- Joined
- Feb 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,001
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu
@Agnostic Muslim,
I don't believe you're making a very consistent or very cogent argument.
Are you aware of legal terminology? Are you aware that, when an arrangement so momentous as imposing sovereignty is made it must be mentioned explicitly in an agreement? Otherwise, it leaves the very foundation of internecine and interstate relations placed on a dangerously ambiguous legal political power vacuum.
Your allusions to the term 'sovereignty', juxtaposing it with 'subordinate cooperation' when in fact subordinate cooperation means just that, leaves, at best, a decidedly obscure legal foundation for the subsequent delineation; at worst, a partisan argument for an irredentist, ascendent power that willfully violates all legal convention and denotation.
Nowhere in the Treaty of 1854 does the term "Sovereignty" appear. Nor can the term 'subordinate cooperation' even conceivably be interpreted liberally because: a) the province of British Balochistan did not exist yet; b) the territories were leased-occupied for which quit-rent was paid; and c) the Treaty of 1876- which although re-affirming the treaty of 1854 which did not explicitly mention "sovereignty"- explicitly states the term: "independence". If not for anything else, the fact that acquit-rent was being paid means that the territories could not have been the sovereign domain of Britain.
The Treaty of 1854- misconstrued as transferring this right from the Baluch to the British- infact only imposes a restriction on that right: the Baluch could act, but in cooperation and in consonance with the British. While the Treaty of 1876, explicitly affirms that it had this right: in the term 'independence' [which would indicate that the Baluch did, in fact, have the authority to proposition, but with the consent of the British]. Furthermore, the status of leased-occupied lands, in itself, meant that the British had no right to reconstitute the borders of those territories. To do so, would have necessitated an amendment of the Treaty of 1854, or a clause in the Treaty of 1876; instead the Treaty of 1876 reaffirmed Baluch independence, and that, in conjunction with the rent-acquit meant that these lands did not have status of a demesne/principality.
@Agnostic Muslim,
I don't believe you're making a very consistent or very cogent argument.
Are you aware of legal terminology? Are you aware that, when an arrangement so momentous as imposing sovereignty is made it must be mentioned explicitly in an agreement? Otherwise, it leaves the very foundation of internecine and interstate relations placed on a dangerously ambiguous legal political power vacuum.
Your allusions to the term 'sovereignty', juxtaposing it with 'subordinate cooperation' when in fact subordinate cooperation means just that, leaves, at best, a decidedly obscure legal foundation for the subsequent delineation; at worst, a partisan argument for an irredentist, ascendent power that willfully violates all legal convention and denotation.
Your own definition says "usually sovereignty". Do you mean to say, that we can selectively suggest "independence", as explicitly mentioned in the 1876 Treaty, meant not only the lack of, but also the abrogation of all participative ability, in not just territorial delimitation, but also the a priori re-constitution of dominion that would have been necessary for that territorial delimitation to occur in the first place? That, at the same time, that dominion re-constitution was also given legal effect by the term 'subordinate cooperation' in the 1854 Treaty? And moreover, while selectively confining the term 'independence' that also occurred in a [perhaps more] valid treaty, liberally interpret the term "subordinate cooperation" that occurred in a [prior] treaty to mean absolute suzerainty, even over territorial limits, of a province that didn't even exist yet?@Rage
'Independence' does not guarantee 'sovereignty' and it does not automatically imply 'Independence in ALL affairs of a State':
Independence is a condition of a nation, country, or state in which its residents and population, or some portion thereof, exercise self-government, and usually sovereignty, over the territory.
Nowhere in the Treaty of 1854 does the term "Sovereignty" appear. Nor can the term 'subordinate cooperation' even conceivably be interpreted liberally because: a) the province of British Balochistan did not exist yet; b) the territories were leased-occupied for which quit-rent was paid; and c) the Treaty of 1876- which although re-affirming the treaty of 1854 which did not explicitly mention "sovereignty"- explicitly states the term: "independence". If not for anything else, the fact that acquit-rent was being paid means that the territories could not have been the sovereign domain of Britain.
The Treaty makes only clear that the state of Kalat may act, in cooperation with and with the consent of the British, in the matter of its own foreign affairs. It does not explicitly forbid the state of Kalat from doing so. It can be interpreted in no other way- and to suggest that the British had the preemptive authority to put forward a binding proposal on its behalf, without consulting it, is an egregious extrapolation of the facts. Again, leased-occupied territories cannot be dealt with, as in the case of boundary delimitation, as a sovereign domain.While no specifics on the degree of 'Independence' Kalat would enjoy are provided in the treaty, the treaty, with its reference to the subordination of Kalat to the British on the subject of Foreign Affairs, makes quite clear that Kalat's 'independence' did not extend to foreign affairs.
The tripartite agreement was, in fact, bowdlerized and a bipartisan agreement put in its place, when the British realized they could not garner the collective agreement of the Khanate and the sirdars. To preempt this, and to deal with a more assertive Persia that was imposing itself on its western flank under the gaze of its Russian sponsor, the British swiftly moved to establish a military buffer state whose boundaries they had de jure no right to define.I am not familiar with the abstersion of a tripartite Durand Agreement, but assuming that was the case, attempting to involve, unsuccessfully in this case, multiple parties in an agreement does not change the fact that the British, under the treaties of 1854 and 1876, did not need legally Kalat's involvement in the Durand Agreement. Again, the language of the treaty is clear, Kalat was 'subordinate' to the British Government in matters of external affairs. Kalat could not propose a solution that the British did not agree with, while there was no such restriction on the British.
The Treaty of 1854- misconstrued as transferring this right from the Baluch to the British- infact only imposes a restriction on that right: the Baluch could act, but in cooperation and in consonance with the British. While the Treaty of 1876, explicitly affirms that it had this right: in the term 'independence' [which would indicate that the Baluch did, in fact, have the authority to proposition, but with the consent of the British]. Furthermore, the status of leased-occupied lands, in itself, meant that the British had no right to reconstitute the borders of those territories. To do so, would have necessitated an amendment of the Treaty of 1854, or a clause in the Treaty of 1876; instead the Treaty of 1876 reaffirmed Baluch independence, and that, in conjunction with the rent-acquit meant that these lands did not have status of a demesne/principality.
Again, why do you take it upon yourself to believe that the term 'subordinate cooperation' [appearing in a treaty] can be interpreted liberally while the term "independence" [which appears in a subsequent, more recent and hence more chronologically valid treaty] can be legally constrained so that it goes against the very nature of its connotation? Isn't that a very convenient (and gratuitous) interpretation of the argument? Or is that based on an a posteriori retrospection of the fact of the unilateral imposition of authority and execution of a suzerain act by an ascendent power? Does the term 'independence" not also appear in an equally valid treaty? Why construe the terms differently? Are we making a legal argument here? Or Are we making a realist's power argument? Because, if we are, we could just say: All's fair in love, war and politics and move in. In which case, claims to Kashmir would also be redundant, because we are the ascendent power in that dispute.The British legally neutered Kalat while pacifying/misleading them through the use of the term 'Independence' - not only did they subordinate Kalat to the British Government in matters of foreign affairs, they also codified their role as the final arbiter in domestic disputes between the Khan and various Sardar's. The whole business is an excellent illustration of the manner in which the British were able to exert control in regions across the word through coercive diplomacy backed by their economic and military power.
Last edited by a moderator: