Talk:Karachi Agreement

message: Source text moved to Wikisource per wikipedia norm. --Ezeu 02:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikisource

message: Point of view/explanation of neither side required here. it is not a blog. only text of agreement is required here--Koodfaand (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'thence north' part of the agreement is deliberately misinterpreted by many thus providing the Indian point of view. It needs to be clarified.PakSol (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Wikipedia, we don't take any one's view, neither India nor Pakistan. Wikipedia is not a tool to give point of view of any particular side. It just quote the exact text.--Koodfaand (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case, would you do the honors and remove the bold from the 'thence north' in the text of agreement, or should I do it? PakSol (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  only Text of Agreement is required.No IND-PAK point of view needed in this. its not a blog 

message: Aoa
Dear Sir, I have created a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Explanation_of_para_B_2_%28d%29_-_%27..Khor,_thence_north_to_the_glaciers%27_of_Karachi_Agreement-1949 after thorough research which explains the actual connotation of the phrase 'thence north to the glacier' in the Karachi Agreement. The Indians have since long deliberately misinterpreted its meaning and thereby claimed Siachen Glaciers to be theirs.  I have tried adding this explanation to the Karachi Agreement page, but it was being reverted continuously. Hence, I thought of creating new page. I am new to Wiki, so dont know much of the criteria for publishing articles here. Please go through the page i have created, any more explanation on the issue can be seen at my blog where I have uploaded a couple of slides which Pakistan Foreign Office uses to explain our stance of Siachen. The link to the slides: http://xerics.blogspot.com/2014/07/truthfacts-about-pakistani-claim-over.html#.VW9ZDuEwFAA. I have only used the UN map from the UN website to support my research for the obvious reasons. Now I would request you, if you can to get the page published, please.PakSol (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ws. As you said, there already appear to be some pages which can accommodate this content. For that reason, it would be better to add the content (by gaining consensus) on the page you were first trying to add it to. Unless independently notable as an article, it should not have a separate page. If you need help getting consensus and are being reverted you should follow WP:DR. You can start an WP:RFC to invite input from the neutral editors if you think the content should be a part of an existing article. I'll also remind you that editwaring or trying to get the content in without consensus may get you sanctioned so you should make sure you are doing it the right way. Please also take a look at WP:RS. A link to your blog will not do. You will need to cite the UN map as published in a reliable news source or book. Hope this helps. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I also suggest looking at WP:OR. The content appears to be the editor's interpretation of primary sources and that's not ok. Neither as a separate article nor in an existing article. Either that or look for sources that mirror the draft articles interpretation. --regentspark (comment) 21:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the prompt response. Would like to clarify that paraphrasing and putting words the facts mentioned in the original U.N document (whoch hapens to be a map) is infact not 'original research'. Pakistan was created in 1947, stating this in a new way will neither change the fact nor should it seem as if it has been researched. It's just that when discussing the Karachi Agreement, the Second Section of the agreement, being a map, is usually not referred to. I may still be wrong in understanding your POV, and if you still think that my draft will be treated like WP:OR, I wont mind as one cant fight the rules. In that case, I would simply add the Second Part of Karachi Agreement to the Original article present here at Wiki.PakSol (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be much better to find a secondary source that interprets 'north of the glaciers'. Your draft article doesn't do that and that's why it gives the impression of being OR. (Apologies, TopGun, for using your talk page like this.)--regentspark (comment) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sorry, not being rude, but it is rather strange that the UN document which states the text of the Karachi Agreement when quoted as a source is not considered as an OR, even though it's 'English' is being misinterpreted. But when I am trying to post the Part-2 of the same very UN document which shows the marking of the CFL (as explained in words of the text of the agreement at Part-1), it becomes an OR? Sir, I humbly state that there's nothing to interpret here. Part-1 of the Karachi Agreement states the TEXT of the CFL (which is widely accepted and quoted). Part-2 of the (same) Karachi Agreement shows the (same) CFL marked on the map (which was not easily available previously), I am just trying to provide closure to a document by posting both of its parts. The interpretation of both the text and map can then be left to the reader. It is otherwise understood that no delineating of boundaries can be just be done by narrating the landmarks in text form, a map showing the illustration of the text is always there. Unfortunately, this map was never quoted before. If someone can prove that there was no map to the Agreement or that the map I am trying to present is not linked with the Karachi Agreement, then I will rest my case. Just because I tried "explaining" the otherwise self-explanatory map, does not make it into an OR, nor should it require any support from a secondary (independent) source because anyone reading the map understands what the map says. May be you are right that this map does not require a dedicated page on Wiki, but then I have added the map to the page about the Karachi Agreement, i hope that will not be a problem? Link to the edited page: Karachi Agreement PakSol (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to clutter up TopGun's talk page and, obviously, we shouldn't be discussing this in a user talk page. I'm copying this over to Talk:Karachi Agreement. --regentspark (comment) 01:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added a secondary source to the draft page. Had that all along, but considering that the official document (map) should have sufficed I didnt make use of it, however as you have guided, I now have added the ref. The same can be seen at the draft page as Ref-1. Thanks PakSol (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siachen Glacier (termination of CFL as per Karachi and Simla Agreements) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Karachi Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214175655/http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/KashmirCeasefire.html to http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/KashmirCeasefire.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Karachi Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140223015415/http://www.kashmir-information.com/historicaldocuments/kashmirceasefire.html to http://www.kashmir-information.com/historicaldocuments/kashmirceasefire.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Various scholars have written on the Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir), The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846). But very little of that text is on wikipedia.
