What's new

The Future of Kashmir? "Seven" Possible Solutions!

..................................... want Kashmir to merge with Pakistan.

huh?? how can you think that,,i do not think even 1% kashmiris of india want to join pakistan

There are 2 main parts of Jammu & kashmir(excluding leh & laddakh region which is accepted as pro-indian)
about same (roughly 50% lives in jammu & 50% in kashmir valley)
1.Jammu region -almost everyone is pro indian..this region is influenced by indian punjab as it share border with it.{i m from punjab & i have visited this region many times ,some of my relatives lives there}

2.Kashmir valley region - some want to be united with india & some are asking for independence,,,,,,,,,but one thing is sure they do not want terrorism
{{{{A staggering 82 per cent of the people in Kashmir support a ‘Hizbul Mujahideen-type ceasefire’ while 70 per cent want Pakistan to stop supporting terrorism in the valley, indicating a significant shift in Kashmiri people’s attitude towards Islamabad. }}}}
 
Thats your perception. I heard that there is no democratic election to choose the leader in P O K. Please conduct free and fair election under no media restriction and let us know.
"You heard", that says it all. If I were you, I'd go read-up on the elections in 1987 in IOK, and every election since then. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house, buddy.

huh?? how can you think that,,i do not think even 1% kashmiris of india want to join pakistan
Then I doub't that you know any Kashmiris at all. What you think is very different from reality, maybe you should research some opinion polls or, better still, actually meet people from the area.

There are 2 main parts of Jammu & kashmir(excluding leh & laddakh region which is accepted as pro-indian)
about same (roughly 50% lives in jammu & 50% in kashmir valley)
The Valley is the most populated region of Kashmir, outnumbering the populations of Ladakh, Jammu and Azad Kashmir. I is also the only Muslim majority area in Kashmir, making it the only Muslim majority state of India. If that weren't the case, India would have absolutely no hesitations conducting a referendum on their side of Kashmir.

2.Kashmir valley region - some want to be united with india & some are asking for independence,,,,,,,,,but one thing is sure they do not want terrorist
Extremely ill-researched data. The Valley is pretty much unanimously against Indian occupation. The question has always been, merge with Pakistan or become an independent country. Apart from that, all other parts of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir are happy with the status quo.

Also, nobody wants terrorists. However, there is a difference between those who fight for their own freedom and those who fight to impose a twisted ideology on a people. By your definitions, your ancestors and my ancestors were also terrorists, because they resisted the British and fought for a free India/Pakistan. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't think my ancestors were terrorists.

Lastly, the only reason the people took up arms is because they tried the peaceful way for 40 years and got nowhere. In 1987 the militancy started, the struggle for freedom began in 1947. Do the math.
 
"You heard", that says it all. If I were you, I'd go read-up on the elections in 1987 in IOK, and every election since then. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house, buddy.


Then I doub't that you know any Kashmiris at all. What you think is very different from reality, maybe you should research some opinion polls or, better still, actually meet people from the area.


The Valley is the most populated region of Kashmir, outnumbering the populations of Ladakh, Jammu and Azad Kashmir. I is also the only Muslim majority area in Kashmir, making it the only Muslim majority state of India. If that weren't the case, India would have absolutely no hesitations conducting a referendum on their side of Kashmir.


Extremely ill-researched data. The Valley is pretty much unanimously against Indian occupation. The question has always been, merge with Pakistan or become an independent country. Apart from that, all other parts of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir are happy with the status quo.

Also, nobody wants terrorists. However, there is a difference between those who fight for their own freedom and those who fight to impose a twisted ideology on a people. By your definitions, your ancestors and my ancestors were also terrorists, because they resisted the British and fought for a free India/Pakistan. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't think my ancestors were terrorists.

Lastly, the only reason the people took up arms is because they tried the peaceful way for 40 years and got nowhere. In 1987 the militancy started, the struggle for freedom began in 1947. Do the math.

Where is the independent opinion poll or election in P O K? can you point some links.
 
Where is the independent opinion poll or election in P O K? can you point some links.
There is no such place as P O K. The people of Azad Kashmir got what they wanted in 1948, didn't you ever "hear" that? The question you should be asking is, did the people of the Valley ever get what they wanted? The answer will be inconvenient. In fact, if every Indian devoted even 1% of the energy spent on reinforcing theirdenial to actually understanding the will of the people of the Valley, this thread would be useless.

