Gilgit-Baltistan The Forgotten Kashmir

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
mark my words- its nothing but wakhan corridor which is wanted by India, unused by pakistan and wanted to be kept away from India by china
Wakhan corridor is useless, the terrain makes it so.

It is KKH )and correspondingly the Hunza,nagar areas) that is the most important objective of India.
Wakhan corridor was created to separate the Russian Empire form the British Indian Empire towards the end of the Great Game. It is part of Afghanistan. It was not created by China to keep India away.


Wakhan Corridor (international boundaries in the map are in error)


Wakhan Corridor

References:
Wakhan Corridor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Great Game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wakhan Corridor (international boundaries in the map are in error)
 

Tolaha

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
2,158
Likes
1,416
Let's say Pakistan splits - and we get hold of entire POK.
In Gilgit Baltistan we can play on Shia - Sunni ,indigenous - non indigenous divisions and establish some support.
But how to control Azad Kashmir ? Mirpuris (who are half Punjabis) are dead against India.
While assimilating Gilgit and Baltistan is of utmost importance to India's strategic security and future energy security, we probably are better off letting Pakistanis keep the Mirpuris. Mirpuris are more Punjabis than Kashmiris and are only of nuisance value to the country they reside in.


Wakhan corridor is useless, the terrain makes it so.
To add on to pmaitra's points above, Wakhan corridor is the gateway for Afghanistan into China and probably part of the ancient Silk route. To call this as useless would be equivalent to the Nehruvian blunder of considering a part of J&K as useless. And we think Nehru was myopic!
 
Last edited:

Tolaha

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
2,158
Likes
1,416
I suggest rename the thread as Northern Areas (as per Indian terms) and not as GB (according to the Pak terminology).
Northern Areas is a Pakistani term. We call these areas as Gilgit and Baltistan!
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,573
Likes
21,017
Country flag
There were many false narratives propagated in India and real issues were covered up. If a Kashmiri is beaten in some part of India, whole Indian media covers it for weeks but even today, you can not ring a bell in Kashmir in temple nor do a procession to celebrate ram Navami. Nobody will cover this because it is politically incorrect to talk about temple and human rights of Hindus. Same way to be politically correct, you should always talk innocent Kashmirs and rights of Kashmiris etc. It will be politically incorrect to talk about the POK. I
 

Aaj ka hero

Has left
Banned
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
1,872
Likes
4,532
Country flag
http://www.mid-day.com/opinion/2012/mar/270312-opinion-Gilgit-Baltistan-The-forgotten-Kashmir.htm


In an interview last week, head of Indian army's Northern Command said that there are 1,000-1,500 Chinese soldiers "looking at some dams and bridges in the Northern Areas". The region is strategically important as the Karakoram Highway linking China to Pakistan passes through it. Although Northern Areas is a part of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, they are not part of the so-called 'Azad Kashmir'. While most Indians are ignorant of the status of the Northern Areas, Kashmiri youth are no better informed. In a survey conducted by IRIIS among Kashmiri urban youth last year, 58 per cent respondents didn't know the status of Northern Areas. In fact, no one can get that answer right because Northern Areas has a very ambiguous status.

After Pakistan government enacted the Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Order in August 2009, Northern Areas came to be formally known as Gilgit-Baltistan. The region now has an elected assembly and a council headed by the Prime Minister of Pakistan. This council wields all the powers and controls, the resources and revenue accrued from the region. In any case, the so-called regional government is under the overall control of the federal ministry of the Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan in Islamabad.

But Gilgit-Baltistan or Northern Areas do not find any mention in the Pakistani constitution: it is neither independent nor does it have a provincial status. This huge territory, more than six times the size of 'Azad Kashmir' and part of the erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, has been under Pakistan's control since November 4, 1947 when the British Commander of Gilgit Scouts, Major Brown declared accession to Pakistan. The region was then named 'The Northern Areas of Pakistan' and put under the direct control of Islamabad, distinct from the Pakistan-occupied 'Azad Kashmir'.

The inhabitants of the region believe that their unique ethno-cultural and religious identity has been threatened after their annexation to Pakistan. First, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, in the 1970s, abrogated the State Subject Rule -- the law that until then protected the local demographic composition -- to facilitate Pakistani Sunnis to acquire land and settle in the region. This single order damaged the social fabric and provoked sectarian feuds that continue to simmer till this day.

Later, the ethnic composition of the region was tampered with by the Zia-ul-Haq-sponsored anti-Shia forces; the number of Shias in this region have since reduced drastically. Pakistani establishment-led Shia-Sunni and Shia-Nurbakshi riots caused extreme socio-political polarisation in Skardu in the early 1980s. But a permanent trust deficit was created in May 1988 when tribal Lashkars, after receiving a nod of approval from General Zia, abducted local women and massacred thousands of Shias in Gilgit.

