chicanery practised is a different kettle of fish and it is best to confuse one issue at a time), in sharp contrast to the chaos prevalent in Azad Kashmir and in Gilgit.

An aside - it is extremely improper to refer to Gilgit-Baltistan. Baltistan was always an independent territory, with its own sovereignty trammelled only by the suzerainty of the principality of Ladakh. Then Zorawar Singh conquered it on behalf of his master, his employer, the Raja of Jammu, a feudatory of the Lahore Durbar.

@Kaptaan wrongly suggests that this, along with all other portions of the domain of the Raja of Jammu, were sold by the British to the Raja; they already belonged to the Raja, who held them in his own right, subject to paying tribute to his overlord, the Maharaja of the Sikhs. Only the Vale of Kashmir was sold in 1846.

Baltistan was partly conquered by military force by the Gilgit military, aided by the State forces of a nearby sympathiser (himself deeply involved in these shenanigans). In that sense, neither the authorities ruling in Gilgit, nor those in Muzaffarabad, nor even those in Islamabad have any jurisdiction over this tract, that lies between Gilgit and Ladakh and Azad Kashmir.

 

[Joe Shearer]

and played an important role in the securing of the region by taking Skardu.

I have to point out that they were not securing the region but attacking and conquering the territory of Baltistan.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

The glaring flaw in this whole exercise is that the superior claims of the Azad Kashmir, ruling over a sliver of territory, over the claims of the bulk of the Muslim Conference, known as the National Conference , that had made its point by repelling aggression and by receiving the mandate of the legal ruler and sovereign.

 

[Joe Shearer]

So this was a legal problem that we immediately faced as how to secure the region without breaking the princely state of Kashmir. Declare it an artificial construct and you have gifted India its piece. So we had this problem and we had to solve it thus this was the way. Declare Azad Kashmir the revolutionary government and the successor government and then have it agree to the separation of the region. Legally speaking, its not half bad.

True, but only if the so-called 'revolutionary government' was the sole authority. It was not; it governed only a token borderland, and had claims to another part of the former state controlled that, as you have so eloquently explained, did not recognise its authority.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Are you talking about the Sino-Pak Treaty 1963 and the fear that they would incorporate the area under them like they are doing for India. You didnt read my book 'Sino-Pak Treaty 1963; a Legal Study' did you?

No, no, not that. It goes back further, into the 19th and the 18th centuries.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

One point that I have never made and never will given the present intellectual climate is that India consists of nine river civilisation; however, you are right in saying that the supreme position was always that of the Ganga. The nine are:

1. The Brahmaputra;
2. The Mahanadi;
3. The Godavari;
4. The Krishna;
5. The Kaveri;
6. The Tungabhadra;
7. The Narmada;
8. The Indus;
9. The Ganges.

@Nilgiri will declare war, but I have a defence.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

This is a huge misunderstanding of the situation.

The movement towards democracy was led by Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah and his political organisation, the Muslim Conference, renamed the National Conference to signify its essentially secular outlook. It published its vision of economic, social and political reform quite far back; this document is worth reading about, and it is to be found here:

The Making of the 'New Kashmir' manifesto

This is the text of an article I have contributed to a book of essays - it's different in some particulars from the text as published, in which the notes in were truncated and amended. The full...

www.andrewwhitehead.net

Elements of the National Conference that found themselves out of step both socially and politically with the rest of the National Conference broke away and revived the Muslim Conference, and represented the rather more backward and hidebound feudally minded population of the fringes of the hills in west Jammu. They broke out into armed rebellion in 1947, and declared their accession to Pakistan, in flat contradiction to the position taken by the majority of the combined party, the part that continued to be the National Conference and that exists to this day. This majority was based in the Vale of Kashmir, and was both physically and ideologically distant from the backward elements that formed the Muslim Conference based in Muzaffarabad, the capital of the so-called Azad Kashmir.

The democratic movement and the dissident movement were two different entities.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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).

It is a little dismaying to see more than one member confusing Gilgit with Baltistan, both completely distinct social, cultural, religious and political zones.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

I cannot disagree more. That is a disagreement with more than one element of your formulation.