# India's 700,000 Army for Kashmir Occupation, while Pakistan Freely recruits from Azad Kashmir!



## AsianLion

*Indian Army has 700,000 Security men for the brutal Occupation of Jammu & Kashmir while, on the contrary Pakistan gets its major volunteer recruitment from Azad Kashmiris in Pakistan Army*

What a paradox in the history of Kashmir which is under occupation by Indian Forces and the Azad (Independent) Kashmir on Pakistani side, which gets its major recruitment of joining Pakistan Army so voluntarily. So much so Pakistan has a separate Azad Kashmir Regiment (AK Regiment).

The *Azad Kashmir Regiment* is one of the six infantry regiments of the Pakistan Army.

The Azad Kashmir Regular Forces, established in 1947, were armed and supported by the Pakistani government. The regiment has the distinction of not having been raised by any government order, but "raised itself" , Initially towards the end of September 1947, local ex-servicemen and civilian volunteers started forming up in the shape of revolutionary groups of freedom-fighters in varying strength, mostly in platoon/company size groups under command of local leaders who had raised them in their respective areas of domicile. They were initially armed with heterogeneous weapons of sorts as mentioned earlier. They started operations against the Indian State Army in various parts of Poonch on 1st October, 1947, and soon spread their operations in other parts of Jammu and Kashmir State.

After a ceasefire was declared in Kashmir on request of India, these elements joined together to form the Azad Kashmir Regular Forces (AKRF). The AKRF had its own intake and training structure separate from the Pakistan Army. The AKRF was the military element of the Azad Kashmir Government. Uniforms and rank structures were the same as in the Pakistan Army. At that time, all the battalions of the AKRF were part of the 12th Infantry Division of the Pakistan Army, permanently stationed in Azad Kashmir. In wartime operations, the AKRF was part of the Order of Battle of the Pakistan Army, in which it was involved in 1965 Operation Gibraltar.

The Pakistan Army later honoured the AKRF by absorbing it into its own ranks and by giving it the status of a Regular Line Infantry Regiment. The AKRF thus became the Azad Kashmir Regiment on 20 September 1972. In recent times battalions of the Azad Kashmir Regiment have been stationed all over Pakistan, and have served in places such as Somalia, as part of the United Nations contingent in that country.

-----

*Indian Army & BSF:*

India has to keep 700,000 troops in Jammu & Kashmir to subjugate the people who want the right of self determination, costing billions. To suppress Kashmiris down, the Indian state has put thousands of boots on the ground. According to popular estimates, 7 lakh to 10 lakh security force personnel patrol the Jammu and Kashmir region. These troops are scattered across the whole state of Jammu and Kashmir, the entire Valley is around 135 kilometres long and 32 kilometres wide. Yet such violence inflicted on locals is spreading among security forces, with commanding officers struggling to contain it.

The brutalising of Kashmir’s people is also reflected in a brutalisation of the security forces, a particularly disquieting development in a conflict where men in arms now largely represent the Indian state. No elected representative of the ruling PDP-BJP coalition dares return to those in Kashmir who elected them. General Hooda says the stone-throwers no longer appear to fear the Indian security forces, even frontally attacking Indian army garrisons.

Apart from the relentless stone-throwing, the young men hurl racist abuse against Indian (”teri kali soorat”, your black face, smelly Hindu and Hindu “Bihari” are common) and otherwise provoke riot-control units to battle. “Our boys are hated, they get little rest and they are all armed; you can guess what will happen if command and control breaks down,” an Indian CRPF officer said.

In the past, that Indian command and control has frequently broken down, not just in the face of provocation but in the form of atrocities inflicted by security forces on Jammu and Kashmirs, protected by Indian law and aware that Delhi discourages punitive action against the wrong doers of 700,000 Indian soldiers. Managing the endless cycle of violence has for too long been a substitute for policy, but it has now reached an inflection point.

---

While in Pakistani Azad Kashmir flourishing so high in Mirpur, Muzaffarabad, for so many years and not a single kind of protest which says that there is human right violation. The infrastructure is just not there in India, India don’t even allow foreign journalist, media, press, to travel throughout Kashmir, world human rights institutions are not allowed to come there, so there is no comparison. In Pakistani side of Kashmir, everyone can move easily, World Human Rights organisations, Journalists visit as if on travel and guided tour to any remote place of Azad Kashmir. During Politics elections, a lot of election drama is created, even in that all the Kashmirs live in peace and tranquility.

Above all, to keep a people subjugated is a repudiation of India’s founding ideals: Justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. India is facing growing hatred in world, India is fast in a downward spiral, India is facing isolation and disassociation from world, who either outrightly refuses or remains silent Indian Prime Minister Modi's rants on AK and Balochistan.

*It is largely seen as India's attempt to hide, divert the violent extremist activities and humanity crimes in Kashmir from the big eye of the world countries.

------------------------

'The Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU AND KASHMIR A REAPPRAISAL' *

The formal overt Indian intervention in the internal affairs of the State of Jammu and Kashmir began on about 9.00 a.m. on 27 October 1947, when Indian troops started landing at Srinagar airfield. India has officially dated the commencement of its claim that the State was part of Indian sovereign territory to a few hours earlier, at some point in the afternoon or evening of 26 October. From their arrival on 27 October 1947 to the present day, Indian troops have continued to occupy a large proportion of the State of Jammu and Kashmir despite the increasingly manifest opposition of a majority of the population to their presence. To critics of Indias position and actions in the State of Jammu and Kashmir the Government of New Delhi has consistently declared that the State of Jammu and Kashmir lies entirely within the sphere of internal Indian policy. Do the facts support the Indian contention in this respect?

The State of Jammu and Kashmir was a Princely State within the British Indian Empire. By the rules of the British transfer of power in Indian subcontinent in 1947 the Ruler of the State, Maharajah Sir Hari Singh, with the departure of the British and the lapsing of Paramountcy (as the relationship between State and British Crown was termed), could opt to join either India or Pakistan or, by doing nothing, become from 15 August 1947 the Ruler of an independent polity. The choice was the Rulers and his alone: there was no provision for popular consultation in the Indian Princely States during the final days of the British Raj. On 15th August 1947, by default, the State of Jammu and Kashmir became independent.

India maintains that this period of independence, the existence of which it has never challenged effectively, came to an end on 26/27 October as the result of two pairs of closely related transactions, which we must now examine. They are:

(a) an Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India which the Maharajah is alleged to have signed on 26 October 1947, and;

(b) the acceptance of this Instrument by the Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten, on 27 October 1947; plus

(c) a letter from the Maharajah to Lord Mountbatten, dated 26 October 1947, in which Indian military aid is sought in return for accession to India (on terms stated in an allegedly enclosed Instrument) and the appointment of Sheikh Abdullah to head an Interim Government of the State; and

(d) a letter from Lord Mountbatten to the Maharajah, dated 27 October 1947, acknowledging the above and noting that, once the affairs of the State have been settled and law and order is restored, the question of the States accession should be settled by a reference to the people.

In both pairs of documents it will be noted that the date of the communication from the Maharajah, be it the alleged Instrument of Accession or the letter to Lord Mountbatten, is given as 26 October 1947, that is to say before the Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the States affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947. It has been said that Lord Mountbatten insisted on the Maharajahs signature as a precondition for his approval of Indian intervention in the affairs of what would otherwise be an independent State.

The date, 26 October 1947, has hitherto been accepted as true by virtually all observers, be they sympathetic or hostile to the Indian case. It is to be found in an official communication by Lord Mountbatten, as Governor General of Pakistan, on 1 November 1947; and it is repeated in the White paper on Jammu and Kashmir which the Government of India laid before the Indian Parliament in March 1948. Pakistani diplomats have never challenged it. Recent research, however, has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the date is false. This fact emerges from the archives, and it is also quite clear from such sources as the memoirs of the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir at the time, Mehr Chand Mahajan, and the recently published correspondence of Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister. Circumstantial accounts of the events of 26 October 1947, notably that of V.P Menon (in his The Integration of the Indian States, London 1965), who said he was actually present when the Maharajah signed, are simply not true.

It is now absolutely clear that the two documents (a) the Instrument of Accession, and (c) the letter to Lord Mountbatten, could not possibly have been signed by the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. His Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight, and where their presence was noted by many observers. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the traveling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October, and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Ministers negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day.

The key point, of course, a has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that these documents could only have been signed after the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. When the Indian troops arrived at Srinagar air field, that State was still independent. Any agreements favourable to India signed after such intervention cannot escape the charge of having been produced under duress. It was, one presumes, to escape just such a charge that the false date 26 October 1947 was assigned to these two documents. The deliberately distorted account of that very senior Indian official, V.P. Menon, to which reference has already been made, was no doubt executed for the same end. Falsification of such a fundamental element as date of signature, however, once established, can only cast grave doubt over the validity of the document as a whole .

An examination of the transactions behind these four documents in the light of the new evidence produces a number of other serious doubts. It is clear, for example, that in the case of (c) and (d), the exchange of letters between the Maharajah and Lord Mountbatten, Lord Mountbattens reply must antedate the letter to which it is an answer unless, as seems more than probable, both were drafted by the Government of India before being taken up to Jammu on 27 October 1947 (by V.P. Menon and Jammu and Kashmir Prime Minister M.C. Mahajan, whose movements, incidentally, are correctly reported in the London Times of 28 October 1947) after the arrival of the Indian troops at Srinagar airfield. The case is very strong, therefore, that document (c), the Maharajahs letter to Lord Mountbatten, was dictated to the Maharajah.

Documents (c) and (d) were published by the Government of India on 28 October 1947. The far more important document (a), the alleged Instrument of Accession, was not published until many years later, if at all. It was not communicated to Pakistan at the outset of the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, nor was it presented in facsimile to the United Nations in early 1948 as part of the initial Indian reference to the Security Council. The 1948 White Paper in which the Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharajah: instead, it reproduces an unsigned from of Accession such as, it is imposed, the Maharajah might have signed. To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharajah ever did sign an Instrument of Accession. There are, indeed, grounds for suspecting that he did no such thing. The Instrument of Accession referred to in document (c); a letter which as we have seen was probably drafted by Indian officials prior to being shown to the Maharajah, may never have existed, and can hardly have existed when the letter was being prepared.

Even if there had been an Instrument of Accession, then if it followed the form indicated in the unsigned example of such an Instrument published in the Indian 1948 White Paper it would have been extremely restrictive in the rights conferred upon the Government of India. All that were in fact transferred from the State to the Government of India by such an Instrument were the powers over Defence, Foreign Relations and certain aspects of Communications. Virtually all else was left with the State Government. Thanks to Article 370 of the Indian Constitution of January 1950 (which, unlike much else relating to the former Princely States, has survived to some significant degree in current Indian constitution theory, if not in practice), the State of Jammu and Kashmir was accorded a degree of autonomy which does not sit at all comfortably with the current authoritarian Indian administration of those parts of the State which it holds.

Not only would such an Instrument have been restrictive, but also by virtue of the provisions, of (d), Lord Mountbattens letter to the Maharajah dated 27 October 1947, it would have been conditional. Lord Mountbatten, as Governor-General of India, made it clear that the State of Jammu and Kashmir would only be incorporated permanently within the Indian fold after approval as a result of some form of reference to the people, a procedure which soon (with United Nations participation) became defined as a fair and free plebiscite . India has never permitted such a reference to the people to be made.

Why would the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir not have signed an Instrument of Accession? The answer lies in the complex course of events of August, September and October 1947 emerged. The Maharajah, confronted with growing internal disorder (including a full scale rebellion in the Poonch region of the State), sought Indian military help without, it at all possible, surrendering his own independence. The Government of India delayed assisting him in the hope that in despair he would accede to India before any Indian actions had to be taken. In the event, India had to move first. Having secured what he wanted, Indian military assistance, the Maharajah would naturally have wished to avoid paying the price of the surrender of his independence by signing any instrument which he could possibly avoid signing. From the Afternoon of 27 October 1947 onwards a smoke screen conceals both the details and the immediate outcome of this struggle of wills between the Government of India and the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir. To judge from the 1948 White Paper an Instrument of accession may not have been signed by March 1948, by which time the Indian case for sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir was already being argued before the United Nations.

The patently false dates of documents (a) and (c) alter fundamentally the nature of the overt Indian intervention in Jammu and Kashmir on 27 October 1947. India was not defending its own but intervening in a foreign State. There can be no reasonable doubt that had Pakistan been aware of this falsification of the record it would have argued very differently in international for from the outset of the dispute; and had the United Nations understood the true chronology it would have listened with for less sympathy to arguments presented to it by successive Indian representatives. Given the facts as they are now known, it may well be that an impartial international tribunal would decided that India had no right at all to be in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.


The Indian Claim to Jammu and Kashmir - Conditional Accession, Plebiscites and the Reference to the United Nations:

While the date, and perhaps even the fact, of the accession to India of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in late October 1947 can be questioned, there is no dispute that at that time any such accession was presented to the world large as conditional and provisional. In his letter to the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir, bearing the date 27 October 1947, the Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, declared that:

"Consistently with that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance to the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Governments wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders the question of the States accession should be settled by a reference to the people."

The substance of this was communicated by Jawaharlal Nehru to Liaquat Ali Khan in a telegram of 28 October 1947 in which Nehru indicated that this was a policy with which he agreed. The point is clear enough. A reference to the people would be entirely futile unless it contained the potential of reversing the process of accession. If the people opted for Pakistan, or indeed, for continued independence, then any documents relating to accession which the Maharajah may have signed would be null and void. Such documents would perforce be provisional, in that they could confer rights only until the reference to the people took place; and they were conditional in that they could not continue in force indefinitely unless ratified by popular vote. This point is as valid today as it was in late October 1947.

Indian apologists have since endeavored to argue that the plebiscite proposal was personal to Mountbatten (which we can see it was not) and that it was in a real sense ex-gratia and in no way binding on subsequent Indian administrations. The fact of the matter, however, was that the plebiscite policy had been established long before the Kashmir crisis erupted in October 1947. It was an inherent part of the process by which the British Indian Empire was partitioned between the two successor Dominions of India and Pakistan. Plebiscites (or referenda-the terms tended to be used at this time as if they meant the same thing) had been held on the eve of the Transfer of Power in August 1947 in two areas. In the North West Frontier Province, which possessed a Congress Government despite a virtually total Muslim population, and in Sylhet, a Muslim majority district of the non-Muslim majority Province of Assam, there had been plebiscites where the people were given the choice of joining India or Pakistan. In both cases the vote was in favour of Pakistan. The Sylhet Plebiscite is of particular significance in that it gave a Muslim majority district of a State with an overall non-Muslim majority the opportunity to join its Muslim majority neighbour, Bengal.

The value of the plebiscitary process continued to be appreciated in India after the British Indian Empire had come to an end. In September 1947 the Government of India advocated, as a matter of policy, the holding of a plebiscite in the Princely State of Junagadh. Junagadh was in many respects the mirror image of Kashmir. Here a Muslim Ruler, the Nawab, had formally acceded to Pakistan on 15 August 1947 despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of his subjects were Hindus. The Government of India were united in opposing this action. However, as Jawaharlal Nehru put it on 30 September 1947 :

"We are entirely opposed to war and wish to avoid it. We want an amicable settlement of this issue and we propose therefore, that wherever there is a dispute in regard to any territory, the matter should be decided by a referendum or plebiscite of the people concerned. We shall accept the result of this referendum whatever it may be as it is our desire that a decision should be made in accordance with the wishes of the people concerned. We invite the Pakistan Government, therefore, to submit the Junagadh issue to a referendum of the people under impartial auspices."

In Indian eyes, in other words, Junagadhs accession to Pakistan, if it had any validity at all could only be provisional and conditional upon the outcome of a plebiscite of referendum. India, moreover, considered that the need for such a reference to the people was specifically determined by the fact that a majority of the States population followed a different religion to that of the Ruler. A plebiscite in Junagadh was duly held in February 1948, when the vote was for union with India. In Indian official thinking, it is clear, there was no question of a plebiscite in any State where both Ruler and people were non-Muslims.

Thus when the Kashmir crisis broke out in October 1947 the plebiscite was already established as the official Indian solution to this order of problem. On 25 October 1947, before the Kashmir crisis had fully developed and before Indian claims based on the Maharajahs accession to India had been voiced, Nehru in a telegram to Attlee, the British Prime Minister, declared that:

"I should like to make it clear that [the] question of aiding Kashmir..is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view, which we have repeatedly made public, is that [the] question of accession in any disputed territory must be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people, and we adhere to this view."

On 28 October 1947 the Governor General of Pakistan M.A. Jinnah, also agreed that the answer to Kashmir lay in a plebiscite, thus confirming the official Pakistan policy on this subject. From this moment the basic disagreement between the two Dominions, at least on paper, lay in the modalities for holding a plebiscite and what was understood by impartial auspices.

