4

According the the Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir) signed by the ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir is a part of India, Gilgit-Balitistan included.

Tribal invaders sponsored by the Pakistani army then invaded the northwestern parts of Jammu and Kashmir, known as Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Balitistan. The region has been illegally occupied by Pakistan ever since. The Line of Control is between India and Pakistan.

Acording to UNSC Resolution of 1947 the territory is part of the disputed Kashmir

Then how pakistan can make administrative in that area ?

  • 4
    I am not entirely sure what the question is here. As you say, these territories are de facto part of Pakistan, so the Pakistani government is going to administer them. The strength of the Indian claim to them doesn't really come into it. – richardb Sep 6 '18 at 7:07
  • The region has been illegally occupied by Pakistan. – Aditya Shah Sep 6 '18 at 9:10
  • I have linked some wiki url's, Pakistan is going against United Nations Security Council Resolution 47. – Aditya Shah Sep 6 '18 at 9:10
  • en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/… – Aditya Shah Sep 6 '18 at 9:10
  • 5
    Because they can :) What kind of answer do you expect? This site is not really an appropriate place to make a statement. – default locale Sep 6 '18 at 9:51
5

Then how pakistan can make administrative in that area ?

Simply because they currently are in control of the area; this will be true of most disputes over territory - the party in current control believe that by rights* it is theirs (or else they would not be claiming it) and so will run the administration of the area.

*or by might, but it boils down to the same thing in the end

| improve this answer | |
  • I means UN will come in middle ? Because Pakistan broke the law. so what will be UN's action as per it's constitution ? – Aditya Shah Sep 6 '18 at 11:56
  • 4
    @AdityaShah that's an entirely different question, but the resolution was a set of recommendations so Pakistan aren't breaking the law by not following it. (The invasion is a separate matter.) even if it had been binding, politics would come into whether anyone would supply the troops needed to enforce any such resolution. – user19831 Sep 6 '18 at 12:01
  • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… – Aditya Shah Sep 6 '18 at 12:04
  • en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/… – Aditya Shah Sep 6 '18 at 12:06
  • 1
    @AdityaShah very nice. I believe there was a war fought over that, and an eventual cease-fire declared, leaving Pakistan to administrate those areas on their side of the cease-fire line. – user19831 Sep 6 '18 at 12:08

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .