Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bugti

[Rage]

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.

@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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

@Rage

The argument is certainly not a 'realist's power argument', because had that been the case there would really be little to discuss.

Now, if you are arguing that the agreement between Kalat and the British should have followed some sort of 'internationally accepted template' to make clear British control over Kalat's foreign policy (which would include the ability to negotiate the delineation of borders between Kalat and adjacent States), then you are going to have to provide the necessary conventions that would govern the language and structure of such an agreement. As far as I can tell, there were no legal conventions governing the structure of such treaties/agreements at that point in time.

You are correct that the term 'sovereignty' does not appear in the treaty of 1854, and I did not argue that it did - what I pointed out was merely using the term 'independence' does not imply that the British accepted Kalat's sovereignty in foreign affairs. In fact, the very specific language in the treaty of 1876 that cements the role of the British as the final arbiter in domestic disputes between the Khan and other Sardars clearly suggests that Kalat had limited 'independence' in running even its domestic affairs.

You argued that I am 'cherry picking', choosing to ignore the reference to Kalat's 'independence' in the treaty of 1876 while focusing on language in the treaty related to foreign affairs. What I am pointing out is that the term 'Independence' in a treaty does not automatically grant a nation sovereignty over all its affairs - the fact that the treaties continue to very specifically outline the 'subordinate role' of Kalat in foreign affairs and very specifically outline the role of the British as the final arbiter in domestic disputes limits Kalat's 'independence' to areas not specifically defined in the treaties, at best.

 

[Rage]

Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

@Agnostic Muslim,

I think this discussion is proceeding in very circuitous fashion, so I'm going to ask you a few questions to make sure that proceeding with it is, in fact, worth my time:-

- Do you understand the difference between independence and sovereignty? What do you believe it is?

- Do you believe the clause: 'act in subordinate cooperation with the British-state' in the Treaty of 1854 can be interpreted [in its ambiguity] as implying complete British sovereignty over the [future] province of British-Baluchistan, which had not yet been constituted? Do you believe a clause can be applied in retrospect to an entity which, at the time the clause was formed, did not exist yet?

- Moreover, do you believe this clause [in its legal ambiguity] granting in your opinion, complete suzerainty to the British over an entity [which, as mentioned, did not even exist] can be applied, and accorded legal precedence, over a clause explicitly enjoining the British to: 'respect the independence of the Khelat state' in a latter, more chronologically-valid Treaty [of 1876] that brought this very entity into existence? On what basis, if not that, do you apportion legal precedence between two treaties- one which [ambiguously, subject to interpretation] asserts sovereignty over an as-yet unconceived entity, the other which brings that entity into existence and explicitly asserts its independence?

- How do you believe the former clause [in its ambiguity], granting suzerainty to the British, should be interpreted as having legal preeminence over the clearer latter clause explicitly enjoining the British to undertake to respect its independence? Retroactively in light of British actions after the agreement? Do you think this [vacuous] interpretation, of ambiguous over explicit, will stand the legal scrutiny?

- Do you believe the clause 'act in subordinate cooperation with the British' meant that the Khan of Kelat could not act at all? Do you believe the clause 'to enter into no negotiation with other States without its consent' meant that the Kelat state could not enter into negotiations with foreign powers at all? What is your interpretation of independence, in light of this?

- Do you believe that the continued payment of acquit-rent [before and after its Constitution] defied the status of the province of British-Balochistan as a protectorate, but rather now meant that it had acquired the status of a demesne?

- Do you believe the British composing the Durand Line Agreement of 1893, originally in tri-partite form, meant they did not believe the Khan of Kelat and the sirdars had a role to play in negotiations? What do you believe it meant?


Just FYI, when the Government of British India, through the Government of India Act 1935, officially constituted the state of Kalat as a province demesne, in other words as one of several Indian states over which it had complete [in it's own eyes] legal, political and administrative sovereignty, the Khan of Kalat lodged a protest with the Govt.of British India against the Act. He made the legal point that the decision to include Kalat as an Indian state, over which the British had complete suzerainty as the dominion of British India, was in contravention of the Treaty of 1876. Now, in an official letter to the state of Kalat, his Excellency, the Crown Representative assured the Khan of Kalat that such reaffirmation was unnecessary, that he recognized, in every respect, the validity of the Treaty of 1876; and that the it would henceforth form the basis of the relations between the British Government and the Kalat state. Such an act, is known as an act of precedence.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

@Rage

I apologize for the late response, but I wanted to take my time in reading your questions and trying to understand them, and therefore compose a response with a little more thought in it than my usual posts. That in turn required finding a slab of uninterrupted time in an increasingly busy schedule.

@Agnostic Muslim,

I think this discussion is proceeding in very circuitous fashion, so I'm going to ask you a few questions to make sure that proceeding with it is, in fact, worth my time:-

You may ask all the questions you wish, however, given the disagreements I have with your responses so far, accusations of engaging in 'circuitous arguments and wasting ones time' are just as applicable to you, from my vantage point. Resorting to such language and vitiating the atmosphere does not help further the debate. In any case, let me attempt to answer your questions as I understand them, in terms of their relevance to my arguments:

- Do you understand the difference between independence and sovereignty? What do you believe it is?