Thanks. Now read the rest of my post above and stop trying to come up with "smart" answers.
 
There is no such place as P O K. The people of Azad Kashmir got what they wanted in 1948, didn't you ever "hear" that? The question you should be asking is, did the people of the Valley ever get what they wanted? The answer will be inconvenient. In fact, if every Indian devoted even 1% of the energy spent on reinforcing theirdenial to actually understanding the will of the people of the Valley, this thread would be useless.

Thanks. Now read the rest of my post above and stop trying to come up with "smart" answers.

I am not smart. you smartly avoiding the question.

here the election process in p o k.

despite the official categorisation of P o K as a "disputed" area, candidates are required to sign an affidavit of allegiance to Kashmir's accession to Pakistan. This is a mixed curse for pro-independence parties such as the Amanullah Khan faction of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front.

The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : What the elections in Azad Kashmir mean

now don't ban me for asking question.
 
I hope I manage to get my message across without aggravating and provoking any one. Having come across quite a few Kashmir people, I was surprised when the majority of them would not even want to be called Pakistani. I mean over here they would say I am from Kashmir instead of Pakistan or India. What really pissed me off was that we fought three wars for them and this is the sort of response we get back from them. I don't know if it is merely due to the prevailing conditions from the past half century but its sad. Particularly, because we have given Kashmiri's exceptional rights in our country. They even get to chose their own Prime minister in the Azad area. And they should not forget that Pak has suffered a lot due to the 'K' problem right from the time of its birth! And therefore I naturally expect the Kashmir people to at least understand the repercussions that we have had to face due to our stance.

I dont know what the future of Kashmir will be. But I know it s strategically very important for both nuclear powers and therefore I don't see it becoming completely Independent somehow. It could become a demilitarized zone and maybe come under some sort of shared policing by both India and Pak. But if Kashmiri people see it as a seprate country altogether and want to get it. I feel it is going to amazingly difficult or perhaps next to impossible given its geo-political and its strategic importance!
 
I am not smart. you smartly avoiding the question.
here the election process in p o k.

despite the official categorisation of P o K as a "disputed" area, candidates are required to sign an affidavit of allegiance to Kashmir's accession to Pakistan. This is a mixed curse for pro-independence parties such as the Amanullah Khan faction of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front.

now don't ban me for asking question.
This is not BR or Indian Defence Forum or some other cheapskate web forum, so don't worry, you won't get banned for asking questions. You might, however, get a warning for repeating the same questions that've been answered on this very thread time and again. If you take the time (which I'm guessing you won't), you'll find the answers on the previous pages.

Also, all pro-independence parties in IOK agree on one key thing, that the Valley must separate from India. This is why the APHC includes both pro-Pakistan and pro-Independence parties, because they agree on the main point. Since India has continually denied any hint of a referendum or plebiscite in the region, even the pro-Independence parties have agreed to temporary accession to Pakistan, at which point, a plebiscite shall be held to determine the fate of the Valley. This solution was proposed by Yasin Malik and some others, and is accepted by many of the pro-independence parties. However, all this is just semantics as long as there is massive Indian troop presence in Kashmir and the forceful occupation continues.

I'm tired of repeating this, so I'll say it for the final time. There is one sentiment that is pretty much unanimous in the Valley, they do not want to remain a part of India. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Hearsay will get you nowhere.
I hope I manage to get my message across without aggravating and provoking any one. Having come across quite a few Kashmir people, I was surprised when the majority of them would not even want to be called Pakistani. I mean over here they would say I am from Kashmir instead of Pakistan or India. What really pissed me off was that we fought three wars for them and this is the sort of response we get back from them.
That is not an uncommon reply from Kashmiris who've lived under Indian rule, I have experienced the same. However, you will find that anytime you meet a Kashmiri from the Valley, they will have a soft spot for Pakistan exactly because of the fact that we've fought wars with them (we're not saints, we did it for our own reasons). See, the Kashmiris don't owe us their allegiance, they are free to choose their allegiance as they see fit. This is exactly why they want to separate from India, because the Indians want to force them to swear allegiance to them, something they will absolutely never do. As Pakistanis, we must realize that Kashmiris have the right to choose what is best for them. Until very recently, the opinions were massively pro-Pakistan, but right now independence seems more popular, and that's fine because that is their right. However, rest assured, if forced to choose between India and Pakistan, the Valley will overwhelmingly choose the latter and be very happy with that.