In the recent years, many Taliban who escaped from Swat and adjoining areas have found shelter among Sunni extremists in Gilgit. More than 300 suspected terrorists were expelled from Gilgit in October 2008, highlighting fears that the Taliban has a strong presence in the region. The massacre of Shia pilgrims in Kohistan in February this year, while they were on their way back to Gilgit-Baltistan, points to the dangers of Talibanisation. At least 16 Shias were identified, forced to disembark from the bus and brutally shot to death in Kohistan by the Sunni extremist group, Jundallah.

The situation, exacerbated by growing involvement of China and exploitation of this natural resource-rich region by Islamabad, has given rise to some nationalist groups. Claiming to represent an 'oppressed people' owing to sectarianism, intolerance, poverty, terrorist camps and exploitation of resources, groups such as the Balawaristan National Front have explicitly defined their goal as 'freedom from Pakistan's illegal occupation.'

India can no longer be oblivious to continued Pakistani designs to alter the unique ethno-nationalist and religious character of a territory that legally belongs to India. Along with the government, Indian civil society groups need to highlight the violation of the basic human rights of the population of Gilgit-Baltistan, who are de jure citizens of India. After all, the parliamentary resolution of 1994 had reaffirmed that the region is a "part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which is an integral part of India by virtue of its accession to it in 1947."
Ya sirji but none of our media is even little bit interested in finding news let alone making documentaries on Gilgit Baltistan.
It's like invisible wall. NO documentary by any india media house.
I really want my himalayan to roll down in Gilgit Baltistan areas one day freely.
 

Hellfire

Professional
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
986
Likes
4,032
Country flag
I understand ur objection. The border treaties were signed with Tibet but our government accepts Chinese stance wrt Tibet, as of now. It sounds illogical but, it doesn't mean we don't assert rights over the territories which we claim to be ours.
The inherent contradiction comes to fore then. You claim GB, even when you emphatically lost it in military confrontation in 1948 and de-facto accepted the status as such by signing Karachi Agreement in 1949, wherein Pakistan never accepted J&K to be a part of India; yet you claim an antithetical position with respect to claims of China over Arunachal Pradesh when you recoginze Tibet as a part of China?

Most absurd and laughable position to be in.

We recognize Chinese control of Tibet (Pakistan does not recognize Indian control of J&K), yet we lay claims to territories that paid taxes to them (legally as per our own position i.e. Aksai Chin, NEFA) till 1950, but we claim territories which we never had ever (in J&K)?
 

aghamarshana

Mitron......naacho
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2017
Messages
2,031
Likes
10,867
Country flag
You claim GB, even when you emphatically lost it in military confrontation in 1948
Uhuh, we didn't lose it. It was annexed before our intervention.


and de-facto accepted the status as such by signing Karachi Agreement in 1949, wherein Pakistan never accepted J&K to be a part of India;
There again u go wrong, sir. The Karachi Agreement was signed in 1949, but we have the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharaja of Kashmir H.H. Hari Singhji in 1947 itself on which basis we claim the entire territory of the princely state including Gilgit Agency, Baltistan, Trans Karakoram tract and Occupied Kashmir. That's rightfully Indian territory.

yet you claim an antithetical position with respect to claims of China over Arunachal Pradesh when you recoginze Tibet as a part of China?

It's absurd to the core to even compare the Chinese position on Arunachal Pradesh and our position on PoJKL(I mean all the territories we claim).

1. The Chinese 'annexed' Tibet. And they claim Arunachal for the reason that it used to be under the influence of Lhasa. They have no substantial proofs to corroborate their claims.

2. India claims Gilgit-Baltistan, PoJK and Aksai-Shaksgam because it has rights over it legally. And we have the Instrument of Accession to support our claims.

We recognize Chinese control of Tibet (Pakistan does not recognize Indian control of J&K), yet we lay claims to territories that paid taxes to them (legally as per our own position i.e. Aksai Chin, NEFA) till 1950, but we claim territories which we never had ever (in J&K)

We recognise Chinese control of Tibet now, yes. If I were to be asked, don't support Chinese occupation of Tibet in letter & spirit. They claim.our land. But that doesn't mean we have to give up control of territories administered since the Raj. Even Bakis claim UTs of JK&L which are De Jure Indian territory. Did that change the position of Chinese side on Ladakh? The issue with Bakis is they conveniently cede Shaksgam and Aksai as long as they hold remainder of the territory comprisinv erstwhile state of Kashmir. If we had really accepted Chinese position on Tibet, we wouldn't have hosted a Tibetan govt in exile in our land.
 