The concept of impartial supervision of the determination of sovereignty had been present from the outset of the run up to the partition of the Punjab and Bengal in early June 1947. A number of possibilities had been considered at this period, including the request for the services of the United Nations (which had then been rejected on technical grounds arising in the main from the short span of time allowed for the partition process to be implemented). In connection with the Junagadh question, on 30 September 1947 Nehru made it clear that if the United Nations were to be involved (as a result, perhaps, of a reference to that body by Pakistan), and the United Nations issued directions, India would naturally abide by those directions.

Between 28 October and 22 December 1947 there took place a series of Indo-Pakistan discussions over the Kashmir question, some with the leaders of the two sides meeting face to face, some through subordinate officials and some through British intermediaries acting either officially or unofficially. While frequently acrimonious, the general tenor of the negotiations was that some kind of plebiscite should be held in Jammu and Kashmir. At a meeting on 8 November 1947 between two very senior officials, V.P Menon for India and Chaudhri Muhammad Ali for Pakistan, a detailed scheme for holding a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir was worked out, with the apparent blessing of the Indian Deputy Prime Minister, Vallabhbhai Patel, in which the following principle was laid down : that neither Government [of India or Pakistan] would accept the accession of a State whose rule was of a different religion to the majority of his subjects without resorting to a plebiscite.

The 8 November scheme aborted; but the underlying principles remained on the agenda. There were two major questions. First : how and in what way should the State be restored to a condition of tranquility such as would permit the holding of any kind of free and fair plebiscite. Second: who should supervise the plebiscite when it finally came to he held. On both question, after exploring a number of devices including the employment of British officers to hold the ring while the votes were being cast, the consensus in the Governments of both India and Pakistan by 22 December 1947 was that the services of the United Nations, either through the Secretary General or the Security Council, offered the best prospect for success, though Nehru continued to express in public his reservations about foreign intervention.

At this point Lord Mountbatten, the Governor General of India, explained to Liaquat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, that the best way to get Nehru to decide finally in favour of reference to the United Nations was to permit India to take the first step, even if in the process Pakistan would have to submit to some measure of Indian indictment to which Pakistan would have every opportunity to make rebuttal at the United Nations. Liaquat Ali Khan, so the records make clear, accepted this proposal. On this basis, on 1 January 1948, India brought Security Council of the United Nations.

The Presentation of the Indian case, the Pakistani reply, and the series of debates which followed over the years, have all tended to obscure the original terms of that Indian reference. This was made under Article 35 of the Charter of the United Nations in which the mediation of the Security Council was expressly sough in a matter which otherwise threatened to disturb the course of international relations. The issue was an Indian request for United Nations mediation in a dispute which had transcended the diplomatic resources of the two parties directly involved, India and Pakistan, and not, as it is frequently represented, an Indian demand for United Nations condemnation of Pakistans aggression. This point, despite much Indian and Pakistan rhetoric, can be determined easily enough by relating the contents of the reference to the specifications of Article 35 of the United Nations Charter. The United Nations was asked to devise a formula whereby peace could be restored in the State of Jammu and Kashmir so that a fair and free plebiscite could be held to determine that States future. The matter of the Maharajah of Kashmirs accession to India was not in this context of the slightest relevance.

The Security Council of the United Nations responded to this request by devising a number of schemes for the restoration of law and order and the holding a plebiscite. These were duly set out in United Nations Resolutions which, though never implemented, still remain the collective expression of the voice of the international community as to how the Kashmir question ought to be settled. The conditions set out by the Security Council of the United Nations have not been met in any way by the subsequent internal political processes (including a variety of elections) in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and in any of its constituent parts.

The situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir remains unresolved, and it remains a matter of international interest. Given the background to and terms of the original Indian reference to the Security Council it cannot possibly be said that, today, Jammu and Kashmir (or those parts of it currently under Indian occupation) is a matter of purely internal Indian concern. The United Nations retains that status in this matter, which it was granted.

Reactions: Like Like:
28


----------



## navtrek

What BULLSHIT!

ever heard of jammu and kashmir light infantry

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
46


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

Actually much of their 700,000 figure is consist of CRPF and what on earth is 700,000* Hindu, Sikh Security ?*
did you know how retarded people sound when they automatically equate Indians = hindos.

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## Kaniska

Wet Shirt Contest said:


> Actually much of their 700,000 figure is consist of CRPF and what on earth is 700,000* Hindu, Sikh Security ?*
> did you know how retarded people sound when they automatically equate Indians = hindos.



Why only Hindus and Sikhs...We have people from all religions including Muslims and other minorities...Army stands for every one...Not for one community

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

AsianUnion said:


> *Indian Army has 700,000 Hindu, Sikh Security men for the brutal Occupation of Jammu & Kashmir While on the contrary Pakistan gets its major volunteer recruitment in Pakistan Army from Azad Kashmiris*
> 
> What a paradox in the history of Kashmir which is under occupation by Indian Forces and the Azad (Independent) Kashmir on Pakistani side, which gets its major recruitment of joining into Pakistan Army. So much so Pakistan has a separate Azad Kashmir Regiment (AK Regiment).
> 
> The *Azad Kashmir Regiment* is one of the six infantry regiments of the Pakistan Army.
> 
> The Azad Kashmir Regular Forces, established in 1947, were armed and supported by the Pakistani government. The regiment has the distinction of not having been raised by any government order, but "raised itself" , Initially towards the end of September 1947, local ex-servicemen and civilian volunteers started forming up in the shape of revolutionary groups of freedom-fighters in varying strength, mostly in platoon/company size groups under command of local leaders who had raised them in their respective areas of domicile. They were initially armed with heterogeneous weapons of sorts as mentioned earlier. They started operations against the Indian State Army in various parts of Poonch on 1st October, 1947, and soon spread their operations in other parts of Jammu and Kashmir State.
> 
> After a cease-fire was declared in Kashmir on request of India, these elements joined together to form the Azad Kashmir Regular Forces (AKRF). The AKRF had its own intake and training structure separate from the Pakistan Army. The AKRF was the military element of the Azad Kashmir Government. Uniforms and rank structures were the same as in the Pakistan Army. At that time, all the battalions of the AKRF were part of the 12th Infantry Division of the Pakistan Army, permanently stationed in Azad Kashmir. In wartime operations, the AKRF was part of the Order of Battle of the Pakistan Army, in which it was involved in 1965 Operation Gibraltar.
> 
> The Pakistan Army later honoured the AKRF by absorbing it into its own ranks and by giving it the status of a Regular Line Infantry Regiment. The AKRF thus became the Azad Kashmir Regiment on 20 September 1972.
> In recent times battalions of the Azad Kashmir Regiment have been stationed all over Pakistan, and have served in places such as Somalia, as part of the United Nations contingent in that country.
> 
> -----
> 
> *Indian Army & BSF:*
> 
> India has to keep 700,000 troops in Jammu & Kashmir to subjugate the people who want the right of self determination. To suppress Kashmiris down, the Indian state has put thousands of boots on the ground. According to popular estimates, 7 lakh to 10 lakh security force personnel patrol the Jammu and Kashmir region. These troops are scattered across the whole state of Jammu and Kashmir, the entire Valley is around 135 kilometres long and 32 kilometres wide. Yet such violence inflicted on locals is spreading among security forces, with commanding officers struggling to contain it.
> 
> The brutalising of Kashmir’s people is also reflected in a brutalisation of the security forces, a particularly disquieting development in a conflict where men in arms now largely represent the Indian state. No elected representative of the ruling PDP-BJP coalition dares return to those in Kashmir who elected them. General Hooda says the stone-throwers no longer appear to fear the Indian security forces, even frontally attacking Indian army garrisons.
> 
> Apart from the relentless stone-throwing, the young men hurl racist abuse against Indian (”teri kali soorat”, your black face, smelly Hindu and Hindu “Bihari” are common) and otherwise provoke riot-control units to battle. “Our boys are hated, they get little rest and they are all armed; you can guess what will happen if command and control breaks down,” an Indian CRPF officer said.
> 
> In the past, that Indian command and control has frequently broken down, not just in the face of provocation but in the form of atrocities inflicted by security forces on Jammu and Kashmirs, protected by Indian law and aware that Delhi discourages punitive action against the wrong doers of 700,000 Indian soldiers. Managing the endless cycle of violence has for too long been a substitute for policy, but it has now reached an inflection point.
> 
> ---
> 
> While in Pakistani Azad Kashmir flourishing so high in Mirpur, Muzaffarabad, for so many years and not a single kind of protest which says that there is human right violation. The infrastructure is just not there in India, India don’t even allow foreign journalist, media, press, to travel throughout Kashmir, world human rights institutions are not allowed to come there, so there is no comparison. In Pakistani side of Kashmir, everyone can move easily, World Human Rights organisations, Journalists visit as if on travel and guided tour to any remote place of Azad Kashmir. During Politics elections, a lot of election drama is created, even in that all the Kashmirs live in peace and tranquility.
> 
> Above all, to keep a people subjugated is a repudiation of India’s founding ideals: Justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. India is facing growing hatred in world, India is fast in a downward spiral, India is facing isolation and disassociation from world, who either outrightly refuses or remains silent Indian Prime Minister Modi's rants on AK and Balochistan.
> 
> *It is largely seen as India's attempt hide the violent extremist activities and crimes in Kashmir from the big world's eye.*



Azad Kashmir is lot better than IOK.....no brainer to find that out......Curfew, pellet guns and daily protests against forces are common thing in IOK (Indian Occupied Kashmir)....thats why it is said...OCCUPIED....for a reason...

Reactions: Like Like:
18


----------



## navtrek

INFRASTRUCTURE

The first cable bridge in North India at Basoli, J&K











JAMMU AIRPORT






LEH AIRPORT






SRINAGAR AIRPORT






KASHMIR RAILWAYS











WORLDS TALLEST ARC TYPE BRIDGE COMING UP IN J&K







There is also plan to build a new expressway from New Delhi to Katra

Government planning India's longest 600 km expressway to connect Delhi and Katra

Reactions: Like Like:
23


----------



## navtrek

*Health:*

Government is setting up to AIIMS in Jammu and Kashmir (up from 1 earlier) Centre agrees to two ‘AIIMS facilities’ in Jammu, Kashmir

There are already hospitals like the ones below both of which are super speciality hospitals. There are already SMGS, GMC in Jammu and SKIMS in Srinagar and more.












*Energy:*
Jammu and Kashmir has a lot of hydel projects under construction and there is plan for worlds largest Solar power project in Ladakh

Houses the world largest solar project






EDUCATION







An IIT and IIM are also in the pipeline.

IIT Jammu to start this year with 90 students - Times of India
Centre asks J&K govt to identify land for IIM

Jammu University








PaklovesTurkiye said:


> Azad Kashmir is lot better than IOK.....no brainer to find that out......Curfew, pellet guns and daily protests against forces are common thing in IOK (Indian Occupied Kashmir)....thats why it is said...OCCUPIED....for a reason...



The only reason for all this is Pakistan sponsored terrorism in the name of religion.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
29


----------



## NKVD

navtrek said:


> *Health:*
> 
> Government is setting up to AIIMS in Jammu and Kashmir (up from 1 earlier) Centre agrees to two ‘AIIMS facilities’ in Jammu, Kashmir
> 
> There are already hospitals like the ones below both of which are super speciality hospitals. There are already SMGS, GMC in Jammu and SKIMS in Srinagar and more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Energy:*
> Jammu and Kashmir has a lot of hydel projects under construction and there is plan for worlds largest Solar power project in Ladakh
> 
> Houses the world largest solar project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDUCATION
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An IIT and IIM are also in the pipeline.
> 
> IIT Jammu to start this year with 90 students - Times of India
> Centre asks J&K govt to identify land for IIM
> 
> Jammu University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason for all this is Pakistan sponsored terrorism in the name of religion.


Just compare Education Institute to Pal

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

navtrek said:


> *Health:*
> 
> Government is setting up to AIIMS in Jammu and Kashmir (up from 1 earlier) Centre agrees to two ‘AIIMS facilities’ in Jammu, Kashmir
> 
> There are already hospitals like the ones below both of which are super speciality hospitals. There are already SMGS, GMC in Jammu and SKIMS in Srinagar and more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Energy:*
> Jammu and Kashmir has a lot of hydel projects under construction and there is plan for worlds largest Solar power project in Ladakh
> 
> Houses the world largest solar project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDUCATION
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An IIT and IIM are also in the pipeline.
> 
> IIT Jammu to start this year with 90 students - Times of India
> Centre asks J&K govt to identify land for IIM
> 
> Jammu University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason for all this is Pakistan sponsored terrorism in the name of religion.



I knew that was coming..."Pakistan sponsored" ....This attitude should tell everyone why IOK is still burning...No concentrate on core issue but to blame here and there for own arrogance......

THEY HATE YOU....PEOPLE HATE YOU.....IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW HARD U TRY TO BUY THEIR LOYALTIES WITH MONEY, HEALTH OR INFRA.........THEY STILL HATE YOU FOR WHAT YOU ARE DOING TILL TODAY AGAINST THEM.........

Providing infra to marginalized community can be good strategy but I think people are demanding something else......FREEDOM....

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## danger007

wakey .. anything else to say.. am looking forward for the new updated figure.. Am not sure, when will guys decide to announce 10 lac Soldiers ..

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## navtrek

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> I knew that was coming..."Pakistan sponsored" ....This attitude should tell everyone why IOK is still burning...No concentrate on core issue but to blame here and there for own arrogance......
> 
> THEY HATE YOU....PEOPLE HATE YOU.....IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW HARD U TRY TO BUY THEIR LOYALTIES WITH MONEY, HEALTH OR INFRA.........THEY STILL HATE YOU FOR WHAT YOU ARE DOING TILL TODAY AGAINST THEM.........
> 
> Providing infra to marginalized community can be good strategy but I think people are demanding something else......FREEDOM....



Do you realize why Indian army is in Kashmir ? one word answer Pakistan!

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

NKVD said:


> I am Kashmiri I Love My India My govt My Land My Army
> 
> I Don't give dam What a Pakistani think



I respect your love for your country but sorry.........Kashmiris disagrees with you....

U certainly give a damn thats why u quoted me.....

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## EyelessInGaza

700,000? OP- If you can't give basic numbers doing some verifiable research, who will agree with the other things you say- some of which may have substance?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

navtrek said:


> Do you realize why Indian army is in Kashmir ? one word answer Pakistan!



Indian army is there so that it can stop Kashmiris joining Pakistan....Sometimes, I think people need to calm down and ask Kashmiris what they want......U Indian, I Pakistani....who r we to decide what Kashmiris want? Let the people decide instead of oppressing them or blinding them with pellet guns....

Reach an agreement then solve this mess which is holding all region on gun point....

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## NKVD

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> I respect your love for your country but sorry.........Kashmiris disagrees with you....
> 
> U certainly give a damn thats why u quoted me.....


Kashmiris You mean Wahabi Mullah Section 

I am Kashmiri Citizen Too And we don't Give dam I quoted you because your imposing Idea of one section on other Sect

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

NKVD said:


> Kashmiris You mean Wahabi Mullah Section
> 
> No Iam Kashmiri Too And we don't Give dam



Your army is killing everyone....Wahabbis, Shias, children etc.......Is there anyone left unaffected of Indian torture on innocent civilians who are just demanding what Indians once promised to conduct.....PLEBISCITE

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## navtrek

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> Indian army is there so that it can stop Kashmiris joining Pakistan....Sometimes, I think people need to calm down and ask Kashmiris what they want......U Indian, I Pakistani....who r we to decide what Kashmiris want? Let the people decide instead of oppressing them or blinding them with pellet guns....
> 
> Reach an agreement then solve this mess which is holding all region on gun point....



Yes we will but before that Pakistan has to move back from occupied Kashmir and a plebiscite will be held as per UN resolution.

First do your bit and then ask us to do ours. There is a reason why Pakistan supports groups like LET.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## NKVD

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> Your army is killing everyone....Wahabbis, Shias, children etc.......Is there anyone left unaffected of Indian torture on innocent civilians who are just demanding what Indians once promised to conduct.....PLEBISCITE


Shias haha Child i Live in budgam a Shia Majority District There is piece here 
You guys sitting Doing google on Internet on tabloids Have zero Knowledge about Ground Situation 

Do google be happy

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Indian_Devil

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> Your army is killing everyone....Wahabbis, Shias, children etc.......Is there anyone left unaffected of Indian torture on innocent civilians who are just demanding what Indians once promised to conduct.....PLEBISCITE


How do yoi think BJP got 28 seats in previous elections? thats because every shia, hindu, buddhist and every non-sunni gave them their support... At least have some insight of incidents before writing your childish assumptions and wishes

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kaniska

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> Azad Kashmir is lot better than IOK.....no brainer to find that out......Curfew, pellet guns and daily protests against forces are common thing in IOK (Indian Occupied Kashmir)....thats why it is said...OCCUPIED....for a reason...