I've met more people from IOK than from Azad Kashmir in my lifetime. Those from Azad Kashmir have always identified themselves as Pakistanis, and I've never met a Pakistani Kashmiri who wasn't patriotic (there's quite a few of them at my Uni). People from IOK, on the other hand, rarely ever identify themselves as Indians in my experience.
 
Last edited:
This is not BR or Indian Defence Forum or some other cheapskate web forum, so don't worry, you don't get banned for asking questions. You might, however, get banned for repeating the same shiz that's been answered on this very thread time and again. If you take the time (which you won't), you'll find it.

Also, all pro-independence parties agree on one thing, that there must be secession from India. This is why the APHC includes both pro-Pakistan and pro-Independence parties. Since India has continually denied any hint of a referendum or plebiscite in the region, even the pro-Independence parties have agreed to temporary accession to Pakistan, at which point, Pakistan will hold a plebiscite. This solution was proposed by Yasin Malik and some others. However, all this is void as long as there is massive Indian troop presence and the occupation continues.

I'm tired of repeating this. There is one sentiment that is pretty much unanimous in the Valley, they do not want to remain a part of India. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Please hold plebiscite first in pakistan part of kashmir and show the result to the world. That will put pressure on india. If you people are concerned about kashmir.

What is your answer is that india also doing the same thing without answering the question :hitwall:

Give me the honest answer why candidates are required to sign an affidavit of allegiance to Kashmir's accession to Pakistan for election?
 
That is not an uncommon reply from Kashmiris who've lived under Indian rule, I have experienced the same. However, you will find that anytime you meet a Kashmiri from the Valley, they will have a soft spot for Pakistan exactly because of the fact that we've fought wars with them (we're not saints, we did it for our own reasons). See, the Kashmiris don't owe us their allegiance, they are free to choose their allegiance as they see fit. This is exactly why they want to separate from India, because the Indians want to force them to swear allegiance to them, something they will absolutely never do. As Pakistanis, we must realize that Kashmiris have the right to choose what is best for them. Until very recently, the opinions were massively pro-Pakistan, but right now independence seems more popular, and that's fine because that is their right. However, rest assured, if forced to choose between India and Pakistan, the Valley will overwhelmingly choose the latter and be very happy with that.

I've met more people from IOK than from Azad Kashmir in my lifetime. Those from Azad Kashmir have always identified themselves as Pakistanis, and I've never met a Pakistani Kashmiri who wasn't patriotic (there's quite a few of them at my Uni). People from IOK, on the other hand, rarely ever identify themselves as Indians in my experience.

umm .. I was reffering to the Kashmiri people from AK! My sis in law is from there so u can imagine they are family to me. Where u may be correct that a significant number of Azad Kashmir calls themselves as Pakistani and are proud of it. Still there are an equal number of Pakistani Kashmiris who hate being called Pakistanis. Esp the ones who have got split families on both side of the LOC! I am not against there right of independence if that is what they want. I just find it extremely heart breaking when I hear people say. particularly because of our immense involvement and support that we have been providing them all along! frankly, sometimes I feel betrayed!!
 
There is no such place as P O K. The people of Azad Kashmir got what they wanted in 1948, didn't you ever "hear" that? The question you should be asking is, did the people of the Valley ever get what they wanted? The answer will be inconvenient. In fact, if every Indian devoted even 1% of the energy spent on reinforcing theirdenial to actually understanding the will of the people of the Valley, this thread would be useless.

Thanks. Now read the rest of my post above and stop trying to come up with "smart" answers.


Azad Kashmir was created within two months of Pakistan’s independence with high expectations. Nestled in the mountainous western region that abuts the vale of Kashmir, it forms an archer’s bow that is about 100 miles long and about 20-40 miles wide.

The Pakistani security elite hoped that an arrow fired from the bow would bring about the instant liberation of the vale of Kashmir from Indian occupation. The first arrow was fired almost within days of creation.

It plunged the entire region of Kashmir into armed conflict. Fourteen months later, a ceasefire sponsored by the United Nations took effect on Jan 1, 1949. The ceasefire line remained stationary despite several attempts to move it. But after the 1971 war which saw the secession of East Pakistan, it was renamed the Line-of-Control (LoC). That militaristic designation persists to this day since the line which separates the two Kashmirs has not been formalised as an international border.