Last edited:

Assassin 2.0

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
6,087
Likes
30,705
Country flag

Assassin 2.0

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
6,087
Likes
30,705
Country flag
Changing stance is not something which is bound to only historical logics if you have military force and capability you can break historical grounds and start claiming things just like how Chinese are doing it in South China sea.
Askai chin gilgit balitistan are the areas on which india claims now but claims can be extended if we develop more capabilities.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,882
Likes
8,125
Country flag
I asked you to delve on these issues because you are dealing with an enemy who claims any part of land where even for a day they had a hold. You have to first know your enemy in terms of understanding how he/she thinks and is driven to think, before you make your strategy to deal with him/her.

If you have time, I suggest read the first hundred odd pages of "On China" by Henry Kissinger. It is a great insight into the Chinese way of looking at things.

When India recognized Tibet as a part of China, we weakened our own position
...
Because there was a Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed between China and Tibet in 741 AD or thereabouts (I will look it up). So first thing, we need to pull back from that position - of recognizing Tibet as part of China.

Are we going to? That .. is the issue.
Got it. Agree 100%

So your style is to disrupt and then educate :troll:
 

Defcon 1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,841
Country flag
Yes.

But again, of pertinent importance is that the Chinese view of looking at things here. As I have mentioned earlier, you have to deal with the enemy who thinks in a particular way.

What India needs to do is to play their own principles against them:

1. Indian Army had Post Office at Lhasa till early 1951 (?). Using that as a logic, we must change from recognizing Tibet as a part of China & make claims against it ourselves.
2. Chinese have a philosophy wherein they treat treaties as relevant only to that time period when they signed them, always to be revisited with change in circumstances. Hence, our treaties and policies must do exactly that - change.

You can not hold your own claims against territory modern day Arunachal Pradesh if you continue to recognize Tibet as part of China for Indian forces kicked them out in 1950 from there, till when, Tibetans collected taxes.
1. China has no view here. They don't claim GB at all. You are spreading misinformation. And India has already recognized Tibet as part of China in return for China accepting Sikkim as part of India. We cannot go back on that.
2. Thats no philosphy. Thats plain bullying. You cannot fight against that regardless of whatever principal you choose. Chinese know what they are doing is wrong, but they are trying to muscle their way in. I mean their claim on South China sea is laughable. They literally claim that they used to fish in South China see, so it belongs to them. Yet it has not stopped them from bullying their smaller neighbours

As for Arunachal, it will never be settled in any forum or court, but in battlefield. So it doesn't matter whether Tibet collected taxes from Arunachal or not. Till China initiates a war, Arunachal will remain in Indian hands, regardless of how weak our claim is.
 

Hellfire

Professional
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
986
Likes
4,032
Country flag
Uhuh, we didn't lose it. It was annexed before our intervention.
By accepting the military defeat of the garrison at Skardu, who we could not relieve in time, we will start being honest with ourselves.


Wars are won & lost at the negotiation table sir.


There again u go wrong, sir. The Karachi Agreement was signed in 1949, but we have the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharaja of Kashmir H.H. Hari Singhji in 1947 itself on which basis we claim the entire territory of the princely state including Gilgit Agency, Baltistan, Trans Karakoram tract and Occupied Kashmir. That's rightfully Indian territory.
You have merely read an extract. My point was to bring forth the inherent contradiction in our approach to two border disputes.

One has the enemy not recognizing that J&K acceded to India, the other, recognizing enemy's rights over Tibet.

One has us claiming territories which we had militarily abandoned within 9 months of J&K State acceeding to us, the other, of us claiming territories which had an enemy build a road and pay taxes (Aksai Chin & then NEFA) to Tibet, which we recognize as being part of China.

My aim is to drive in the inherent contradiction in our approach here.


It's absurd to the core to even compare the Chinese position on Arunachal Pradesh and our position on PoJKL(I mean all the territories we claim).

1. The Chinese 'annexed' Tibet. And they claim Arunachal for the reason that it used to be under the influence of Lhasa. They have no substantial proofs to corroborate their claims.

Well, we did kick out their, the Tibetan, taxmen, from Tawang in 1951.

2. India claims Gilgit-Baltistan, PoJK and Aksai-Shaksgam because it has rights over it legally. And we have the Instrument of Accession to support our claims.
I am not challenging, I am pointing out our contradiction.




We recognise Chinese control of Tibet now, yes. But that doesn't mean we have to give up control of territories administered since the Raj. Even Bakis claim UTs of JK&L which are De Jure Indian territory. Did that change the position of Chinese side on Ladakh? The issue with Bakis is they conveniently cede Shaksgam and Aksai as long as they hold remainder of the territory comprisinv erstwhile state of Kashmir. If we had really accepted Chinese position on Tibet, we wouldn't have hosted a Tibetan govt in exile in our land.
Again, a contradictory approach! It is precisely what I am pointing to - the contradiction we have in our approach in dealing with China, which allows them the flexibility to have a go at us, at will.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top