Every one has their own reason to name anything..But that may be an illusion too..


----------



## -xXx-

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> Your army is killing everyone....Wahabbis, Shias, children etc.......Is there anyone left unaffected of Indian torture on innocent civilians who are just demanding what Indians once promised to conduct.....PLEBISCITE



Yes we promised a plebiscite to rational, peaceful and non extremist society of that time not to the bunch of radical goons of today hurling ISIS flag. 

We don't owe any plebiscite to religious fanatics of 12-16 year olds who are devoid of any pragmatism and burdened with religious obligations obtained from tutored propaganda.


----------



## Indian_Devil

AsianUnion said:


> *Indian Army has 700,000 Hindu, Sikh Security men for the brutal Occupation of Jammu & Kashmir While on the contrary Pakistan gets its major volunteer recruitment in Pakistan Army from Azad Kashmiris*
> 
> What a paradox in the history of Kashmir which is under occupation by Indian Forces and the Azad (Independent) Kashmir on Pakistani side, which gets its major recruitment of joining into Pakistan Army. So much so Pakistan has a separate Azad Kashmir Regiment (AK Regiment).
> 
> The *Azad Kashmir Regiment* is one of the six infantry regiments of the Pakistan Army.
> 
> The Azad Kashmir Regular Forces, established in 1947, were armed and supported by the Pakistani government. The regiment has the distinction of not having been raised by any government order, but "raised itself" , Initially towards the end of September 1947, local ex-servicemen and civilian volunteers started forming up in the shape of revolutionary groups of freedom-fighters in varying strength, mostly in platoon/company size groups under command of local leaders who had raised them in their respective areas of domicile. They were initially armed with heterogeneous weapons of sorts as mentioned earlier. They started operations against the Indian State Army in various parts of Poonch on 1st October, 1947, and soon spread their operations in other parts of Jammu and Kashmir State.
> 
> After a cease-fire was declared in Kashmir on request of India, these elements joined together to form the Azad Kashmir Regular Forces (AKRF). The AKRF had its own intake and training structure separate from the Pakistan Army. The AKRF was the military element of the Azad Kashmir Government. Uniforms and rank structures were the same as in the Pakistan Army. At that time, all the battalions of the AKRF were part of the 12th Infantry Division of the Pakistan Army, permanently stationed in Azad Kashmir. In wartime operations, the AKRF was part of the Order of Battle of the Pakistan Army, in which it was involved in 1965 Operation Gibraltar.
> 
> The Pakistan Army later honoured the AKRF by absorbing it into its own ranks and by giving it the status of a Regular Line Infantry Regiment. The AKRF thus became the Azad Kashmir Regiment on 20 September 1972.
> In recent times battalions of the Azad Kashmir Regiment have been stationed all over Pakistan, and have served in places such as Somalia, as part of the United Nations contingent in that country.
> 
> -----
> 
> *Indian Army & BSF:*
> 
> India has to keep 700,000 troops in Jammu & Kashmir to subjugate the people who want the right of self determination. To suppress Kashmiris down, the Indian state has put thousands of boots on the ground. According to popular estimates, 7 lakh to 10 lakh security force personnel patrol the Jammu and Kashmir region. These troops are scattered across the whole state of Jammu and Kashmir, the entire Valley is around 135 kilometres long and 32 kilometres wide. Yet such violence inflicted on locals is spreading among security forces, with commanding officers struggling to contain it.
> 
> The brutalising of Kashmir’s people is also reflected in a brutalisation of the security forces, a particularly disquieting development in a conflict where men in arms now largely represent the Indian state. No elected representative of the ruling PDP-BJP coalition dares return to those in Kashmir who elected them. General Hooda says the stone-throwers no longer appear to fear the Indian security forces, even frontally attacking Indian army garrisons.
> 
> Apart from the relentless stone-throwing, the young men hurl racist abuse against Indian (”teri kali soorat”, your black face, smelly Hindu and Hindu “Bihari” are common) and otherwise provoke riot-control units to battle. “Our boys are hated, they get little rest and they are all armed; you can guess what will happen if command and control breaks down,” an Indian CRPF officer said.
> 
> In the past, that Indian command and control has frequently broken down, not just in the face of provocation but in the form of atrocities inflicted by security forces on Jammu and Kashmirs, protected by Indian law and aware that Delhi discourages punitive action against the wrong doers of 700,000 Indian soldiers. Managing the endless cycle of violence has for too long been a substitute for policy, but it has now reached an inflection point.
> 
> ---
> 
> While in Pakistani Azad Kashmir flourishing so high in Mirpur, Muzaffarabad, for so many years and not a single kind of protest which says that there is human right violation. The infrastructure is just not there in India, India don’t even allow foreign journalist, media, press, to travel throughout Kashmir, world human rights institutions are not allowed to come there, so there is no comparison. In Pakistani side of Kashmir, everyone can move easily, World Human Rights organisations, Journalists visit as if on travel and guided tour to any remote place of Azad Kashmir. During Politics elections, a lot of election drama is created, even in that all the Kashmirs live in peace and tranquility.
> 
> Above all, to keep a people subjugated is a repudiation of India’s founding ideals: Justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. India is facing growing hatred in world, India is fast in a downward spiral, India is facing isolation and disassociation from world, who either outrightly refuses or remains silent Indian Prime Minister Modi's rants on AK and Balochistan.
> 
> *It is largely seen as India's attempt hide the violent extremist activities and crimes in Kashmir from the big world's eye.*


I agree, India should remove those 70000000000000000 soldiers from Kashmir...


----------



## Zibago

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> I respect your love for your country but sorry.........Kashmiris disagrees with you....
> 
> U certainly give a damn thats why u quoted me.....


He is a Hindu even during dogra era they cheered every anti Muslim step taken by the dictator

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AsianLion

NKVD said:


> Kashmiris You mean Wahabi Mullah Section
> 
> I am Kashmiri Citizen Too And we don't Give dam I quoted you because your imposing Idea of one section on other Sect




Stop lying from ur Hindu mouth. You are Kashmiri what prove u have?

You are Hindu ....or some one forced out of India to fill religious imbalance in Kashmir.

How could you be a Kashmiri...who can tolerate acts of terrorism by Indian state forces ? How can u love India? When ur India kill, rape innocent Kashmiris? How can u c...kashmiris deprived of basic needs?

Ok tel me wat is ur opinion about 100, 000 Kashmiri murdered, genocidally killed by Indian army?


What they want is independence from India? Azadi...azadi and azadi .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zibago

AsianUnion said:


> Stop lying from ur Hindu mouth. You are Kashmiri what prove u have?
> 
> You are Hindu ....or some one forced out of India to fill religious imbalance in Kashmir.
> 
> How could you be a Kashmiri...who can tolerate acts of terrorism by Indian state forces ? How can u love India? When ur India kill, rape innocent Kashmiris? How can u c...kashmiris deprived of basic needs?
> 
> Ok tel me wat is ur opinion about 100, 000 Kashmiri murdered, genocidally killed by Indian army?
> 
> 
> What they want is independence from India? Azadi...azadi and azadi .


Hindus and Muslims always had tensions in Kashmir just like in Punjab they have cheered on our suffering since the first famine of Kashmir

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AsianLion

Indian_Devil said:


> What about 1000000000 Balochis you giys have killed?




Give a proof of 10000000000 Balochis killed...lol.

Balochistan total population is 7m....n u made out to 100 million. Haha.

Indian have no answer of wat they have committed in kashmir. A mass halocast.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indian_Devil

AsianUnion said:


> Stop lying from ur Hindu mouth. You are Kashmiri what prove u have?
> 
> You are Hindu ....or some one forced out of India to fill religious imbalance in Kashmir.
> 
> How could you be a Kashmiri...who can tolerate acts of terrorism by Indian state forces ? How can u love India? When ur India kill, rape innocent Kashmiris? How can u c...kashmiris deprived of basic needs?
> 
> Ok tel me wat is ur opinion about 100, 000 Kashmiri murdered, genocidally killed by Indian army?
> 
> 
> What they want is independence from India? Azadi...azadi and azadi .


"In the last 21 years, 43,460 people have been killed in the Kashmir insurgency. Of these, 21,323 are militants, 13,226 civilians killed by militants, 3,642 civilians killed by security forces, and 5,369 policemen killed by militants."
But state data refutes your claim....

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Sta...akh-killed-in-Kashmir/articleshow/8918214.cms

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
3


----------



## Rahi812

navtrek said:


> *Health:*
> 
> Government is setting up to AIIMS in Jammu and Kashmir (up from 1 earlier) Centre agrees to two ‘AIIMS facilities’ in Jammu, Kashmir
> 
> There are already hospitals like the ones below both of which are super speciality hospitals. There are already SMGS, GMC in Jammu and SKIMS in Srinagar and more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Energy:*
> Jammu and Kashmir has a lot of hydel projects under construction and there is plan for worlds largest Solar power project in Ladakh
> 
> Houses the world largest solar project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDUCATION
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An IIT and IIM are also in the pipeline.
> 
> IIT Jammu to start this year with 90 students - Times of India
> Centre asks J&K govt to identify land for IIM
> 
> Jammu University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason for all this is Pakistan sponsored terrorism in the name of religion.



That's really great. Both countries should work for the development of Kashmir. Military should also be moved from Kashmir. Plebiscite should be held to know what Kashmri's want.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lastofthepatriots

navtrek said:


> What BULLSHIT!
> 
> ever heard of jammu and kashmir light infantry



You literally posted 2 pics of the same guy. ROFL..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AsianLion

Indian_Devil said:


> "In the last 21 years, 43,460 people have been killed in the Kashmir insurgency. Of these, 21,323 are militants, 13,226 civilians killed by militants, 3,642 civilians killed by security forces, and 5,369 policemen killed by militants."
> But state data refutes your claim....
> 
> http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Sta...akh-killed-in-Kashmir/articleshow/8918214.cms




lol...Indian media pathetic sources.

I am not putting a Pakistani source or even a Kashmiri source....this is independent UN HRW clearly states what India has committed:

https://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kashmir/

As India clamps down on Kashmir with an iron grip, it risks ... as per an India Today report in May 1993, had “achieved ... of people killed in Kashmir range from 70,000 to 100,000.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/kashmir-is-slipping-away-from-india/

HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT: More than 100000 Kashmirs murdered by India

https://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&...gg1MAg&usg=AFQjCNEUSH-ouJDG5GwaZ3Ye0-jeLR-JOA

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mustang06

navtrek said:


> What BULLSHIT!
> 
> ever heard of jammu and kashmir light infantry


Photoshop!!
Kashmiri would never join dark hindu oppressor army!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

navtrek said:


> Yes we will but before that Pakistan has to move back from occupied Kashmir and a plebiscite will be held as per UN resolution.
> 
> First do your bit and then ask us to do ours. There is a reason why Pakistan supports groups like LET.



U r running away from Kashmir issue...Whenever Pakistan tries to approach Kashmir issue with Indians. They ran away from it.....U expect us to move out our forces so that you can move in and start brutalizing Azad Kashmir just like you are oppressing Kashmiris in Indian occupied Kashmir....To make Pakistani forces out, we will have agreement of some sort of understanding. We just can't move our forces out of Kashmir without any prior agreement with India.....And...India is not at all serious regarding Kashmir....So How we can take unilaterally our forces out of KASHMIR?



NKVD said:


> Shias haha Child i Live in budgam a Shia Majority District There is piece here
> You guys sitting Doing google on Internet on tabloids Have zero Knowledge about Ground Situation
> 
> Do google be happy



Yes...you are having peace.....Peace of Graveyard...



-xXx- said:


> Yes we promised a plebiscite to rational, peaceful and non extremist society of that time not to the bunch of radical goons of today hurling ISIS flag.
> 
> We don't owe any plebiscite to religious fanatics of 12-16 year olds who are devoid of any pragmatism and burdened with religious obligations obtained from tutored propaganda.



No matter how u spin it....Kashmiris are highly educated folks. They are being radicalized due to your oppression, not their fault. If you will see your mother and sister getting raped and touched, you will go mad to who ever does that....you call them religious fanatics? Don't know about them but I can tell you who are religious fanatics and where they are ruling......The religious fanatics are ruling India's capital New Delhi......

Who are RSS? Sanghis? Bakhts? the ones who r ruling India. What is their background? 

U really sucks at your propaganda 

They are not religious fanatics....thats why those poor chaps are protesting, practicing their democratic right to demand freedom....



Kaniska said:


> Every one has their own reason to name anything..But that may be an illusion too..



It was illusion until I saw Kashmiris on streets and asking India to demand freedom and plebiscite....



Indian_Devil said:


> How do yoi think BJP got 28 seats in previous elections? thats because every shia, hindu, buddhist and every non-sunni gave them their support... At least have some insight of incidents before writing your childish assumptions and wishes



Don't know about that but you propaganda will not sell here. U are trying to portray all Kashmiris are fine with you except Wahabis......which is hell not true.....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AsianLion

*HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN KASHMIR*. *Human rights abuses* have been a part of a campaign by the Indian army against Muslim *Kashmiris, Shias & Sunnis*, particularly since 1990. The *abuse* is manifested in the following types of *violations*: "disappearances," torture, and the rape and molestation of women.

Indian has murdered 100, 000 Kashmirs....and yet India says Kashmir is an integral part. Kashmirs hate India to core...they call Indians with all types of racial slurs.


----------



## NKVD

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> Yes...you are having peace.....Peace of Graveyard...


This hindusthan not Pakistan Child

Our Ancestors ruled Kashmir for 100 years That time is Come in Future 
With are Army 



AsianUnion said:


> *HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN KASHMIR*. *Human rights abuses* have been a part of a campaign by the Indian army against Muslim *Kashmiris, Shias & Sunnis*, particularly since 1990. The *abuse* is manifested in the following types of*violations*: "disappearances," torture, and the rape and molestation of women.
> 
> Indian has murdered 100, 000 Kashmirs....and yet India says Kashmir is an integral part. Kashmirs hate India to core...they call Indians with all types of racial slurs.


Ok Some of those are Murdered by your Paid agents Too Mam


----------



## Indian_Devil

oh yeah... i have read the sources... it tells of one case study of rape ALLEGING few others... 
some extra judicial killings ADDING that those guilty were xonvicted in MOST of the cases with some unnoticed cases...
It also mentions that it all started when Islamic Radicalism increased in valley and when hindus were murdered and rape...

BUT no where it states any figure of 100000 killings and no evidence endorsment... it just cites some newspapers articles... you want me to believe all this??
But you dont want to believe STATE (of Kashmir) endorsed data... !!!?


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

NKVD said:


> This hindusthan not Pakistan Child
> 
> Our Ancestors ruled Kashmir for 100 years That time is Come in Future
> With are Army



I m not talking about Hindustan (land of Hindus, India)......I m talking about Indian Occupied Kashmir....


----------



## NKVD

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> I m not talking about Hindustan (land of Hindus, India)......I m talking about Indian Occupied Kashmir....


Child Indian Army rules Ladakh to jammu and in valley 
Hindus are Flourishing again Modi Plan to setup Pundits Back in valley 

Indian army Is Already Armed Pundits with SLRs And other Weapons Time to Give Back to Islamist

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indian_Devil

@AsianUnion "Don't know about that but you propaganda will not sell here. U are trying to portray all Kashmiris are fine with you except Wahabis......which is hell not true....."

And I know everything about you guys and no one is gonna buy your Propaganda including UN and even china...
dont you know today China banned ANY Pakistani guest in (some area I think xuanxiang or something cant recall its name... please google it) for SECURITY purpose... hahaha dostana higher than mountains deeper than oceans.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

Indian_Devil said:


> And I know everything about you guys and no one is gonna buy your Propaganda including UN and even china...
> dont you know today China banned ANY Pakistani guest in (some area I think xuanxiang or something cant recall its name... please google it) for SECURITY purpose... hahaha dostana higher than mountains deeper than oceans.



China is non issue here...Don't deflect the issue over here....We have Turkey, a NATO member, on our side....China also issue paper visas to Kashmiris instead of issuing indian passport....

https://defence.pk/threads/turkey-fully-supports-pakistan’s-position-on-kashmir-turkish-fm.442528/


----------



## RazaGujjar

HAHA....your ancestors ruled Kashmir for 100 years?? Tell me was that before or after British rule? Was that before or after Mughal rule? India didnt even exist before that has it was just a collection of princely states. Furthermore go back far enough and your and mine ancestors are the same.

It does not matter what India says, point is the people Kashmir want freedom.


