User talk:Nichalp/Kashmir

pls change heading to:

Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is a region.....

coz pak never refers to POK collectively. it only calls them ajk or nort areas. india created the word pok calls it pok so we use pok. i dunno where administered came from

political status: ajk is a defacto puppet govt:

Puppet government

AJK

Although, azad means sovereignly "independent", Pok is a defacto puppet government whose independence is not recognised by any nation including Pakistan. It is administered and controlled by Pakistan. Pakistan has consistently failed to fulfil its obligations to introduce “meaningful and representative democratic structures” in PoK.In this context, the absence of Kashmiri representation in the Pakistan National Assembly and the fact that PoK is governed through the 'Ministry of Kashmir Affairs' in Islamabad. Further that the 'Kashmir Council' is dominated by Pakistani officials and the chief secretary, inspector-general of police, accountant-general and finance secretary in the PoK are all from Pakistan.PoK government was not a provisional regime but a declaration proclaiming POK as an integral part of Pakistan."Pakistan occupied Kashmir is completely lacking in democracy, people suffer oppression and have no voice,” said BJP spokesman Ravi Shankar Prasad, citing a 2007 report of the European Parliament to buttress his argument.

Northern areas

On 28 May 1999, the Supreme Court of Pakistan said: 'it was not understandable on what basis the people of Northern Areas can be denied the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution' i.e. right to equality before law, right to reside and move freely, right to vote, right to be governed by their chosen representatives, right to form political parties, right to assemble peacefully, right to freedom of speech and expression, right to habeas corpus and against illegal detention, right to acquire, hold and dispose property, and the right to have access to an appellate court of justice for the enforcement of all other rights guaranteed under the latest constitution of the country.

sources in POK page

all well sourcd. n c this article: http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/may/23sheela.htm, http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/political-discussions/12364-pok-students-want-seats-iim-iits.html.. hahahahahaha

for plebecite pakistan must vacate its part of kashmir!!!!! correct ur statement.

Done, I've used the UN wording. Thanks for pointing it out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Puppet governments or not, I do not see how this is within the scope of this particular topic. I've tried to source my statements on the page from official government sources only and largely avoid media reports, as they could be sensational. The puppet government issue should be raised on Azad Kashmir and Kashmir Conflict as it comes under the scope of those articles. Thanks for the input. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your rediff.com article is interesting, but I have no official Indian government proof that I can cite to support the fact if the Indian government mentions residents of Azad Kashmir or the Northern Areas as Indian citizens. If we can get a reliable source, it would be a worthy addition. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

3 major problems

1. it misses out out on the export of terrorism from pok..which is refereed as "cross border terrorism" in india and abroad..
2. pakistan administered kashmir leaves out the trans-Karakoram tract region outside its purview..further siachen is claimed as part of fana too.. hence it differs from POK which includes AJK, FANA as well as trans-Karakoram tract..SO PAK NOT EQUAL TO POK...rather PaK + trans-Karakoram tract - Siachen = POK
3. if we were to strictly follow un stand then AJK and FANA areas should be in a background map of Kashmir and Jammu.. (not of pakistan- AS IT IS NOW)..use all or none rule..if you believe UN, state UN positions everywhere WITHOUT PAKISTANI BIAS including the titles of "azad k" and other such "pakistan coined" places..else leave the topic as Pok with a redirect from pak (while mentioning the chinese control of trans-Karakoram tract)Kashmircloud (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Cross-border terrorism is out of scope. It would duplicate content in the Kashmir conflict
2. The Trans-Karakoram tract was mentioned, I have expanded it.
3. I've not used a map as yet. What map are you talking about?
4. I have mentioned a note that India contests the "azad kashmir" part.

Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

some minor suggestions

1. Pages Hunza (princely state) and Nagar (princely state) can be linked.
2. Background section needs some refs (possibly reused from main article)
3. 1 ref is showing some error in References section. --GDibyendu (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Done all 3. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Some things I don't get

1. Before the 1947 partition there was British India and the princely state Kashmir.
2. Immediately following the partition there was Pakistan, India and the princely state Kashmir.
3. Then, pro-Pakistan tribal chieftains began to invade the western and northern portion of Kashmir. This would suggest that there was now Pakistan, India, occupied parts of the princely state Kashmir and unoccupied parts of the princely state Kashmir.
4. After the Maharaja, Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession there arose two versions of the status of the region:
   • Indian version: Pakistan, pre-accession India, two parts of the former princely state Kashmir, now India, one occupied by pro-Pakistan tribal chieftains and one not occupied.
   • Pakistani version: Pakistan, India, one part of the region formerly defined as the princely state Kashmir that is occupied by pro-Pakistan tribal chieftains and one part which is occupied by India.

My problem is with the paragraph of the present article which reads:

The areas under the control of Pakistan included the Gilgit Agency, the Baltistan District of the Ladakh Wazarat, and the states of Hunza and Nagar, which were to later coalesced form the Northern Areas in 1970. Also included in the Pakistan-held region was Azad Kashmir or Free Kashmir, the territory established by the pro-Pakistan chieftains in 1947. The territories under the control of India included Jammu, the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh. The three areas were then integrated as the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

This does not hang together in my estimation. This text refers to the following regions under control of Pakistan:

• Gilgit Agency
• the Baltistan District of the Ladakh Wazarat
• the state of Hunza
• the state of Nagar
• the region referred to in my initial listing as part of the former princely state Kashmir occupied by pro-Pakistan tribal chieftains, now named Azad Kashmir

Of these five entities I only recognize the latter from the previous equations. Any user lacking knowledge of the history of this region will be perplexed by the uncontextualized introduction of these names into the article. As I have now found out by perusing various of the linked articles, Gilgit, Baltistan, Hunza and Nagar were all princely states, however, they were occupied by the princely state Kashmir since the 19th century. This would mean that their status subsequent to the signing of the Instrument of Accession by the Maharaja, Hari Singh of the princely state Kashmir becomes particularly murky.

1. Either they should be considered independent states illegally occupied by the princely state Kashmir and hence, as the formal joining of Kashmir and India took effect, they should formally be considered sovereign nations.
2. Or they were considered part of the princely state Kashmir.

Which if these alternatives is the case? Alternatively, which parties subscribed to either of these alternatives?

These issues need to be addressed. __meco (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What part did you not get?

• The princely state of J&K had expanded to include smaller kingdoms of Gilgit, Balistan, Hunza, and Nagar in the 19th century.
• In effect Kashmir, was more like an empire, ruling over several conquered vassal states.
• To understand the Kashmir situation better, see Political_integration_of_India#Kashmir
• See also 1909 map of Kashmir and 1857 map. I don't see anything illegal in the map.
• When the British quit India, the Instrument of Accession applied to the rulers of the princely state. Srinagar was the headquarters of Kashmir, so the IoA would have to be signed by Srinagar, not smaller vassal states.

Let me know if you got this. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This draft article seems fine, it mentions the views of Pakistan, India and the UN. To Meco, Pakistan and India dispute the terms of IoA this has been noted here, however the IoK is considered murky by Pakistanis and its legality questioned. However the ins and outs of this dispute is probably out of scope for this article Pahari Sahib 12:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)