‘Azad’ means free and Azad Kashmir was supposed to serve as a model state whose liberty and freedom would inspire rebellion in Indian-administered Kashmir. That did not happen for several reasons. Constitutionally, Azad Kashmir is not a part of Pakistan. But neither is it an independent state. For its entire 62-year history, it has depended on Pakistan for its economic and political survival. It does not even issue its own postage stamps.

Because Islamabad has always exercised its claim on the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir is not counted as a fifth province of Pakistan. But for all practical purposes, Muzaffarabad lives under Islamabad’s shadow. Its first government was established on Oct 24, 1947 with Sardar Mohammed Ibrahim as president. On Nov 3, 1947, Azad Kashmir sought unsuccessfully to join the United Nations as a member state.

In March 1949, after the dust had settled along the ceasefire line, Azad Kashmir signed a power-sharing arrangement with the Government of Pakistan ceding all authority related to defence, foreign affairs, refugees and the plebiscite to Pakistan.

Pakistan created a Ministry for Kashmir Affairs to look after its newest asset. However, as events would show, the ministry was soon preoccupied with influencing political direction in Azad Kashmir. Not surprisingly, the ministry’s directives were not always well received by Azad Kashmiris. At times, they were met with stiff resistance.

In 1955, Pakistan declared martial law in some parts of Azad Kashmir to suppress street violence triggered by the Kashmir Act. In 1957, Pakistan resorted to police action to quell a public meeting that was seeking direct action to create a united and liberated Kashmir. In 1961, President Ayub Khan carried out indirect elections in Azad Kashmir through a Basic Democracies Ordinance which legally only applied to Pakistan, further straining ties with the Azad Kashmiris.

Subsequently, faced with Islamabad’s dominance in their day-to-day affairs, several Azad Kashmiri leaders started a movement for liberating Indian-held Kashmir not for Pakistan but for creating a separate Kashmiri state. This further aggravated ties with Pakistan. While all this was happening, Jammu and Kashmir was inducted into the Indian union.

In 1965, the Pakistani army launched a covert war inside Indian Kashmir seeking to instigate a popular rebellion. This arrow too missed its target. Instead, it enraged India which launched a strong counter-offensive along the international border with West Pakistan.

Under the weight of the Indian elephant, the Pakistani military hastily called of its operations in Kashmir. The war ended in an UN-brokered ceasefire along the international border with minimal changes in the Kashmiri line. After the war, Pakistan lost its urge to light a fire across the Line of Control (LoC). Matters changed in 1979 when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and the Pakistani military, with US and Saudi assistance, began training legions of Mujahideen to evict the godless communists.

After a bruised and battered Red Army pulled out of Kabul in 1989, Indian Jammu and Kashmir found itself in the grip of a large-scale revolt. Whether this was a purely indigenous movement or a corollary to events in Kabul continues to enrich scholarly volumes.

Regardless of the cause, the uprising in the vale provided the Kashmir hawks in Pakistan’s security elite yet another opportunity to press on with their objective. They reactivated their bases in Azad Kashmir and once again decided to fire arrows into Indian Jammu and Kashmir. Soon, ‘freedom fighters,’ armed and trained allegedly by the Pakistan Army, were rolling across in droves across the LoC.

Azad Kashmir was again in the cross-hairs of armed conflict. Against this backdrop, Pakistan under Gen Ziaul Haq decided to legally separate the geographically much larger Northern Areas of Gilgit and Baltistan from Azad Kashmir. This caused almost as much consternation in the latter as it did in India. The separation of the Northern Areas by Pakistan eliminated all doubts about the sovereignty of Azad Kashmir. With the reactivation of conflict across the Line-of-Control, the quality of life of the Azad Kashmiris was trammelled. Those who did not want to take part in the proxy war became pariahs.

Most of the cross-border infiltration was halted in the wake of 9/11 and the US invasion of Afghanistan. The attack on the Indian parliament in December 2001 was designed to reinvigorate the Kashmir issue but all it did was bring India and Pakistan to the brink of full-scale war in 2002. For a while the Musharraf regime sought to differentiate the struggle for freedom in Kashmir from political acts of terror but its spin failed to gain traction with the world community. Cross-border terrorism was quiet for several years.

The attacks on Mumbai by a group linked to militant activities in Kashmir in November 2008 were an attempt to reignite the conflict but succeeded only in drawing widespread opprobrium. During the past 62 years, the people of Azad Kashmir have been unable to arise out of poverty in large measure because they are caught in the crossfire between India and Pakistan. The land which their elders knew as a mountain paradise has been turned into a living hell.