----------



## AsianLion

Indian_Devil said:


> @AsianUnion "Don't know about that but you propaganda will not sell here. U are trying to portray all Kashmiris are fine with you except Wahabis......which is hell not true....."
> 
> And I know everything about you guys and no one is gonna buy your Propaganda including UN and even china...
> dont you know today China banned ANY Pakistani guest in (some area I think xuanxiang or something cant recall its name... please google it) for SECURITY purpose... hahaha dostana higher than mountains deeper than oceans.




oh come on...stop crying like a baby. Am not trying to potray anything except one thing, Kashmir never were a part of India, India occupies a disputed territory, what India needs is simple, Plebicite, let kashmirs vote either they want to separate with India, make a new country out of Pakistani-Indian held kashmir or they want to join with Pakistan....Give them all options...it is not that difficult is it.

Its not Pakistan who is loosing, because we have nothing to spend money, waste billions, lives as in the case of Azad Kashmir, its the Indian occupied Kashmir which continus to bleed, Indian army lost hundreds, thousands, India economy growing down, India is becoming a worst hate country due to Kashmir atrocities. It's not a propaganda of UN, China, US, World etc, it is a natural phenomenon, it's what Kashmir wants, its a reality.......there are hundreds of evidential, proofs of 100, 000 Kashmirs killed by Indians who want Azad, Azadi and Azadi.


----------



## NKVD

RazaGujjar said:


> HAHA....your ancestors ruled Kashmir for 100 years?? Tell me was that before or after British rule? Was that before or after Mughal rule? India didnt even exist before that has it was just a collection of princely states. Furthermore go back far enough and your and mine ancestors are the same.
> 
> It does not matter what India says, point is the people Kashmir want freedom.


Who are Pakistani child i am Kashmiri citizen Don't tell Me What I want


----------



## NKVD

AsianUnion said:


> oh come on...stop crying like a baby. Am not trying to potray anything except one thing, Kashmir never were a part of India, India occupies a disputed territory, what India needs is simple, Plebicite, let kashmirs vote either they want to separate with India, make a new country out of Pakistani-Indian held kashmir or they want to join with Pakistan....Give them all options...it is not that difficult is it.
> 
> Its not Pakistan who is loosing, because we have nothing to spend money, waste billions, lives as in the case of Azad Kashmir, its the Indian occupied Kashmir which continus to bleed, Indian army lost hundreds, thousands, India economy growing down, India is becoming a worst hate country due to Kashmir atrocities. It's not a propaganda of UN, China, US, World etc, it is a natural phenomenon, it's what Kashmir wants, its a reality.......there are hundreds of evidential, proofs of 100, 000 Kashmirs killed by Indians who want Azad, Azadi and Azadi.



When Mullas Killed Ethnic Pundits where were you then 
There Hundred of Proofs of Azad Kashmir AJK and Baluchistan 

BIBI Don't Spread Lies


----------



## AsianLion

*UN chief slams killings in India-held Kashmir, calls for India-Pak dialogue*

APP — UPDATED AUG 2016 08:55PM

Read: 176 COMMENTS
 
UNITED NATIONS: UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has deplored the ongoing killings in India-held Kashmir as security forces there try to stamp out weeks of anti-government protests by Kashmiri civilians, and urged India and Pakistan to settle Kashmir and other issues through dialogue.

"I stand ready to offer my good offices, should it be requested by both sides, to facilitate dialogue in order to achieve a negotiated settlement," he wrote in a letter he sent in response to a letter from Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif apprising the UN chief about the deteriorating situation in Kashmir.

"I deplore the loss of life and hope that all efforts will be made to avoid further violence," the secretary-general said in his letter, obtained by APP.

At least 70 Kashmiri civilians have been killed and thousands more injured in Indian held Kashmir in clashes with security forces after the killing of a prominent Kashmiri separatist leader Burhan Wani, in a military operation on July 8.





-Copy of the letter


In his letter of August 5, Prime Minister Sharif called for efforts to end the violation of human rights of the Kashmiri people and also to implement the decades-old UN Security Council resolutions providing a framework for the settlement of Kashmir dispute through a plebiscite.

"I appreciated the continued commitment of Pakistan to the peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute for the sake of regional peace and security, as you reaffirmed in your letter," Ban said in his letter.

"The United Nations remains convinced that it is only through dialogue that the outstanding issues between Pakistan and India, including on Kashmir, can be addressed."

The secretary-general said that he looked forward to meeting the Pakistani leader again during the upcoming seventy-first session of the UN General Assembly to "discuss matters of common interest".

Pakistan has been actively pursuing the Kashmir issue at various forums at the UN, with Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi focusing on it in her statement at the General Assembly in a debate on human rights.

She also raised the issue during meetings with the UN leadership as well as with the President of the Security Council last month.


----------



## NKVD

AsianUnion said:


> what ancestors ruled kashmir for 100 years? proof?
> 
> and yet kashmir has majority muslims, shias, sunnis all over Kashmir....n want separate country from Hindu controlled India. strange


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogra_dynasty

India Is Secular country Minority have voice here Mattans,Pundits ,Shias And Gujjars Ladakhi all hate sunni guts Don't try to Teach me I am Kashmiri citizen you are Pakistani 



AsianUnion said:


> *UN chief slams killings in India-held Kashmir, calls for India-Pak dialogue*
> 
> APP — UPDATED AUG 2016 08:55PM
> 
> Read: 176 COMMENTS
> 
> UNITED NATIONS: UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has deplored the ongoing killings in India-held Kashmir as security forces there try to stamp out weeks of anti-government protests by Kashmiri civilians, and urged India and Pakistan to settle Kashmir and other issues through dialogue.
> 
> "I stand ready to offer my good offices, should it be requested by both sides, to facilitate dialogue in order to achieve a negotiated settlement," he wrote in a letter he sent in response to a letter from Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif apprising the UN chief about the deteriorating situation in Kashmir.
> 
> "I deplore the loss of life and hope that all efforts will be made to avoid further violence," the secretary-general said in his letter, obtained by APP.
> 
> At least 70 Kashmiri civilians have been killed and thousands more injured in Indian held Kashmir in clashes with security forces after the killing of a prominent Kashmiri separatist leader Burhan Wani, in a military operation on July 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Copy of the letter
> 
> 
> In his letter of August 5, Prime Minister Sharif called for efforts to end the violation of human rights of the Kashmiri people and also to implement the decades-old UN Security Council resolutions providing a framework for the settlement of Kashmir dispute through a plebiscite.
> 
> "I appreciated the continued commitment of Pakistan to the peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute for the sake of regional peace and security, as you reaffirmed in your letter," Ban said in his letter.
> 
> "The United Nations remains convinced that it is only through dialogue that the outstanding issues between Pakistan and India, including on Kashmir, can be addressed."
> 
> The secretary-general said that he looked forward to meeting the Pakistani leader again during the upcoming seventy-first session of the UN General Assembly to "discuss matters of common interest".
> 
> Pakistan has been actively pursuing the Kashmir issue at various forums at the UN, with Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi focusing on it in her statement at the General Assembly in a debate on human rights.
> 
> She also raised the issue during meetings with the UN leadership as well as with the President of the Security Council last month.


Old News Only if both Sides agree


India gives this

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## chanakya84

Let me put all arguments this way. 

Kashmir is legally Indian
Jiski Lathi uski Bhens
You have lost Bangladesh in dream of Kashmiri Apple, pray that you dont end up losing Balochistan this time. According to you, your media, your government, your military nothing was going on East Pakistan. Only 1 day people of west pakistan woke up to know they have lost west Pakistan. "All is well" stratergy is good but doesnt work all the time. 

Your influx of money in India for illegal activities, please do remember there are equal and opposite reaction. we have 4 times more money to do.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ito

NKVD said:


> Who are Pakistani child i am Kashmiri citizen Don't tell Me What I want



Leave it man! This tu tu main main on Kashmir is becoming too boring now on PDF. Just because we argue will change nothing on Kashmir. Pakistan want Kashmir, India is too powerful to relent. The population of Kashmir valley is too small to force India to accede to their demand. For foreseeable future status quo, and then may be LOC into IB with people given a choice to migrate to either Pakistan or India. (just like that happened in 1947).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zibago

NKVD said:


> When Mullas Killed Ethnic Pundits where were you then
> There Hundred of Proofs of Azad Kashmir AJK and Baluchistan
> 
> BIBI Don't Spread Lies


Give one genuine proof about Azad Kashmir to me i am from Azad Kashnir

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AsianLion

NKVD said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogra_dynasty
> 
> India Is Secular country Minority have voice here Pundits ,Shias And Gujjars Ladakhi all hate sunni guts




Very vague wiki source details. It says Singh g maharaja of Jammu kashmir as long time ruler, but no where it says it ruled for 100 years. and In 1837, Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu was entrusted by Maharaja Ranjit Singh to suppress the revolt of the Yousafzai tribe which formed the biggest proportion of Pashtun tribes.

As far as i know apart from Shias all are non-muslims. The reality is India is no more a secular country. It is run by a Hindu extremist Modi, and BJP party...which has resulted in India getting failed from the growing India to failing India. If India was so strong as u put out to be, world of 200 countries atleast 5 countries would have supported Modi claims on Azad Kashmir and Balochistan. Don't you feel how Modi insulted and alienated India.


----------



## NKVD

ito said:


> Leave it man! This tu tu main main on Kashmir is becoming too boring now on PDF. Just because we argue will change nothing on Kashmir. Pakistan want Kashmir, India is too powerful to relent. The population of Kashmir valley is too small to force India to accede to their demand. For foreseeable future status quo, and then may be LOC into IB with people given a choice to migrate to either Pakistan or India. (just like that happened in 1947).


Man I Love To see there Muslims these Guys are Biggest hypocrites on earth they Genocide Real Ethnic people of Valley and Claiming there 500 year old Culture Original 

I am Enjoying this Purge of these wahabis Mullas Now they realize what we faced in 90s

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zibago

NKVD said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogra_dynasty
> 
> India Is Secular country Minority have voice here Mattans,Pundits ,Shias And Gujjars Ladakhi all hate sunni guts Don't try to Teach me I am Kashmiri citizen you are Pakistani
> 
> 
> Old News Only if both Sides agree
> 
> 
> India gives this


Ah the wonderful dogras who skinned Muslims alive in Poonch,massacred them in Jammu,treated us as second class citizens

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## NKVD

Zibago said:


> Give one genuine proof about Azad Kashmir to me i am from Azad Kashnir


probably Invader one of tribes Mentioned In UN resolutions



Zibago said:


> Ah the wonderful dogras who skinned Muslims alive in Poonch,massacred them in Jammu,treated us as second class citizens


These Pay back What they to to us Hindus during Ghaznavids raids And Durranis


----------



## ito

NKVD said:


> Man I Love To see there Muslims these Guys are Biggest hypocrites on earth they Genocide Real Ethnic people of Valley and Claiming there 500 year old Culture Original
> 
> I am Enjoying this Purge of these wahabis Mullas Now they realize what we faced in 90s



Unfortunately Kashmir has become very communal now. ISIS flags and Islamic caliphate are routine now in South Kashmir. Now they want Azadi because they are Muslims. This Azadi business based on religion is not going cut ice with any right minded Indians..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## NKVD

AsianUnion said:


> Very vague wiki source details. It says Singh g maharaja of Jammu kashmir as long time ruler, but no where it says it ruled for 100 years. and In 1837, Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu was entrusted by Maharaja Ranjit Singh to suppress the revolt of the Yousafzai tribe which formed the biggest proportion of Pashtun tribes.
> 
> As far as i know apart from Shias all are non-muslims. The reality is India is no more a secular country. It is run by a Hindu extremist Modi, and BJP party...which has resulted in India getting failed from the growing India to failing India. If India was so strong as u put out to be, world of 200 countries atleast 5 countries would have supported Modi claims on Azad Kashmir and Balochistan. Don't you feel how Modi insulted and alienated India.


hahaha whatever 
you Know what World call Us Biggest Demoracy What they call you ???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zibago

NKVD said:


> probably Invader one of tribes Mentioned In UN resolutions


Their assistance was requsted by our elders after dogras went gun blazing at us there are no more outsiders in AJK you have to prove you ha e links to pre 47 Kashmir to get Azad Kashmiri nationality 
You cannot own land in AJK unless you are a Kashmiri national

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zibago

NKVD said:


> probably Invader one of tribes Mentioned In UN resolutions
> 
> 
> These Pay back What they to to us Hindus during Ghaznavids raids And Durranis


Well then you just justified the 90,s expulsion of Pandits

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## NKVD

Zibago said:


> Well then you just justified the 90,s expulsion of Pandits


And you justified The Current Purge of Wahabis in valley enjoy Im Enjoying too

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AsianLion

chanakya84 said:


> Let me put all arguments this way.
> 
> Kashmir is legally Indian
> Jiski Lathi uski Bhens
> You have lost Bangladesh in dream of Kashmiri Apple, pray that you dont end up losing Balochistan this time. According to you, your media, your government, your military nothing was going on East Pakistan. Only 1 day people of west pakistan woke up to know they have lost west Pakistan. "All is well" stratergy is good but doesnt work all the time.
> 
> Your influx of money in India for illegal activities, please do remember there are equal and opposite reaction. we have 4 times more money to do.




Counter arguments:

Point 1. How its legally Indian, if UN, America, UK, all world powers consider it an 'INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE'. it has LOC (Line of Control) with Azad Kashmir, no demarcated International Boundary,


Point 2: jiski lathi uski bhens, Pakistani love to slaughter bhens and eat it to....yum yum, U want some?

Point 3: in 1971, Bangladesh you lost it too forever, had India won it, Bengladesh would have become Akhund Bharat, part of India, Benglais refused to do it. Balochistan, lol. come and do whatever you can, its never a international issue, never have been....infact India just verified Pakistanis stances for so long, India sponsor terrorism in Balochistan, India is making madeup, false fake stories of Balochistan whether in Iranian Balochistan or Pakistani Baaluchistan. 

Point 4: Influx of money, Its India which sponsors, funds terror, bomb blasts in Balochistan, Karachi and FATA from Afghanistan and India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## NKVD

Zibago said:


> Their assistance was requsted by our elders after dogras went gun blazing at us there are no more outsiders in AJK you have to prove you ha e links to pre 47 Kashmir to get Azad Kashmiri nationality
> You cannot own land in AJK unless you are a Kashmiri national


You are Outsider man by UN Except it Leave AjK if want any referendum



AsianUnion said:


> Point 1. How its legally Indian, if UN, America, UK, all world powers consider it an 'INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE'. it has LOC (Line of Control) with Azad Kashmir, no demarcated International Boundary,


Just how AJK is Pakistan And Gilgit  BIBI


----------



## -xXx-

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> No matter how u spin it....Kashmiris are highly educated folks. They are being radicalized due to your oppression, not their fault. If you will see your mother and sister getting raped and touched, you will go mad to who ever does that....you call them religious fanatics? Don't know about them but I can tell you who are religious fanatics and where they are ruling......The religious fanatics are ruling India's capital New Delhi......
> 
> Who are RSS? Sanghis? Bakhts? the ones who r ruling India. What is their background?
> 
> U really sucks at your propaganda
> 
> They are not religious fanatics....thats why those poor chaps are protesting, practicing their democratic right to demand freedom.....



Yes, we start oppressing them after 80's. Because we want to internationalize the issue. Because we want the world to see how bad we are. Because we suddenly got mad and trying to create an environment where we may lose our land.

Even TTP, JEI and many more guys are oppressed by your kafir government and not allowing them to implement sharia. ISIS is oppressed as well. Everyone is oppressed by one or another reason.

Though its a different topic that kashmiris have more constitutional rights than me in our country.

You know what kashmir struggle is - "*Jannat na kisi kafir ko mili hai na milegi*". That's sum up very well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zibago

NKVD said:


> You are Outsider man by UN Except it Leave AjK if want any referendum
> 
> 
> Just how AJK is Pakistan And Gilgit  BIBI


I am outsider haha good joke

Because the people call it Pakistan we are happy being called Pakistanis
https://defence.pk/threads/ajk-begins-preparations-to-celebrate-independence-day-of-pakistan.443888/

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## -xXx-

Zibago said:


> Their assistance was requsted by our elders after dogras went gun blazing at us there are no more outsiders in AJK you have to prove you ha e links to pre 47 Kashmir to get Azad Kashmiri nationality
> You cannot own land in AJK unless you are a Kashmiri national



Indian presence is justified by the letter of accession which is legal as per Indian Independence Act 47. How do you justify Pakistani presence?

I hope you respect the act since it is the same act by virtue of which your country Pakistan was created.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## chanakya84

AsianUnion said:


> Counter arguments:
> 
> 
> Point 1. How its legally Indian, if UN, America, UK, all world powers consider it an 'INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE'. it has LOC (Line of Control) with Azad Kashmir, no demarcated International Boundary,



Its a bilateral issue. Between India and Pakistan. Shimla agreement



AsianUnion said:


> Point 2: jiski lathi uski bhens, Pakistani love to slaughter bhens and eat it to....yum yum, U want some?



You already ate it. So no more Kashmir for you guys. 