I don't see how this is relevant - my argument is that the specificity of the language in the two treaties referencing Kalat's subordinate (to the British) role in foreign affairs and arbitration in domestic disputes clearly establishes British suzerainty over Kalat in those two key areas.

- Do you believe the clause: 'act in subordinate cooperation with the British-state' in the Treaty of 1854 can be interpreted [in its ambiguity] as implying complete British sovereignty over the [future] province of British-Baluchistan, which had not yet been constituted? Do you believe a clause can be applied in retrospect to an entity which, at the time the clause was formed, did not exist yet?

The answer is a 'qualified yes'. I am arguing that the clause in the two treaties establishing a subordinate (to the British) role for the rulers of Kalat in foreign affairs and domestic arbitration establishes British suzerainty over the entire territory of Kalat/Balochistan in those areas, and, therefore, that 'British suzerainty over the Foreign Affairs of Kalat' would extend to any subsequent 'provinces' carved out of Kalat.

- Moreover, do you believe this clause [in its legal ambiguity] granting in your opinion, complete suzerainty to the British over an entity [which, as mentioned, did not even exist] can be applied, and accorded legal precedence, over a clause explicitly enjoining the British to: 'respect the independence of the Khelat state' in a latter, more chronologically-valid Treaty [of 1876] that brought this very entity into existence? On what basis, if not that, do you apportion legal precedence between two treaties- one which [ambiguously, subject to interpretation] asserts sovereignty over an as-yet unconceived entity, the other which brings that entity into existence and explicitly asserts its independence?

There is no ambiguity in either of the two treaties when it comes to British suzerainty over Kalat's foreign affairs. The latter treaty of 1876 very specifically references the clause establishing Kalat's subordinate (to the British) role in foreign affairs, and it references that clause before any mention of independence is made.

The mention of 'Kalat's Independence' is vague - does it refer to 'economic independence, domestic political independence, independence to pass domestic laws or independence from British India'? What the treaty does clearly spell out is that Kalat is NOT independent in matters of foreign affairs.

- How do you believe the former clause [in its ambiguity], granting suzerainty to the British, should be interpreted as having legal preeminence over the clearer latter clause explicitly enjoining the British to undertake to respect its independence? Retroactively in light of British actions after the agreement? Do you think this [vacuous] interpretation, of ambiguous over explicit, will stand the legal scrutiny?

Again, 'Kalat's independence' to do what? Whatever the latter clause proclaiming 'Kalat's independence' implied, it did not cover foreign affairs, since Kalat had been clearly made subordinate to the British in the matter of her foreign affairs.

- Do you believe the clause 'act in subordinate cooperation with the British' meant that the Khan of Kelat could not act at all? Do you believe the clause 'to enter into no negotiation with other States without its consent' meant that the Kelat state could not enter into negotiations with foreign powers at all? What is your interpretation of independence, in light of this?

The clause establishing Kalat's subordinate (to the British) role did legally bind the ruler of Kalat to British approval on matters of foreign affairs. My interpretation of 'independence', as referenced in the treaty of 1876, is that the 'independence of Kalat' did not extend to foreign affairs.

- Do you believe that the continued payment of acquit-rent [before and after its Constitution] defied the status of the province of British-Balochistan as a protectorate, but rather now meant that it had acquired the status of a demesne?

The treaty of 1876 established British lines of revenue for Kalat, any agreements to lease or rent territory from Kalat would fall into a similar category. The legal authority to negotiate the borders of the State of Kalat (negotiations with foreign entities) would, however, regardless of the creation of the province of British Balochistan, rest with the British, and not the rulers of Kalat.

- Do you believe the British composing the Durand Line Agreement of 1893, originally in tri-partite form, meant they did not believe the Khan of Kelat and the sirdars had a role to play in negotiations? What do you believe it meant?

As I said before, I am not aware of this particular incident that you have referred to, and I asked you if you could post a link establishing the account (I apologize if I missed your link, if provided earlier).

That said, a British attempt to make the Durand Agreement a 'tripartite agreement' does not change the argument that the British treaties with Kalat established British suzerainty over the foreign affairs of Kalat, which in turn made the inclusion of the rulers of Kalat, in negotiations with the Afghans, unnecessary from a legal standpoint.

Now, in an official letter to the state of Kalat, his Excellency, the Crown Representative assured the Khan of Kalat that such reaffirmation was unnecessary, that he recognized, in every respect, the validity of the Treaty of 1876; and that the it would henceforth form the basis of the relations between the British Government and the Kalat state. Such an act, is known as an act of precedence.

Please note that the highlighted part of the British response only reiterates that the Treaty of 1876, the same treaty that clearly spells out Kalat's subordinate role to the British in matters of foreign affairs, is the document that 'forms the basis of the relations between the British Government and the Kalat State'.

 

[Rage]

Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

@Agnostic Muslim,

I'll talk to you when I come back from my vacation.

Too much ball-talk for a Christmas week.