Of the four million people who inhabit the region, nine of 10 live in extremely impoverished conditions in rural areas. Population growth is excessive, at 2.4 per cent per year, and the average house holds no fewer than seven people. Sadly, Azad Kashmir’s future is as murky today as it was in 1947. And the objective for its creation, the liberation of the vale of Kashmir, seems increasingly remote.


by dawn news
 
There is no such place as P O K. The people of Azad Kashmir got what they wanted in 1948, didn't you ever "hear" that? The question you should be asking is, did the people of the Valley ever get what they wanted? The answer will be inconvenient. In fact, if every Indian devoted even 1% of the energy spent on reinforcing theirdenial to actually understanding the will of the people of the Valley, this thread would be useless.

Thanks. Now read the rest of my post above and stop trying to come up with "smart" answers.
Denial? Lets see what EU report on Kashmir says about P0K (oh yes it's there no matter how much you emulate those three mythical monkeys).

'B. …much of Jammu and Kashmir, in particular Gilgit and Baltistan, suffers from extreme poverty and neglect, with enormous deficiencies in basic literacy and numeracy and in access to healthcare, a lack of democratic structures and major deficiencies in the rule of law and justice; and whereas the whole of Jammu and Kashmir suffers from exceptional economic decline.

2. Draws attention to the fact that India is the world's largest secular democracy and has devolved democratic structures at all levels, whereas Pakistan still lacks full implementation of democracy in AJK and has yet to take steps towards democracy in Gilgit and Baltistan…

3. ...stresses the overwhelming need for a secure and independent justice system to address the situation of the people of Pakistan and particularly those of AJK and Gilgit and Baltistan.


18. Regrets, however, that Pakistan has consistently failed to fulfill its obligations to introduce meaningful and representative democratic structures in AJK; notes in particular the continuing absence of Kashmiri representation in the Pakistan National Assembly, the fact that AJK is governed through the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs in Islamabad, that Pakistan officials dominate the Kashmir Council and that the Chief Secretary, the Inspector-General of Police, the Accountant-General and the Finance Secretary are all from Pakistan; disapproves of the provision in the 1974 Interim Constitution which forbids any political activity that is not in accordance with the doctrine of Jammu and Kashmir as part of Pakistan and obliges any candidate for a parliamentary seat in AJK to sign a declaration of loyalty to that effect; is concerned that the Gilgit-Baltistan region enjoys no form of democratic representation whatsoever; furthermore, draws attention to the fact that the Government of Pakistan’s 1961 Jammu and Kashmir (Administration of Property) Ordinance transferred the land controlled by Pakistan and which belonged to the State of Jammu and Kashmir on 15 August 1947 to the Federal Government;

19. Very much regrets the continuing ambivalence of the current Government of Pakistan with regard to the ethnic identity of Gilgit and Baltistan, whereby statements made by the President are contradicted by official government communications; strongly recommends that the Government of Pakistan endorse and implement the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan of 28 May 1999 which validates the Kashmiri heritage of the people of Gilgit and Baltistan and states that the Government should implement their fundamental human rights, democratic freedoms and access to justice;

20. [...]

- deeply regrets that the lack of a sufficient political will to address basic needs provision, political participation and the rule of law in AJK has left women there in a desperate situation following the earthquake;

- recalls the signature of the EC-Pakistan 3rd Generation Cooperation Agreement in 2001, Article 1 of which includes respect for human rights and democratic principles as an essential element, and urges the EU to play its part in upholding those principles when implementing the Agreement; is particularly concerned, therefore, that the people of Gilgit and Baltistan are under the direct rule of the military and enjoy no democracy;

- remains concerned about the difficult situation faced by all minorities throughout the region

22. Expresses concern regarding the lack of freedom of expression in AJK and reports of torture and mistreatment, of discrimination against refugees from Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir and of corruption amongst government officials, and calls on the Pakistani Government to ensure that the people of AJK can exercise their fundamental civil and political rights in an environment free from coercion and fear;

23. Further calls on Pakistan to ensure free and fair elections in AJK, considering that the general elections of 11 July 2006 were characterised by fraud and vote rigging on a massive scale, and that any candidate who refused to uphold the position of the accession of Kashmir to Pakistan was barred from running; also calls on Pakistan to hold elections for the first time in Gilgit and Baltistan;

41. Deplores documented human rights violations by Pakistan including in Gilgit and Baltistan, where allegedly violent riots took place in 2004, and the all too frequent incidents of terror and violence perpetrated by armed militant groups; urges Pakistan to revisit its concepts of the fundamental rights of freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of religious practice in AJK and Gilgit and Baltistan, and notes with concern allegations by human rights associations such as Amnesty International of torture and detention without due process; strongly urges all parties involved to do all they can to address these violations

60. Is appalled that the already minimal basic living conditions experienced in AJK before the earthquake (in terms of food, water, shelter, sanitation, schools and barely adequate health-centres) have been seriously affected as a consequence of the earthquake'


As you can see no one is falling for your sales pitch.
 