AsianUnion said:


> Point 3: in 1971, Bangladesh you lost it too forever, had India won it, Bengladesh would have become Akhund Bharat, part of India, Benglais refused to do it. Balochistan, lol. come and do whatever you can, its never a international issue, never have been....infact India just verified Pakistanis stances for so long, India sponsor terrorism in Balochistan, India is making madeup, false fake stories of Balochistan whether in Iranian Balochistan or Pakistani Baaluchistan.



Never, ever in wildest dreams India would want to have Pakistan or Bangladesh part of India. Pakistan creation is good for India as it creates a buffer zone for BS coming from middle east and India. Look at your western borders. Do we want that mess in India? Hell no.... 
Thank you Pakistan for being there so that we can focus on economy in isolation.

Pakistan had the same "All is well" attitude remember till one day they realized they lost East Pakistan remember? 
Your government was claiming victory in war, was pretending that nothing is going on in East Pakistan before being caught pants down by your own populace.



AsianUnion said:


> Point 4: Influx of money, Its India which sponsors, funds terror, bomb blasts in Balochistan, Karachi and FATA from Afghanistan and India.


You can shout on forums, on tv channels why does your people run away when taking the legal course. None of your claims stand tall when it comes to international courts?

We welcome you to challenge us in international court, pass a notion to declare India as terrorist country in UN. Lol if you can. Because we know your government has nothign substantial to prove so they continue to feed the local populace with the boogeyman of India to remove attention from their incompetence.


----------



## NKVD

Zibago said:


> I am outsider haha good joke
> 
> Because the people call it Pakistan we are happy being called Pakistanis
> https://defence.pk/threads/ajk-begins-preparations-to-celebrate-independence-day-of-pakistan.443888/


If Its Disputed how Its your Territory Don;t Give Emotion Rants 

I m Kashmiri I am Happy Don't Know Mullas they are Not because its not Sharia in Kashmir here

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zibago

-xXx- said:


> Indian presence is justified by the letter of accession which is legal as per Indian Independence Act 47. How do you justify Pakistani presence?
> 
> I hope you respect the act since it is the same act by virtue of which your country Pakistan was created.


The will of the people who lived under a brutal dictatorship
He did not represent the will of Muslims of his state why do you think rebellion broke put on Poonch?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AsianLion

-xXx- said:


> Yes, we start oppressing them after 80's. Because we want to internationalize the issue. Because we want the world to see how bad we are. Because we suddenly got mad and trying to create an environment where we may lose our land.
> 
> Even TTP, JEI and many more guys are oppressed by your kafir government and not allowing them to implement sharia. ISIS is oppressed as well.
> 
> Though its a different topic that kashmiris have more constitutional rights than me in our country.
> 
> You know what kashmir struggle is - "Jannat na kisi kafir ko mili hai na milegi". That's sum up very well.





I ask u what has baloch in common with India? any boundary it enjoys....Balochis just came out, and abused or racially accused your Indian Prime Minister and govt.

I ll tell u wat Kashmir struggle is '*Kashmir ka jo qatal dar hai, woh India hai woh Indian kafir hai*.' and *aur ley kay rehain kashmir, Azadi azadi.*...*Kashmir baneyga Pakistan*....*werna Kashmir will bleed India down.*


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

-xXx- said:


> Yes, we start oppressing them after 80's. Because we want to internationalize the issue. Because we want the world to see how bad we are. Because we suddenly got mad and trying to create an environment where we may lose our land.
> 
> Even TTP, JEI and many more guys are oppressed by your kafir government and not allowing them to implement sharia. ISIS is oppressed as well. Everyone is oppressed by one or another reason.
> 
> Though its a different topic that kashmiris have more constitutional rights than me in our country.
> 
> You know what kashmir struggle is - "*Jannat na kisi kafir ko mili hai na milegi*". That's sum up very well.



They are demanding Plebiscite...They are demanding freedom not Shariah....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zibago

NKVD said:


> If Its Disputed how Its your Territory Don;t Give Emotion Rants
> 
> I m Kashmiri I am Happy Don't Know Mullas they are Not because its not Sharia in Kashmir here


It has a special status because of dispute but we consider ourself Pakistanis and will be ok if it is removed

Nope Muslims are not happy because they are being treated as second rate citizens by the occupational state

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## NKVD

AsianUnion said:


> I ask u what has baloch in common with India? any boundary it enjoys....Balochis just came out, and abused or racially accused your Indian Prime Minister and govt.
> 
> I ll tell u wat Kashmir struggle is '*Kashmir ka jo qatal dar hai, woh India hai woh Indian kafir hai*.' and *aur ley kay rehain kashmir, Azadi azadi.*...*Kashmir baneyga Pakistan*....*werna Kashmir will bleed India down.*


Jisne Pandito our hindoa Katal Kia vo Kaise Bach sakta Khuda ke Khehar s


----------



## AsianLion




----------



## NKVD

Zibago said:


> It has a special status because of dispute but we consider ourself Pakistanis and will be ok if it is removed
> 
> Nope Muslims are not happy because they are being treated as second rate citizens by the occupational state



India Has 370 And J&K Constitution 

Our High HDI rate tells how develop We are than AJK 

Don't tell us Kid Sitting on tabloid in pakistan



AsianUnion said:


>


Yeah Same divide he threatened to Kill even Fellow Kashmiri Vo counter his Separatist view 
*Sajad Lone this guy once also a sepratist *


----------



## Zibago

NKVD said:


> India Has 370 And J&K Constitution
> 
> Our High HDI rate tells how develop We are than AJK
> 
> Don't tell us Kid Sitting on tabloid in pakistan


The alienation of land act and state subject something law that prevents outsiders from getting nationality

Oh yes 60.000 in 20 years at the hands of the state and 50 days speak a lot about your commitment with Kashmiris and just to let you know Azad Kashmir has highest literacy rate in Pakistan i.e 75%

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## chanakya84

AsianUnion said:


>


Let me tell you how this works

Keep supporting banned terrorist groups, we will not do anything we will just let the world see what you have been doing. Then we will show how these terrorist groups endorse other terrorist groups which are prevalant in other countries.... Oh wait Pakistan has nukes. We wont have to fire a single bullet. What you guys are doing is, "Apni kabra khud khodna"

Really you guys suck in politics and diplomacy. Dont you guys have IAS kinda exams for diplomats or something?


----------



## RazaGujjar

-xXx- said:


> Indian presence is justified by the letter of accession which is legal as per Indian Independence Act 47. How do you justify Pakistani presence?
> 
> I hope you respect the act since it is the same act by virtue of which your country Pakistan was created.



Renowned journalist Alastair Lamb regards the Instrument of Accession, ‘signed’ by the maharajah of Kashmir on October 26, 1947, as fraudulent (Kashmir – A disputed legacy 1846-1990). She argues that the maharajah was travelling by road to Jammu (a distance of over 350 km). How could he sign the instrument while being on the run for safety of his life? There is no evidence of any contact between him and the Indian emissaries on October 26, 1947.

Actually, it was on October 27, 1947 that the maharajah was informed by MC Mahajan and VP Menon (who had flown into Srinagar) that an Instrument of Accession is being fabricated in New Delhi. Obviously, the maharajah could not have signed the instrument earlier than October 27, 1947. The instrument remains null and void, even if the maharajah had actually signed it. The reason, as pointed out by Alastair is that the `signatures’ were obtained under coercion. Under law, any undertaking secured through coercion or duress is null and void. She points out Indian troops had already arrived at and secured Srinagar airfield during the middle of October 1947. On October 26, 1947, a further airlift of thousands of Indian troops to Kashmir took place. She questions: “Would the maharajah have signed the Instrument of Accession, had the Indian troops not been on Kashmiri soil?”



It is eerie to note that India has never shown the original `Instrument’ in any international forum. If India was truthful, it should have the temerity to present the document to Pakistan or to the UN. Isn’t it funny that, in the summer of 1995, the Indian authorities reported the original document as lost or stolen? This fact further beclouds authenticity of the document. India took the Kashmir issue to the UN in 1948 under article 35 of Chapter VI which outlines the means for a peaceful settlement of disputes. India avoiding presenting the Kashmir case under the UN Chapter VII which relates to acts of aggression. Obviously, it did so because it knew that the Kashmir was a disputed state. And, issue of its integration with India or Pakistan remained to be resolved. Simla accord also preserves sanctity of UN resolutions.



Any state that flouts international resolutions is a rogue state (Noam Chomsky). Doubtless India qualifies as such.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## NKVD

Zibago said:


> The alienation of land act and state subject something law that prevents outsiders from getting nationality
> 
> Oh yes 60.000 in 20 years at the hands of the state and 50 days speak a lot about your commitment with Kashmiris and just to let you know Azad Kashmir has highest literacy rate in Pakistan i.e 75%


Ok Just do comparison between Educational Institutes both AJK and J&K you will Know there Quality 

60,000 Majority of them killed by Pakistani Paid Agents During 90s LEJ ,LET,Hizbul, etc


----------



## -xXx-

Zibago said:


> The will of the people who lived under a brutal dictatorship
> He did not represent the will of Muslims of his state why do you think rebellion broke put on Poonch?



I will take it as absence of legal argument. 

Rhetoric are very subjective and are open ended. I do not indulge in them.



PaklovesTurkiye said:


> They are demanding Plebiscite...They are demanding freedom not Shariah....



There are international laws which distinguish between a legitimate right of self determination and secession. 

I would recommend you to study the subject, come back then and argue how kashmiris have the right of self determination.

Did they have *de facto* right or *de jure* right. Or, were they granted that right in 47 or owe it.


----------



## AsianLion

-xXx- said:


> Indian presence is justified by the letter of accession which is legal as per Indian Independence Act 47. How do you justify Pakistani presence?
> 
> I hope you respect the act since it is the same act by virtue of which your country Pakistan was created.




Here is what happened to Kashmir Dispute in 1947 and how Indian presence is not justified, infact accession letter is fake:

There remained the problem of over 650 states, in India and Pakistan during partition. these princely states had the option of deciding which country to join, or of remaining independent. In practice, the restive population of each province proved decisive.

Because of its location, Kashmir could choose to join either India or Pakistan. Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of Kashmir, was Hindu while most of his subjects were Muslim. Unable to decide which nation Kashmir should join, Hari Singh chose to remain neutral.

Indian and Pakistani forces thus fought their first war over Kashmir in 1947-48. India referred the dispute to the United Nations on 1 January. In a resolution dated August 13, 1948, the UN asked Pakistan to remove its troops, after which India was also to withdraw the bulk of its forces.

Once this happened, a "free and fair" plebiscite was to be held to allow the Kashmiri people to decide their future.

India, having taken the issue to the UN, was confident of winning a plebiscite, since the most influential Kashmiri mass leader, Sheikh Abdullah, was firmly on its side. An emergency government was formed on October 30, 1948 with Sheikh Abdullah as the Prime Minister.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zibago

NKVD said:


> Ok Just do comparison between Educational Institutes both AJK and J&K you will Know there Quality
> 
> 60,000 Majority of them killed by Pakistani Paid Agents During 90s LEJ ,LET,Hizbul, etc


Nope majority of them taken out by the state



-xXx- said:


> I will take it as absence of legal argument.
> 
> Rhetoric are very subjective and are open ended. I do not indulge in them.
> 
> 
> 
> There are international laws which distinguish between a legitimate right of self determination and secession.
> 
> I would recommend you to study the subject, come back then and argue how kashmiris have the right of self determination.
> 
> Did they have *de facto* right or *de jure* right. Or, were they granted that right in 47 or owe it.


Think of him as the Bashar Al Assad of the 20,th century just like him a huge number of his Muslim soldiers actually defected to the rebels it was after they reached way into the valley did he sign off Kashmir to India

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AsianLion

RazaGujjar said:


> Renowned journalist Alastair Lamb regards the Instrument of Accession, ‘signed’ by the maharajah of Kashmir on October 26, 1947, as fraudulent (Kashmir – A disputed legacy 1846-1990). She argues that the maharajah was travelling by road to Jammu (a distance of over 350 km). How could he sign the instrument while being on the run for safety of his life? There is no evidence of any contact between him and the Indian emissaries on October 26, 1947.
> 
> Actually, it was on October 27, 1947 that the maharajah was informed by MC Mahajan and VP Menon (who had flown into Srinagar) that an Instrument of Accession is being fabricated in New Delhi. Obviously, the maharajah could not have signed the instrument earlier than October 27, 1947. The instrument remains null and void, even if the maharajah had actually signed it. The reason, as pointed out by Alastair is that the `signatures’ were obtained under coercion. Under law, any undertaking secured through coercion or duress is null and void. She points out Indian troops had already arrived at and secured Srinagar airfield during the middle of October 1947. On October 26, 1947, a further airlift of thousands of Indian troops to Kashmir took place. She questions: “Would the maharajah have signed the Instrument of Accession, had the Indian troops not been on Kashmiri soil?”
> 
> 
> 
> It is eerie to note that India has never shown the original `Instrument’ in any international forum. If India was truthful, it should have the temerity to present the document to Pakistan or to the UN. Isn’t it funny that, in the summer of 1995, the Indian authorities reported the original document as lost or stolen? This fact further beclouds authenticity of the document. India took the Kashmir issue to the UN in 1948 under article 35 of Chapter VI which outlines the means for a peaceful settlement of disputes. India avoiding presenting the Kashmir case under the UN Chapter VII which relates to acts of aggression. Obviously, it did so because it knew that the Kashmir was a disputed state. And, issue of its integration with India or Pakistan remained to be resolved. Simla accord also preserves sanctity of UN resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> Any state that flouts international resolutions is a rogue state (Noam Chomsky). Doubtless India qualifies as such.




Any state that flouts international resolutions is a rogue state (Noam Chomsky). 

India should be banned from United Nations, UN, It wants permanent security council seat, it should solve Kashmir dispute first.


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

-xXx- said:


> I will take it as absence of legal argument.
> 
> Rhetoric are very subjective and are open ended. I do not indulge in them.
> 
> 
> 
> There are international laws which distinguish between a legitimate right of self determination and secession.
> 
> I would recommend you to study the subject, come back then and argue how kashmiris have the right of self determination.
> 
> Did they have *de facto* right or *de jure* right. Or, were they granted that right in 47 or owe it.



U promised them Plebiscite.....Conduct it.....And put end to this 70 years cause of conflict.....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## -xXx-

AsianUnion said:


> Here is what happened to Kashmir Dispute in 1947 and how Indian presence is not justified:
> 
> There remained the problem of over 650 states, in India and Pakistan during partition. these princely states had the option of deciding which country to join, or of remaining independent. In practice, the restive population of each province proved decisive.
> 
> Because of its location, Kashmir could choose to join either India or Pakistan. Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of Kashmir, was Hindu while most of his subjects were Muslim. Unable to decide which nation Kashmir should join, Hari Singh chose to remain neutral.
> 
> Indian and Pakistani forces thus fought their first war over Kashmir in 1947-48. *India referred the dispute to the United Nations on 1 January. In a resolution dated August 13, 1948, the UN asked Pakistan to remove its troops, after which India was also to withdraw the bulk of its forces.*
> 
> *Once this happened, a "free and fair" plebiscite was to be held to allow the Kashmiri people to decide their future.*
> 
> India, having taken the issue to the UN, was confident of winning a plebiscite, since the most influential Kashmiri mass leader, Sheikh Abdullah, was firmly on its side. An emergency government was formed on October 30, 1948 with Sheikh Abdullah as the Prime Minister.



Travesty of history is what I would call this post.

Hari Singh did decide the fate and legally acceded to dominion of India. 

If India would have been partitioned based on religious majority, the Indian Independence Act would have been drafted accordingly and would not have given the right to prince.

Secondly, India was not averse to muslims and believe that we can co-exist, so joining of Kashmir with muslim majority was neither against the act, nor against the ideology of India.

Tell me what legal right Pakistan can quote to invade and raise a war?


----------



## NKVD

Zibago said:


> Nope majority of them taken out by the state



Yeas because if there Islamist Ideologies and Hate towards Minorities Basically hindus
Kashmiris Sunni Mullas can either choose to come up in life through education and jobs which the Indian government is willing to provide, or they can choose to constantly engage in terrorism and anarchy. They seem to choose and like the latter and suffer.

Shias i trust most they are Majority in my district Even visit there Shrine I am a devotee to Baba reshi
I Love Sufi culture of my state Which Once existed Now Its look Like a close Society With Wahabi Mullahs Running With ISIS flags

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## -xXx-

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> U promised them Plebiscite.....Conduct it.....And put end to this 70 years cause of conflict.....



Again back to square one.

We promised to a rationale society of 1947 and a province of J&K, GB, Laddakh which is free of Pakistan and any external influence.

Time has changed, so as our plan.