Maharaja gulab Singh originally worked for the Sikh Empire. But then betrayed the Sikh empire by siding with the East India Company in the Anglo-Sikh War. His name is mentioned in the treaty of Lahore too. He collected Taxes for the East India Company and the money was then given by him to the East India Company.
The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846) lapsed under Article 7 of the Independence Act 1947. The Act was passed by the British Parliament on July 18, 1947 to assent to the creation of the independent states of India and Pakistan. The aforementioned Article 7 provides that, with the lapse of His Majesty’s suzerainty over the Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferance’s will lapse. 
The 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur (Sikh) was under the control of the East India company when he sign The Treaty of Lahore on 9 March 1846 which gave Jammu and Kashmir and its people to the East India Company. 
Under the British legal system and international law a treaty signed by the 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur and under duress is not valid. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.) 
We may need to add a section on the impact on the removal of Article 370 of the Indian constitution on The Instrument of Accession too. 
None of this text is on there.
Various scholars have written on these treaties, for example Alistair Lamb disputed the validity of the Instrument of Accession in his paper Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU & KASHMIR –– A REAPPRAISAL'
Where he writes "While  the  date,  and  perhaps  even  the  fact,  of  the accession to India of the State of Jammu  &  Kashmir in  late  October  1947  can  be  questioned,  there  is  no  dispute  at  that time   any   such   accession   was   presented   to   the   world at large   as   conditional   and provisional. It  was  not  communicated  to  Pakistan  at  the outset  of  the  overt  Indian  intervention  in  the  State  of Jammu  &  Kashmir,  nor  was  it presented  in  facsimile  to  the  United  Nations  in  early  1948  as  part  of  the  initial  Indian reference  to  the  Security  Council.  The  1948  White  Paper  in  which  the  Government  of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, does not contain the  Instrument  of  Accession  as  claimed  to  have  been  signed  by  the  Maharajah: instead, it reproduces  an  unsigned  form  of  Accession  such  as,  it  is  implied,  the  Maharajah  might have  signed.   To   date   no   satisfactory   original   of   this   Instrument   as   signed   by  the Maharajah has  been  produced: though  a  highly  suspect  version,  complete  with  the false date  26 October 1947,  has  been  circulated  by  the  Indian  side  since  the  1960s. On the present  evidence  it  is  by  no means clear  that  the  Maharaja  ever  did  sign an Instrument of Accession.  
Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the State’s affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947
It  is  now  absolutely  clear  that  the  two  documents  (a) the Instrument of Accession, and  (c)  the  letter  to  Lord  Mountbatten,  could  not  possibly  have  been  signed  by the Maharajah  of Jammu  &  Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947  the  Maharajah  of Jammu  &  Kashmir was  travelling  by  road  from  Srinagar  to Jammu. (The Kashmir State Army divisions and the Kashmiri people had already turned on him and he was on the run and had no authority in the state). His  new Prime  Minister,  M.C.  Mahajan,  who  was  negotiating  with  the Government of India,  and  the  senior  Indian  official  concerned  in  State  matters,  V.P.  Menon, were still in New  Delhi  where  they  remained  overnight,  and  where  their  presence  was  noted  by many observers.  There  was  no  communication  of  any  sort  between  New Delhi and the travelling Maharajah.  Menon  and  Mahajan  set  out  by  air  from  New  Delhi  to  Jammu  at about  10.00 a.m.  on  27  October; and  the  Maharajah  learned  from  them  for  the  first time the result of his Prime Minister’s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day. The  key  point,  of  course,  as has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that  these  documents  could  only  have  been  signed  after  the  overt  Indian  intervention  in the  State  of Jammu  &  Kashmir on 27 October 1947.  When  the  Indian  troops  arrived  at  Srinagar  air  field,  that State   was   still   independent.   Any   agreements   favourable   to   India   signed   after   such intervention  cannot  escape  the  charge  of  having  been  produced  under  duress. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)"
Additionally Maharaja was on the run. The prevailing international practice on the recognition of state governments is based on the following three factors: first, the government’s actual control of the territory; second, the government’s enjoyment of the support and obedience of the majority of the population; third, the government’s ability to stake the claim that it has a reasonable expectation of staying in power. The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was not in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and was fleeing for his life and almost all of Kashmir was under the control of the Kashmiri people and the Kashmiri Army that had rebelled against him. His own troops had turned on him. With regard to the Maharaja’s control over the local population, it is clear that he enjoyed no such control or support. The people of Kashmir had been sold by the East India Company and he charged them high taxes thetefore the Kashmir Muslims, Hindus Pandits and Buddhists hated him. Furthermore, the state’s armed forces were in total disarray after most of the men turned against him and he was running for his life. Finally, it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power without Indian military intervention. This assumption is substantiated by the Maharaja’s letters.
Many of these treaties apply to Jammu and Kashmir. The Kashmir conflict is already on Wikipedia. It is internationally recognized as a disputed territory under various United United Nations resolutions that are already listed on Wikipedia Nations Security Council Resolution 47, Nations Security Council Resolution 39,mediation of the Kashmir dispute, Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. There is a lot of documentation on Jammu and Kashmir in the UN archives already. If you look at the page Kashmir conflict, it already contains sections on the "Indian view", "Pakistani view", "Chinese view", "Kashmiri views". May be we could do something like that with these treaty pages. The Treaty of Lahore was signed in 9 March 1846 and the Treaty of Amritsar 16 March 1846. They predate the creation of both modern day India and Pakistan. The Treaty of Lahore was signed between the Sikh Empire and the British government. It is an international treaty and comes under international law. Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Treaties on Kashmir