The Valley is the most populated region of Kashmir, outnumbering the populations of Ladakh, Jammu and Azad Kashmir. I is also the only Muslim majority area in Kashmir, making it the only Muslim majority state of India. If that weren't the case, India would have absolutely no hesitations conducting a referendum on their side of Kashmir.

You should do research yaar

acc. to 2001 Census
valley contribute (53.9%)
& Jammu region contribute (43.7%)

its 9 yrs back census ....& the d/w would have further reduced..
let us check the 2011 survey next year
 
Unlike Inda Occupied Kashmir, I dont see any protests or anyone demanding to get away from the country their land is made a territory of in Azad Kashmir.

You can not compare the things that happen in India Occupied Kashmir to Azad Kashmir. Almost everyone in India Occupied Kashmir want either independence or want Kashmir to merge with Pakistan. In Azad Kashmir, no one wants to be part of India most want to stay with Pakistan and a few want total independence.

Indian Kashmir was also peaceful w/o protest or anything till 1989, i mean 40 years is it not enough. It all started when Pakistan started the Proxy war, having created Mulla omar to defeat Russians in Afganistan, with US blessing. They created JKLF and others like JUD and LET. Pakistan did a smart thing , however since the demise of USSR equations turned against her.

As far as Agitations are concerned you just need to have money to pay and start, India did not do it in Pakistan side of Kashmir, but can if needed, you only blame us for fueling Baluchistan, if that is the case with Money and US behind us today we can very well do the same ****. But is it worth it??? screwing up each other?

I think by policies adopted by Pakistan rulers (short term goals) like Musharraff etc, they have compromised on long term benefit for the country.
Politicians cant do that , but dictators can, that what happened with you.
Now there is no way out ..Pakistan cannt leave Kashmir issue ..neither can digest it (Tum isse nahi thuk sakte ho na nigal sakte ho)
 
United Jihad Council says talks are Indian ploy
Monday, March 01, 2010
By Mazhar Tufail


ISLAMABAD: The foreign secretary-level talks between Pakistan and India are nothing but an Indian ploy to defuse the international pressure, the United Jihad Council (UJC) has claimed.

“No progress whatsoever could be made in the talks between the foreign secretaries of Pakistan and India on Thursday so it could be stated that talks have been unsuccessful,” said Syed Salahuddin, chairman of the UJC — a conglomerate of Kashmiri organisations struggling against the Indian occupation, while talking to The News.

“The core issues, including the Kashmir imbroglio, were not discussed by the foreign secretaries of the two countries,” he said. The UJC chairman said that seriousness of the much-trumpeted talks could be judged from the statement of the Pakistani interior minister wherein he said that terrorism would also be discussed during the talks. “According to our information, the talks have not been successful,” he said.

When asked whether Pakistan is under pressure for talks with India, Syed Salahuddin said that at the moment there is no pressure on Pakistan because the United States wants Islamabad’s help in the Afghan war. On the other hand, he added, the international pressure for talks with Pakistan is growing on India.

“The world pressure on India is growing, so New Delhi has staged the drama of talks to hoodwink the international community and waste time. India is not serious in resolving the genuine issues with Pakistan,” the UJC chairman said, adding: “India is not only occupying Kashmir and subjecting the Kashmiri people to barbarism but has now also resorted to water aggression against Pakistan.”

When asked whether the Pakistan government took the Kashmiri leadership into confidence on the foreign secretary-level talks with India, Salahuddin said that the stage of taking Kashmiri leaders into confidence had still not arrived. He said that Pakistan would definitely take the Kashmiri leaders into confidence but only after India makes some serious progress towards the settlement of this longstanding dispute.

United Jihad Council says talks are Indian ploy
 
Is it possible to solve Kashmir issue by discussion unless Pakistan create pressure on India by creating internal troubles in India or attack India?
 

Back
Top Bottom