----------



## Tamilnadu

Zibago said:


> Nope majority of them taken out by the state
> 
> 
> Think of him as the Bashar Al Assad of the 20,th century just like him a huge number of his Muslim soldiers actually defected to the rebels it was after they reached way into the valley did he sign off Kashmir to India


Who sheltered and trained these terrorists,and how come punjabis from Pakistan getting killed carrying AK 47s ,and why no one picked up arms till late 80s. Pakistanies tarnished the kashmiri struggle if there was one even tiny at that time by adding guns and religion into it.


----------



## -xXx-

RazaGujjar said:


> *Renowned journalist *Alastair Lamb regards the Instrument of Accession, ‘signed’ by the maharajah of Kashmir on October 26, 1947, as fraudulent .



When did journalist becomes the jury? The letter of accession and its validity was never contested and considered valid in every argument conducted ever in any forum.

Hence I shall not put my efforts in discussing something based on hearsay. We have enough proven content to ponder on.

Thank you.


----------



## AsianLion

chanakya84 said:


> Let me tell you how this works
> 
> Keep supporting banned terrorist groups, we will not do anything we will just let the world see what you have been doing. Then we will show how these terrorist groups endorse other terrorist groups which are prevalant in other countries.... Oh wait Pakistan has nukes. We wont have to fire a single bullet. What you guys are doing is, "Apni kabra khud khodna"
> 
> Really you guys suck in politics and diplomacy. Dont you guys have IAS kinda exams for diplomats or something?




Actually India and Indian govt really sucks in politics and diplomacy and even in media propaganda, thats why India and its media keep getting humiliated.

While India keep supporting terror extremists groups like RSS, Bajrang, Dal, Shiva Sena etc etc, Pakistan will make sure to bleed India while raising the voice for the rights of Kashmirs to independent Kashmir state.

Kashmir State is a reality. Kashmir is going to be the next country...it take 1 day, 1 month, 10 years or 100 years, Kashmir will keep the 700,000 Indian army bleeding economically. 

India spent $ 21 Billion in Jammu and Kashmir and with the recent increase in violence and uprising in Kashmir, the cost is going to escalate even higher...Indian blood treasure all lost and keep on escalating in Kashmir valley.

http://www.kashmirnewz.com/n000272.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## -xXx-

Zibago said:


> Think of him as the Bashar Al Assad of the 20,th century just like him a huge number of his Muslim soldiers actually defected to the rebels it was after they reached way into the valley did he sign off Kashmir to India



Quote me the law which render his act illegal or his crown was declared null and void?

He willfully signed the instrument of accession from a legal position of prince.

Unlike the khan of kalat who was bought to Karachi after an invasion, and was forced to sign a document whose even existence and authenticity is questionable.

Not to forget the Jinnah assurance to Khan of kalat on Aug 4, 1947.


----------



## Zibago

NKVD said:


> Yeas because if there Islamist Ideologies and Hate towards Minorities Basically hindus
> Kashmiris Sunni Mullas can either choose to come up in life through education and jobs which the Indian government is willing to provide, or they can choose to constantly engage in terrorism and anarchy. They seem to choose and like the latter and suffer.
> 
> Shias i trust most they are Majority in my district Even visit there Shrine I am a devotee to Baba reshi
> I Love Sufi culture of my state Which Once existed Now Its look Like a close Society With Wahabi Mullahs Running With ISIS flags


Nope they were taken out for being against Indian rule in Kashmir


----------



## -xXx-

AsianUnion said:


> While India keep supporting *terror extremists groups like RSS, Bajrang, Dal, Shiva Sena etc etc*, Pakistan will make sure to bleed India while raising the voice for the rights of Kashmirs to independent Kashmir state.



That's why your argument falls flat on ears of international community.

Quote me when these organisations are counted as terrorist one ever in UNSC/UN/US/EU or even in Pakistan. Are they declared terror group even by your own country?

Why you have to argument like this?


----------



## Zibago

-xXx- said:


> Quote me the law which render his act illegal or his crown was declared null and void?
> 
> He willfully signed the instrument of accession from a legal position of prince.
> 
> Unlike the khan of kalat who was bought to Karachi after an invasion, and was forced to sign a document whose even existence and authenticity is questionable.
> 
> Not to forget the Jinnah assurance to Khan of kalat on Aug 4, 1947.


Its illegal to challenge Bashar Al Assad in Syria but many states support it right?
Why because he is a brutal dictator and other than Alawites no one listens to him it was same situation in pre partition Kashmir only Hindus and Sikhs supported dograsdogras

First decide are we discussing Kashmir or Balochistan?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## NKVD

Zibago said:


> Nope they were taken out for being against Indian rule in Kashmir


Then you Know nothing about Kashmir State kashmir is much Worse than Pakistan in terms of Extremism it a time bomb


----------



## AsianLion

-xXx- said:


> Hari Singh did decide the fate and legally acceded to dominion of India.





Show me accession letter, if at all it exists, lol. Where is the proof?

The so called Accession letter does not exist, it is fraudulent and even if it exists, it has no basis, when 99% Kashmir muslims wanted to join Pakistan, and only Pakistan. OKAY Let's put the issue at rest by doing a Kashmir referendum, a plebiscite, lets hear what kashmiris want to say. we have no issue, India keeps bleeding for another 100 years.


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

-xXx- said:


> Again back to square one.
> 
> We promised to a rationale society of 1947 and a province of J&K, GB, Laddakh which is free of Pakistan and any external influence.
> 
> Time has changed, so as our plan.



So...Instead of running and saying Kashmir India's internal matter nonsense......Make confidence building measures with Pakistan on Kashmir so that we can without any hesitation remove our troops from Kashmir and then u can continue plebiscite......

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## -xXx-

Zibago said:


> Its illegal to challenge Bashar Al Assad in Syria but many states support it right?
> Why because he is a brutal dictator and other than Alawites no one listens to him it was same situation in pre partition Kashmir only Hindus and Sikhs supported dograsdogras



Has UN mandated an action against Assad? If not, those who are acting against him are wrong.



> First decide are we discussing Kashmir or Balochistan?



Just like we are not discussing Syria here but you are referencing to justify your claim, I can surely use Kalat example to pass on my argument. Isn't it?



AsianUnion said:


> Show me accession letter, if at all it exists, lol. Where is the proof?
> 
> The so called Accession letter does not exist, it is fraudulent and even if it exists, it has no basis, when 99% Kashmir muslims wanted to join Pakistan, and only Pakistan. OKAY Let's put the issue at rest by doing a Kashmir referendum, a plebiscite, lets hear what kashmiris want to say. we have no issue, India keeps bleeding for another 100 years.



Just because you say so. 

It has the basis because it is legal as per Indian Independence Act 1947. If that act is not legal, the creation of Pakistan become illegal. So think before you argue.

I can sense I wont get any more legal, verifiable and tangible argument from you anymore.

So lets disconnect.

Thank You.



PaklovesTurkiye said:


> *Make confidence building measures with Pakistan on Kashmir so that we can without any hesitation remove our troops from Kashmir *and then u can continue plebiscite......



That's impossible and you know that. 

If such relations could ever be achieved, believe me neither you, nor me and nor kashmiris would bother about plebiscite and be happy wherever they are.

The amount of distrust cause the partition, we will always be skeptical about each other.

Sad but true.


----------



## Kaniska

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> U r running away from Kashmir issue...Whenever Pakistan tries to approach Kashmir issue with Indians. They ran away from it.....U expect us to move out our forces so that you can move in and start brutalizing Azad Kashmir just like you are oppressing Kashmiris in Indian occupied Kashmir....To make Pakistani forces out, we will have agreement of some sort of understanding. We just can't move our forces out of Kashmir without any prior agreement with India.....And...India is not at all serious regarding Kashmir....So How we can take unilaterally our forces out of KASHMIR?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...you are having peace.....Peace of Graveyard...
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how u spin it....Kashmiris are highly educated folks. They are being radicalized due to your oppression, not their fault. If you will see your mother and sister getting raped and touched, you will go mad to who ever does that....you call them religious fanatics? Don't know about them but I can tell you who are religious fanatics and where they are ruling......The religious fanatics are ruling India's capital New Delhi......
> 
> Who are RSS? Sanghis? Bakhts? the ones who r ruling India. What is their background?
> 
> U really sucks at your propaganda
> 
> They are not religious fanatics....thats why those poor chaps are protesting, practicing their democratic right to demand freedom....
> 
> 
> *
> It was illusion until I saw Kashmiris on streets and asking India to demand freedom and plebiscite...*.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about that but you propaganda will not sell here. U are trying to portray all Kashmiris are fine with you except Wahabis......which is hell not true.....



Agreed...You should appriciate us that we not bombing our own citizens like Pakistan allows US and West to bomb their own citizen in Western Border...We do not kill by using fighter jets like you killed leaders in Balochistan...If we could have followed so many things that Pakistan is doing for its own separatist movement, history of Kashmir valley could have been different...

So just in a rational mind think for a moment, who is insane here, a nation who bombs and allow foreign power to use drones to strike its own citizens or a country that allows dissidents to express their opinion on the street although it means getting separated from my country...


----------



## AsianLion

-xXx- said:


> Just because you say so.
> 
> It has the basis because it is legal as per Indian Independence Act 1947. If that act is not legal, the creation of Pakistan become illegal. So think before you argue.
> 
> I can sense I wont get any more legal, verifiable and tangible argument from you anymore.
> 
> So lets disconnect.
> 
> Thank You.




Read it when you are not desperate, this is what it says, the accession letter first is either lost, doesnot exist, or fraudlent.

anyway:

Renowned journalist Alastair Lamb regards the Instrument of Accession, ‘signed’ by the maharajah of Kashmir on October 26, 1947, as fraudulent (Kashmir – A disputed legacy 1846-1990). She argues that the maharajah was travelling by road to Jammu (a distance of over 350 km). How could he sign the instrument while being on the run for safety of his life? There is no evidence of any contact between him and the Indian emissaries on October 26, 1947.

Actually, it was on October 27, 1947 that the maharajah was informed by MC Mahajan and VP Menon (who had flown into Srinagar) that an Instrument of Accession is being fabricated in New Delhi. Obviously, the maharajah could not have signed the instrument earlier than October 27, 1947. The instrument remains null and void, even if the maharajah had actually signed it. The reason, as pointed out by Alastair is that the `signatures’ were obtained under coercion. Under law, any undertaking secured through coercion or duress is null and void. She points out Indian troops had already arrived at and secured Srinagar airfield during the middle of October 1947. On October 26, 1947, a further airlift of thousands of Indian troops to Kashmir took place. She questions: “Would the maharajah have signed the Instrument of Accession, had the Indian troops not been on Kashmiri soil?”


*It is eerie to note that India has never shown the original `Instrument’ in any international forum.* If India was truthful, it should have the temerity to present the document to Pakistan or to the UN. Isn’t it funny that, in the summer of 1995, the Indian authorities reported the original document as lost or stolen? This fact further beclouds authenticity of the document. India took the Kashmir issue to the UN in 1948 under article 35 of Chapter VI which outlines the means for a peaceful settlement of disputes. India avoiding presenting the Kashmir case under the UN Chapter VII which relates to acts of aggression. Obviously, it did so because it knew that the Kashmir was a disputed state. And, issue of its integration with India or Pakistan remained to be resolved. Simla accord also preserves sanctity of UN resolutions.


Fact is UN should ban India, it has flouted broken, the UN resoultions. India is a rogue state.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## -xXx-

AsianUnion said:


> Read it when you are not desperate, this is what it says, the accession letter first is either lost, doesnot exist, or fraudlent.
> 
> anyway:
> 
> *Renowned journalist Alastair Lamb* regards the Instrument of Accession, ‘signed’ by the maharajah of Kashmir on October 26, 1947, as fraudulent (Kashmir – A disputed legacy 1846-1990). She argues that the maharajah was travelling by road to Jammu (a distance of over 350 km). How could he sign the instrument while being on the run for safety of his life? There is no evidence of any contact between him and the Indian emissaries on October 26, 1947.
> 
> Actually, it was on October 27, 1947 that the maharajah was informed by MC Mahajan and VP Menon (who had flown into Srinagar) that an Instrument of Accession is being fabricated in New Delhi. Obviously, the maharajah could not have signed the instrument earlier than October 27, 1947. The instrument remains null and void, even if the maharajah had actually signed it. The reason, as pointed out by Alastair is that the `signatures’ were obtained under coercion. Under law, any undertaking secured through coercion or duress is null and void. She points out Indian troops had already arrived at and secured Srinagar airfield during the middle of October 1947. On October 26, 1947, a further airlift of thousands of Indian troops to Kashmir took place. She questions: “Would the maharajah have signed the Instrument of Accession, had the Indian troops not been on Kashmiri soil?”
> 
> 
> *It is eerie to note that India has never shown the original `Instrument’ in any international forum.* If India was truthful, it should have the temerity to present the document to Pakistan or to the UN. Isn’t it funny that, in the summer of 1995, the Indian authorities reported the original document as lost or stolen? This fact further beclouds authenticity of the document. India took the Kashmir issue to the UN in 1948 under article 35 of Chapter VI which outlines the means for a peaceful settlement of disputes. India avoiding presenting the Kashmir case under the UN Chapter VII which relates to acts of aggression. Obviously, it did so because it knew that the Kashmir was a disputed state. And, issue of its integration with India or Pakistan remained to be resolved. Simla accord also preserves sanctity of UN resolutions.
> 
> 
> Fact is UN should ban India, it has flouted broken, the UN resoultions. India is a rogue state.



Cross posting my own post again -

When did journalist becomes the jury? The letter of accession and its validity was never contested and considered valid in every argument conducted ever in any forum.

Can you quote me any UN reading where the instrument of accession is counted invalid and fake? If that was true, you know India would simply be asked to leave hell out of kashmir and Kashmir would have been declared free, with Maharaja given the right again to chose? 

Hence I shall not put my efforts in discussing something based on hearsay. We have enough proven content to ponder on.

Thank you


----------



## AsianLion

-xXx- said:


> That's why your argument falls flat on ears of international community.
> 
> Quote me when these organisations are counted as terrorist one ever in UNSC/UN/US/EU or even in Pakistan. Are they declared terror group even by your own country?
> 
> Why you have to argument like this?




lol, leave Pakistan aside calling RSS etc terror group, your own country men and America has labelled Hindu Groups as terrorist organisations:

*RSS India's number 1 terror group: Former Mumbai police officer*
IANS

KOLKATA: Claiming that the activists of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) have been indicted in at least 13 terror cases across India, former Maharashtra inspector general of police S M Mushrif on Thursday described t*he BJP's ideological mentor as India's number one terrorist organisation.*

"RSS activists have been chargesheeted in at least 13 cases of terror acts in which RDX has been used. If organisations like Bajrang Dal are taken into the account, then the number of such cases goes up to 17," Mushrif said at an event in Kolkata.

*"The RSS is India's number one terrorist organisation, there is no doubt on this," said Mushrif, referring to the 2007 Mecca Masjid bombing in Hyderabad, the 2006 and 2008 Malegaon blasts in Maharashtra and the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings among others.*

Mushrif, however, asserted that *"saffron terror" *had no bearing on which party was in power.

*
"The RSS as a terror organisation has nothing to do with political power. It is immaterial which party is in power. It is the system that is working, it's the Brahminical system. And when I say Brahminical, it doesn't mean the Brahmin, it's the mentality, the attitude to dominate and oppress," he said.

However, Mushrif was not in agreement with the view that intolerance was rising in recent times. "Intolerance has been going on for a long time. There have been many severe bigger incidents earlier, I don't understand why it is being highlighted now,"* he asked.

*Reiterating his claims that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) masterminded the killing of Hemant Karkare, who was probing the involvement of Hindu radicals in terror acts, during the Mumbai terror attack in 2008, Mushrif called for a people's movement to establish the truth behind the killing of the Mumbai Anti-Terrorism Squad chief.*

"There is clinching evidence about the IB's involvement but all efforts to establish that have been defeated. Our efforts to call for an independent probe have always been defeated. Unless there is a massive public movement, this will never be established," said Mushrif, who made the sensational claims in his book "Who Killed Karkare".

Mushrif, along with national award winning music director and former Trinamool Lok Sabha member Kabir Suman, was speaking at an event to commemorate Karkare's martyrdom.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...umbai-police-officer/articleshow/49943534.cms


*America enlisted RSS in one of the Biggest Terrorist Organisation in the World*

in National 8 Comments

A US-based risk management and consulting company has put the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in its category of ‘Threat Group’ and called it “a shadowy, discriminatory group that seeks to establish a Hindu Rashtra, a Hindu Nation.”

Terrorism Watch & Warning provides intelligence, research, analysis, watch and warning on international terrorism and domestic terrorism related issues; and is operated by OODA Group LLC that helps clients identify, manage, and respond to global risks and uncertainties while exploring emerging opportunities and developing robust and adaptive strategies for the future.

Although the company had included RSS in its ‘Threat Group’ in April 2014, the post seems to have been modified after the BJP led government assumed power at the Centre. Apart from the RSS, Terrorism Watch has also put Naxalites, People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) among others in the category of ‘Threat Group’.

The websites* describes*: “The RSS is a shadowy, discriminatory group that seeks to establish a Hindu Rashtra, a Hindu Nation. The group is considered the radical ideological parent group of India’s ruling Hindu nationalist party – the Indian Peoples Party (BJP).”

“The RSS is a Hindu nationalist movement, a right wing group that was founded in 1925. Their philosophy, called Hindutva, was termed fascist by Communists, and their main demand of the central government was that it stop appeasing Muslims,” the description continues, adding, “Hindutva has been translated to mean variously: Hindu pride, patriotism, fundamentalism, revivalism, chauvinism, or fascism. The group self-justifies by ‘asserting the natural rights’.”

In its ‘Intel analysis,’ it further adds, “The RSS was banned in 1948 following the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by an ex-RSS member, Nathuram Godse. The ban was lifted the following year. Since then, the group has gained popularity. It later began the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), widely considered the political arm of the RSS, which now heads the central government of India.”







Describing violence as ‘Group Activities’ for the RSS, the site further says, “Violence has been a strategy for the Sangh movement. It is often couched as a method of self-defense against minority groups. Hindutva has been clear about the need for violence, particularly communal riots. The Sangh has incited rioting to cause further chasms between religions, and thus a further separation of religions, and to rally the Hindu community around the philosophy of Hindutva.”

The Terrorism Watch & Warning database contains over 1,00,000 Open source intelligence (OSINT) excerpts from 1999 to present on terrorism and security related issues, attack database of over 10,000 attacks, original terrorism analysis, terrorism document repository, Homeland Security Fact Sheets and profiles over 500 Terrorist/Threat Groups.

http://www.assam123.com/america-enlisted-rss-one-biggest-terrorist-organisation-world/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

Kaniska said:


> Agreed...You should appriciate us that we not bombing our own citizens like Pakistan allows US and West to bomb their own citizen in Western Border...We do not kill by using fighter jets like you killed leaders in Balochistan...If we could have followed so many things that Pakistan is doing for its own separatist movement, history of Kashmir valley could have been different...
> 
> So just in a rational mind think for a moment, who is insane here, a nation who bombs and allow foreign power to use drones to strike its own citizens or a country that allows dissidents to express their opinion on the street although it means getting separated from my country...



U r bringing non issue here....I can say IAF bombed north and north east of India to crush Christian Insurgency....We are bombing Taliban, against whom whole world is fighting....

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...-dirty-little-secret/articleshow/18565883.cms


----------



## -xXx-

AsianUnion said:


> lol, leave Pakistan aside calling RSS etc terror group, your own country men and America has labelled Hindu Groups as terrorist organisations:
> 
> *RSS India's number 1 terror group: Former Mumbai police officer*
> IANS
> 
> KOLKATA: Claiming that the activists of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) have been indicted in at least 13 terror cases across India, former Maharashtra inspector general of police S M Mushrif on Thursday described the BJP's ideological mentor as India's number one terrorist organisation.
> 
> "RSS activists have been chargesheeted in at least 13 cases of terror acts in which RDX has been used. If organisations like Bajrang Dal are taken into the account, then the number of such cases goes up to 17," Mushrif said at an event in Kolkata.
> 
> "The RSS is India's number one terrorist organisation, there is no doubt on this," said Mushrif, referring to the 2007 Mecca Masjid bombing in Hyderabad, the 2006 and 2008 Malegaon blasts in Maharashtra and the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings among others.
> 
> Mushrif, however, asserted that "saffron terror" had no bearing on which party was in power.
> 
> 
> "The RSS as a terror organisation has nothing to do with political power. It is immaterial which party is in power. It is the system that is working, it's the Brahminical system. And when I say Brahminical, it doesn't mean the Brahmin, it's the mentality, the attitude to dominate and oppress," he said.
> However, Mushrif was not in agreement with the view that intolerance was rising in recent times. "Intolerance has been going on for a long time. There have been many severe bigger incidents earlier, I don't understand why it is being highlighted now," he asked.
> 
> Reiterating his claims that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) masterminded the killing of Hemant Karkare, who was probing the involvement of Hindu radicals in terror acts, during the Mumbai terror attack in 2008, Mushrif called for a people's movement to establish the truth behind the killing of the Mumbai Anti-Terrorism Squad chief.
> 
> "There is clinching evidence about the IB's involvement but all efforts to establish that have been defeated. Our efforts to call for an independent probe have always been defeated. Unless there is a massive public movement, this will never be established," said Mushrif, who made the sensational claims in his book "Who Killed Karkare".
> 
> Mushrif, along with national award winning music director and former Trinamool Lok Sabha member Kabir Suman, was speaking at an event to commemorate Karkare's martyrdom.
> 
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...umbai-police-officer/articleshow/49943534.cms
> 
> 
> *America enlisted RSS in one of the Biggest Terrorist Organisation in the World*
> 
> in National 8 Comments
> 
> A US-based risk management and consulting company has put the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in its category of ‘Threat Group’ and called it “a shadowy, discriminatory group that seeks to establish a Hindu Rashtra, a Hindu Nation.”
> 
> Terrorism Watch & Warning provides intelligence, research, analysis, watch and warning on international terrorism and domestic terrorism related issues; and is operated by OODA Group LLC that helps clients identify, manage, and respond to global risks and uncertainties while exploring emerging opportunities and developing robust and adaptive strategies for the future.
> 
> Although the company had included RSS in its ‘Threat Group’ in April 2014, the post seems to have been modified after the BJP led government assumed power at the Centre. Apart from the RSS, Terrorism Watch has also put Naxalites, People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) among others in the category of ‘Threat Group’.
> 
> The websites* describes*: “The RSS is a shadowy, discriminatory group that seeks to establish a Hindu Rashtra, a Hindu Nation. The group is considered the radical ideological parent group of India’s ruling Hindu nationalist party – the Indian Peoples Party (BJP).”
> 
> “The RSS is a Hindu nationalist movement, a right wing group that was founded in 1925. Their philosophy, called Hindutva, was termed fascist by Communists, and their main demand of the central government was that it stop appeasing Muslims,” the description continues, adding, “Hindutva has been translated to mean variously: Hindu pride, patriotism, fundamentalism, revivalism, chauvinism, or fascism. The group self-justifies by ‘asserting the natural rights’.”
> 
> In its ‘Intel analysis,’ it further adds, “The RSS was banned in 1948 following the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by an ex-RSS member, Nathuram Godse. The ban was lifted the following year. Since then, the group has gained popularity. It later began the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), widely considered the political arm of the RSS, which now heads the central government of India.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Describing violence as ‘Group Activities’ for the RSS, the site further says, “Violence has been a strategy for the Sangh movement. It is often couched as a method of self-defense against minority groups. Hindutva has been clear about the need for violence, particularly communal riots. The Sangh has incited rioting to cause further chasms between religions, and thus a further separation of religions, and to rally the Hindu community around the philosophy of Hindutva.”
> 
> The Terrorism Watch & Warning database contains over 1,00,000 Open source intelligence (OSINT) excerpts from 1999 to present on terrorism and security related issues, attack database of over 10,000 attacks, original terrorism analysis, terrorism document repository, Homeland Security Fact Sheets and profiles over 500 Terrorist/Threat Groups.
> 
> http://www.assam123.com/america-enlisted-rss-one-biggest-terrorist-organisation-world/



You are getting funnier by each post. 

*About your first link: * RSS is political entity (not technically but in reality it is) and thus subject to individual criticism. The person you quoted has no judicial or legal authority to say so. So his accusations can only be lebeled as his personal opinion.

*About your second link: * So funny that a private institute of US has said something and you come up jumping with joy as if US state has declared RSS as terror organisation.


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

-xXx- said:


> That's impossible and you know that.
> 
> If such relations could ever be achieved, believe me neither you, nor me and nor kashmiris would bother about plebiscite and be happy wherever they are.
> 
> The amount of distrust cause the partition, we will always be skeptical about each other.
> 
> Sad but true.



hmm.....


----------



## AsianLion

-xXx- said:


> You are getting funnier by each post.
> 
> *About your first link: * RSS is political entity (not technically but in reality it is) and thus subject to individual criticism. The person you quoted has no judicial or legal authority to say so. So his accusations can only be lebeled as his personal opinion.
> 
> *About your second link: * So funny that a private institute of US has said something and you come up jumping with joy as if US state has declared RSS as terror organisation.




*FIRST:* The Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) is not a political outfit. As per your Vajpayee ji 'It is a cultural and social organisation and I do not think objection should be raised on anybody joining it, said Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.

RSS political or not, doesnot matter, like in Pakistan MQM political or not, doesnot matter, RSS is a Hindutva terror group. RSS killed the officer who was investigating the Samjota Express, which killed many innocent Pakistanis. RSS terror is everywhere, RSS lives on Hindu sponsored terror, even Sikhs call RSS, Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena has certified terror groups.

The Police officer is not a individual infact a Mumbai state Police Office responsible , who labels Indias biggest terror group as The RSS, the India's number one terrorist organisation, there is no doubt on this," said Mushrif, referring to the 2007 Mecca Masjid bombing in Hyderabad, the 2006 and 2008 Malegaon blasts in Maharashtra and the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings among others.

*SECOND: *The Terrorism Watch & Warning database contains over 1,00,000 Open source intelligence (OSINT) excerpts from 1999 to present on terrorism and security related issues, attack database of over 10,000 attacks, original terrorism analysis, terrorism document repository, Homeland Security Fact Sheets and profiles over 500 Terrorist/Threat Groups. These are US government sponsored and endorsed think tanks. RSS assasinated Gandhi and has been involved in terrorist activities for 100 years even before India became independent.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/terrorist-rss.77802/#ixzz4ITPriRnT

I feel you are the banned member @starwars.
@waz @Horus


----------



## Anees



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Skull and Bones

We need to settle the Kashmir pandits back to their homeland.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Anees




----------



## AsianLion

Anees said:


>




If true, go ask the Azad kashmir Prime Minister, Azad kashmir government, Pakistan is responsible for Defence, Communications and Currency matters. If women in Azad kashmir are doing this, it has to be catered for, Pakistan can raise this issue, not a big issue. This is exactly what the anchors and people in program say, go ask the PM of Azad Kashmir.

As the anchor said, Azad kashmir need to first get it AZAD by Pakistan's help.


----------



## -xXx-

AsianUnion said:


> *FIRST:* The Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) is not a political outfit. As per your Vajpayee ji 'It is a cultural and social organisation and I do not think objection should be raised on anybody joining it, said Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.
> 
> RSS political or not, doesnot matter, like in Pakistan MQM political or not, doesnot matter, RSS is a Hindutva terror group. RSS killed the officer who was investigating the Samjota Express, which killed many innocent Pakistanis. RSS terror is everywhere, RSS lives on Hindu sponsored terror, even Sikhs call RSS, Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena has certified terror groups.
> 
> The Police officer is not a individual infact a Mumbai state Police Office responsible , who labels Indias biggest terror group as The RSS, the India's number one terrorist organisation, there is no doubt on this," said Mushrif, referring to the 2007 Mecca Masjid bombing in Hyderabad, the 2006 and 2008 Malegaon blasts in Maharashtra and the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings among others.
> 
> *SECOND: *The Terrorism Watch & Warning database contains over 1,00,000 Open source intelligence (OSINT) excerpts from 1999 to present on terrorism and security related issues, attack database of over 10,000 attacks, original terrorism analysis, terrorism document repository, Homeland Security Fact Sheets and profiles over 500 Terrorist/Threat Groups. These are US government sponsored and endorsed think tanks. RSS assasinated Gandhi and has been involved in terrorist activities for 100 years even before India became independent.
> 
> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/terrorist-rss.77802/#ixzz4ITPriRnT



What's your age?

*FIRST:* I specifically said RSS is not political, technically, but in reality it has political influence in form of BJP. Can you read that?

Now whether its political or not, RSS is not listed as terror organization in any relevant forum of this world. So stop bullshitting and come up with proof.

1- Is it listed in UN as terror org?
2- Is it listed in Pakistan as terror org?
3- Is it listed in India as terror org?

If not, excuse yourself and no need to quote me back with more rubbish of yours.

*SECOND: *Quote me official US reading which says RSS is terror organisation. Here is the official list
*http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
*
Rahul Gandhi of Congress 2 days back, in a court hearing, back track from his statement which accused RSS of being Gandhi's assassin. Gandhi was father of Indian nation and if Indian courts do not consider RSS as his killer, who are you to say that?

If you have no logical argument with proper citation, please excuse me and engage someone with your mentality, capacity and attitude.



> I feel you are the banned member @starwars.



You are funny. 

@Star Wars who ever you are, Hi to you.


----------



## AsianLion

-xXx- said:


> What's your age?
> 
> *FIRST:* I specifically said RSS is not political, technically, but in reality it has political influence in form of BJP. Can you read that?
> 
> Now whether its political or not, RSS is not listed as terror organization in any relevant forum of this world. So stop bullshitting and come up with proof.
> 
> 1- Is it listed in UN as terror org?
> 2- Is it listed in Pakistan as terror org?
> 3- Is it listed in India as terror org?
> 
> If not, excuse yourself and no need to quote me back with more rubbish of yours.
> 
> *SECOND: *Quote me official US reading which says RSS is terror organisation. Here is the official list
> *http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
> *
> Rahul Gandhi of Congress 2 days back, in a court hearing, back track from his statement which accused RSS of being Gandhi's assassin. Gandhi was father of Indian nation and if Indian courts do not consider RSS as his killer, who are you to say that?
> 
> If you have no logical argument with proper citation, please excuse me and engage someone with your mentality, capacity and attitude.
> 
> You are funny.




Hey desperate Indian: 

FIRST:

So anything that UN lists becomes a terror organization when is India start following UN, when India considers UN legitimate, what about Kashmir UN Resolutions. Why not implement that. How about listing US, UK, Syria, Isreal has UN designated terror countries,? lol. As I said Indian own law and order state Maharashtra consider RSS, Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena as terror organisation, am not bringing Kashmir, Or Pakistan or any other Muslim country yet.

SECOND:

Again: The Terrorism Watch & Warning database contains over 1,00,000 Open source intelligence (OSINT) excerpts from 1999 to present on terrorism and security related issues, attack database of over 10,000 attacks, original terrorism analysis, terrorism document repository, Homeland Security Fact Sheets and profiles over 500 Terrorist/Threat Groups. These are US government sponsored and endorsed think tanks


----------



## chanakya84

AsianUnion said:


> Actually India and Indian govt really sucks in politics and diplomacy and even in media propaganda, thats why India and its media keep getting humiliated.
> 
> While India keep supporting terror extremists groups like RSS, Bajrang, Dal, Shiva Sena etc etc, Pakistan will make sure to bleed India while raising the voice for the rights of Kashmirs to independent Kashmir state.
> 
> Kashmir State is a reality. Kashmir is going to be the next country...it take 1 day, 1 month, 10 years or 100 years, Kashmir will keep the 700,000 Indian army bleeding economically.
> 
> India spent $ 21 Billion in Jammu and Kashmir and with the recent increase in violence and uprising in Kashmir, the cost is going to escalate even higher...Indian blood treasure all lost and keep on escalating in Kashmir valley.
> 
> http://www.kashmirnewz.com/n000272.html


Please continue.... Please continue to keep supporting terrorist groups. You have already waited for 70 years, we will make sure that you continue to wait. 

At the same time i am not sure where you got the the figure of 21 billion defense spendings. Only if you would have read the link which you have posted. a big LOL

_"The government in Indian administered Kashmir today said that the cumulative spending will reach $ 21 billion in the next fiscal year.In the last five years including the current fiscal, and the next financial year, we would have spent around Rs 87,000 Crore ($ 21.75 b) and raised approximately INR 80,000 crore ($ 20 b)."
_
So dude this is the budget of the entire state not the budget of the army. LOL. we have a 2 trillion economy hope you are not forgetting that. UP has a budget of 51 billion. Come again??

And for your pipe dreams of doing russia on India lol our defense spendings are just 1.7 percent of GDP which is way lower than yours and China.

Most of the rant of your answer is more of emotional not substantial. India has still not brought out big guns where it is trying to assimilate dissenting factors and giving them a chance. Once that moment has been passed you will see what it means to be "handled by the army".


----------



## AsianLion

*ENGINEER RASHID ON PRESENT SITUATION IN KASHMIR WITH SYED ROUF:*


----------



## chanakya84

AsianUnion said:


> Hey desperate Indian:
> 
> FIRST:
> 
> So anything that UN lists becomes a terror organization when is India start following UN, when India considers UN legitimate, what about Kashmir UN Resolutions. Why not implement that. How about listing US, UK, Syria, Isreal has UN designated terror countries,? lol. As I said Indian own law and order state Maharashtra consider RSS, Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena as terror organisation, am not bringing Kashmir, Or Pakistan or any other Muslim country yet.
> 
> SECOND:
> 
> Again: The Terrorism Watch & Warning database contains over 1,00,000 Open source intelligence (OSINT) excerpts from 1999 to present on terrorism and security related issues, attack database of over 10,000 attacks, original terrorism analysis, terrorism document repository, Homeland Security Fact Sheets and profiles over 500 Terrorist/Threat Groups. These are US government sponsored and endorsed think tanks


we are ready for Kashmir resolution. 

So when are you handing over your side of illegally occupied Kashmir back to india to start with?


----------



## -xXx-

AsianUnion said:


> Hey desperate Indian:
> 
> FIRST:
> 
> So anything that UN lists becomes a terror organization when is India start following UN, when India considers UN legitimate, what about Kashmir UN Resolutions. Why not implement that. How about listing US, UK, Syria, Isreal has UN designated terror countries,? lol. As I said Indian own law and order state Maharashtra consider RSS, Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena as terror organisation, am not bringing Kashmir, Or Pakistan or any other Muslim country yet.
> 
> SECOND:
> 
> Again: The Terrorism Watch & Warning database contains over 1,00,000 Open source intelligence (OSINT) excerpts from 1999 to present on terrorism and security related issues, attack database of over 10,000 attacks, original terrorism analysis, terrorism document repository, Homeland Security Fact Sheets and profiles over 500 Terrorist/Threat Groups. These are US government sponsored and endorsed think tanks



FIRST: No legal authority, *not even Pakistani*, call RSS a terrorist organisation. 

I am not sure why I am wasting my time on a fanboy here. 

SECOND: This database could not convince the US to list RSS as terror organisation along with many terror organisation from Pakistan it has listed. 

I got you. You have got nothing from any legal org from UN, US, UK, EU, Russian, Chinese or *even Pakistani . *You are a warrior who has got private firms, individual opinions which are politically influenced, and you tube videos as his armaments. 

Thus, from now on wards, *you are ignored*.

Thank you.



chanakya84 said:


> we are ready for Kashmir resolution.
> 
> So when are you handing over your side of illegally occupied Kashmir back to india to start with?



Brace yourself for you tube videos and rhetoric. 

How dare you talk logic.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AsianLion

chanakya84 said:


> Please continue.... Please continue to keep supporting terrorist groups. You have already waited for 70 years, we will make sure that you continue to wait.
> 
> At the same time i am not sure where you got the the figure of 21 billion defense spendings. Only if you would have read the link which you have posted. a big LOL
> 
> _"The government in Indian administered Kashmir today said that the cumulative spending will reach $ 21 billion in the next fiscal year.In the last five years including the current fiscal, and the next financial year, we would have spent around Rs 87,000 Crore ($ 21.75 b) and raised approximately INR 80,000 crore ($ 20 b)." _



India spends billions and billions to occupy Jammu and Kashmir, nearly 50% of Indian army is in Kashmir. Actually the figures are much higher how much Kashmir is bleeding Indian forces and its strains on economy.
When did I ever said that $21 Billion is what India spend in arms to control Jammu and Kashmir, I said this $21 you spend is all lost any way, this includes the minimum u spend on development in Kashmir.


At least four corps of the Indian army, corps III and IV in the north-east and XV and XVI (the largest of them) in Jammu and Kashmir, are engaged in internal security operations. Eighty per cent of the nearly one million-strong CPMFs are deployed for internal duties. For instance, the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) has 85 battalions fighting Maoists and 62 battalions in Jammu and Kashmir. *To put it another way, more than 50% of the armed forces are engaged*, one way or another, in internal security. There are ways to prevent conflicts escalating into physical fights. And even if a fight breaks out, it is possible to prevent it from escalating through means other than military. Could exploring other options have prevented augmentation of the armed forces?

_
http://www.sacw.net/article4786.html

_
*Indian Army's Intelligence Spending in Kashmir Surfaces | Media Point : *

*http://www.mediapoint.pk/indian-armys-intelligence-spending-in-kashmir-surfaces/*


----------



## Tamilnadu

Skull and Bones said:


> We need to settle the Kashmir pandits back to their homeland.


Not just pandits,all the kashmiris who want a peaceful life and not blinded by the wahhibi ideology.all the wahhibis should be crushed not smashed.


----------



## AsianLion

chanakya84 said:


> we are ready for Kashmir resolution.
> 
> So when are you handing over your side of illegally occupied Kashmir back to india to start with?




Pakistan side, is already Azad Kashmir. PM Azad Kashmir ask Pakistan Army, no issue, infact lets decide together for de-militarisation of Kashmir. An arangement has to be talked out...planned out... Pakistan is ready..It has Azad Kashmir Regiment, India has 700,000 Indian Military soldiers in occupied Kashmir,

Lets talk about Kashmir, lets resolve Kashmir, Lets make an arrangement. Don't run like pussies and cowards as you have been doing since Muslim rule over India for 1000 years.


----------



## chanakya84

AsianUnion said:


> India spends billions and billions to occupy Jammu and Kashmir, nearly 50% of Indian army is in Kashmir. Actually the figures are much higher how much Kashmir is bleeding Indian forces and its strains on economy.
> When did I ever said that $21 Billion is what India spend in arms to control Jammu and Kashmir, I said this $21 you spend is all lost any way, this includes the minimum u spend on development in Kashmir.
> 
> 
> At least four corps of the Indian army, corps III and IV in the north-east and XV and XVI (the largest of them) in Jammu and Kashmir, are engaged in internal security operations. Eighty per cent of the nearly one million-strong CPMFs are deployed for internal duties. For instance, the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) has 85 battalions fighting Maoists and 62 battalions in Jammu and Kashmir. *To put it another way, more than 50% of the armed forces are engaged*, one way or another, in internal security. There are ways to prevent conflicts escalating into physical fights. And even if a fight breaks out, it is possible to prevent it from escalating through means other than military. Could exploring other options have prevented augmentation of the armed forces?
> 
> _
> http://www.sacw.net/article4786.html
> 
> _
> *Indian Army's Intelligence Spending in Kashmir Surfaces | Media Point : *
> 
> *http://www.mediapoint.pk/indian-armys-intelligence-spending-in-kashmir-surfaces/*


Lol chalo lets assume what you are saying is right, we are still spending 1.72 percent of the entire GDP on defence which is still lower than yours. 
*
Let me agree with you on everything for the name sake and then explain it to you*

we are still at a stage where we allow separatists to come to delhi and spew venom in Delhi
we still allow them to live, thrive and survive, 
we still allow them to have indian passports 
we are still not using AK47s instead of pellet guns. 

The day security forces took out actual guns instead of pellet guns all these so called protesters will be in their rat holes

Now lets turn the tables and see if move comes to shove and when India starts to assert itself. Who will stop us? Pakistan?? Suicidal much lol
China? For what? They will lose billions of dollars worth of trade and for what, to help their ally gain some territory.
Islamic nations? We are second highest muslim population... ch ch ch
Rest of the world? Now this is becomming funny. 

We are still giving a chance Indian way, with peace. So even in the scenerio where India starts to assert you lose.



AsianUnion said:


> Pakistan side, is already Azad Kashmir. PM Azad Kashmir ask Pakistan Army, no issue, infact lets decide together for de-militarisation of Kashmir. An arangement has to be talked out...planned out... Pakistan is ready..It has Azad Kashmir Regiment, India has 700,000 Indian Military soldiers in occupied Kashmir,
> 
> Lets talk about Kashmir, lets resolve Kashmir, Lets make an arrangement. Don't run like pussies and cowards as you have been doing since Muslim rule over India for 1000 years.


we are ready for talks.
we are ready for resolution of Kashmir
lets move the pundits back to kashmir. 

But that is not going to happen at gun point. You cannot blackmail us. Remove all your terror assets. Punish Hafiz Saeed. Stop glorifying terrorists and stop safe havens for terrorists. 

As per the UN resolution, Pakistan will have to hand over Kashmir to India in totality. India will maintain minimum forces for security as per mandate. 0 Pakistani presence. Then UN forces will conduct the refrundum. we are ready for it. Bring it on....


----------



## AsianLion

*Kashmir Is Killing India’s Military and Democracy*

It will continue to bleed India.

Pankaj Mishra

In July 1995, an Islamic fundamentalist group called Al Faran kidnapped six foreign tourists, including two Americans, in Kashmir. For a few weeks, the world’s attention was fixed on the Himalayan valley as the allegedly Pakistan-backed militants negotiated with Indian security officials and foreign diplomats.

Eventually, one of the Americans escaped. Another hostage, a Norwegian, was beheaded. The other four were never found.

“The Meadow: Kashmir 1995 -- Where the Terror Began,” a staggeringly well-researched new book by two respected journalists, Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark, concludes* that the hostages were killed by local mercenaries funded and controlled by Indian army and intelligence.*

*The authors argue that the drawn-out negotiation, during which Indian intelligence allegedly knew the hostages’* whereabouts, *was a charade, part of India’s larger effort to portray Pakistan as a sponsor of Islamist terror, thereby delegitimizing the Kashmiri struggle for freedom.*

Certainly, India today no longer needs to highlight the role of the Pakistani army and intelligence in sponsoring extremist groups. It has appalling facts of its counter-insurgency operations in Kashmir -- tens of thousands killed, and innumerable many tortured, mutilated and orphaned. The tallying in 2009 of 2,700 unmarked graves containing the remains of people (often buried in groups) killed by security forces barely provoked any comment in the international media, let alone expressions of concern by Western leaders.


*KILLERS IN KHAKI*

But *India’s diplomatic and public relations success has been achieved at considerable costs: the rise of militaristic nationalism, the assault on civil liberties, and a dangerously enhanced role in politics for men in uniform.*

Most of the million-plus men and women in the Indian military still manifest what Shashi Tharoor once described as “increasingly rare” qualities in India: “high standards of performance, honesty, hard work, self-sacrifice, incorruptibility, respect for tradition, discipline, team spirit.” As a child, I had myself wanted, like many Indians of my generation and class, to acquire the virtuous glow of an army officer’s uniform, and even attended a military school.

*It was therefore shocking and demoralizing to encounter, during a visit to Kashmir in 2000, accounts of extrajudicial killings and torture and rape by Indian soldiers -- stories that, though commonplace in Kashmir, were largely kept hidden from the Indian public by a patriotic media.*

But to those who reported from Kashmir in the past decade and a half -- as opposed to the many more who were content to disseminate briefings from Indian army and intelligence officials -- “The Meadow” presents a disturbingly familiar picture.

I was there when, during Bill Clinton’s visit to South Asia in March 2000, Indian army officers allegedly kidnapped and killed five Kashmiri villagers and presented their mutilated corpses to the international news media as the Pakistani killers of the 35 Sikhs who had been murdered by unidentified gunmen just hours before Clinton’s scheduled arrival in India. It has taken 12 years for India’s legal system even to acknowledge this well-documented atrocity: Last week, the Supreme Court gingerly asked the army how it wishes to prosecute the officers suspected of the coldblooded murder.

Since 2000, the number of armed militants has steadily decreased in Kashmir. But the human rights situation has not improved. Under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act in effect in Kashmir and the northeastern states (where the Indian army was first deployed in counter-insurgency), soldiers can kill on the basis of mere suspicion while continuing to enjoy near-total legal immunity.

*REGIME OF IMPUNITY*

The result is a regime of impunity. A coalition of Indian human rights groups in a report to the United Nations this year documented 789 extrajudicial killings in the northeastern state of Manipur alone between 2007 and 2010.

In recent years, the army has also been dragged into Operation Green Hunt, the Indian state’s extraordinarily big, armed offensive against Maoist insurgents in central India. Predictably, the use of scorched-earth tactics once deployed in border areas has undermined the general rule of law in the states of Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and West Bengal.

The widened powers of the military against the new electronic media’s background chorus of hypernationalism have given army officers a public role they never had. Breaking with old protocols, the previous army chief openly speculated about a “limited” war under a “nuclear overhang” with Pakistan.

It is also not at all clear if there is any proper governmental oversight of the Indian intelligence agencies, which, mimicking the doomed Pakistani quest for “strategic depth,” have been trying out potentially useful proxies in Pakistan’s Balochistan province as well as Afghanistan. These adventurist spies and the perennially belligerent men in uniform now seem to constitute as formidable a lobby against peace between India and Pakistan as the Islamic zealots on the other side of the border.

Backed by Hindu nationalist leaders, they even dare to overrule elected politicians such as Omar Abdullah, Kashmir’s chief minister, who has been pleading in vain for a withdrawal of the much-despised special powers act.

Their jingoism, echoed by hawkish think tanks and websites (India’s own military-intellectual complex), goes necessarily together with dubious arms purchases. India is now the world’s biggest arms market; a series of scandals have not stopped spending sprees that, as the recent outbursts of the outgoing army chief reveal, do little to prepare India for any conceivable war.

*INDIA NO BANANA REPUBLIC*

Things are about to get worse. The next Indian army chief comes into office later this month, trailed by allegations of his involvement in an extrajudicial killing in Kashmir. He was also in charge of Indian peacekeeping soldiers accused in 2008 of sexual misconduct in the Congo.

Unlike its Pakistani rival, the Indian army remains firmly under civilian control. A sensationalist recent story in a major Indian newspaper claimed that unauthorized movements of soldiers near New Delhi earlier this year had “spooked” the government. But it is hard to imagine the foolhardy army officers who would attempt a coup in India. Although beset by internal wars and draconian laws and chaotic governance, India is very far from degenerating into, as an exasperated Ratan Tata feared last year, a “banana republic.”

Yet there are plenty of reasons for alarm and dismay over a process that, starting in obscure battles in the northeastern states in the 1960s, was accelerated during the two previous decades in the valley of Kashmir. Levy and Scott-Clark’s book mainly excavates one of the many murky incidents of the 1990s. But its revised draft of history also sheds light on the present -- how a democratic state’s addiction to colonial-style dirty wars has damaged not so much the Kashmiri cause of freedom as India’s frail democracy and one of its last uncompromised institutions.


(Pankaj Mishra, whose new book, “From the Ruins of Empire: The Revolt Against the West and the Remaking of Asia,” will be published in August, is a Bloomberg View columnist, based in London and Mashobra, India. The opinions expressed are his own.)

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2012-05-06/kashmir-is-killing-india-s-military-and-democracy


----------



## X-2.

Thi


navtrek said:


> INFRASTRUCTURE
> 
> The first cable bridge in North India at Basoli, J&K
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAMMU AIRPORT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LEH AIRPORT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SRINAGAR AIRPORT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KASHMIR RAILWAYS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WORLDS TALLEST ARC TYPE BRIDGE COMING UP IN J&K
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is also plan to build a new expressway from New Delhi to Katra
> 
> Government planning India's longest 600 km expressway to connect Delhi and Katra


*These roads railways, airport,and other health stuff is for 700000 Indians soldiers so they travel on mean time to kill Kashmiri peoples, any warfare analyst guys will understand good travel network is required for battle field, from so called loc or siachen otherwise shortage of stock may left 700000 trrps in misry as they do suicide dew to stress*


----------



## Tamilnadu

AsianUnion said:


> Pakistan side, is already Azad Kashmir. PM Azad Kashmir ask Pakistan Army, no issue, infact lets decide together for de-militarisation of Kashmir. An arangement has to be talked out...planned out... Pakistan is ready..It has Azad Kashmir Regiment, India has 700,000 Indian Military soldiers in occupied Kashmir,
> 
> Lets talk about Kashmir, lets resolve Kashmir, Lets make an arrangement. Don't run like pussies and cowards as you have been doing since Muslim rule over India for 1000 years.


That the problem,you call what we have Indian occupied kashmir and we call your part Pakistan occupied kashmir.
what would we be worried about muslims rule over India for 1000 ,even my grand fathers dint bother ,proof is me standing as a non muslim even today and people who are worried are not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## X-2.

AsianUnion said:


> *Kashmir Is Killing India’s Military and Democracy*
> 
> It will continue to bleed India.
> 
> Pankaj Mishra
> 
> In July 1995, an Islamic fundamentalist group called Al Faran kidnapped six foreign tourists, including two Americans, in Kashmir. For a few weeks, the world’s attention was fixed on the Himalayan valley as the allegedly Pakistan-backed militants negotiated with Indian security officials and foreign diplomats.
> 
> Eventually, one of the Americans escaped. Another hostage, a Norwegian, was beheaded. The other four were never found.
> 
> “The Meadow: Kashmir 1995 -- Where the Terror Began,” a staggeringly well-researched new book by two respected journalists, Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark, concludes* that the hostages were killed by local mercenaries funded and controlled by Indian army and intelligence.*
> 
> *The authors argue that the drawn-out negotiation, during which Indian intelligence allegedly knew the hostages’* whereabouts, *was a charade, part of India’s larger effort to portray Pakistan as a sponsor of Islamist terror, thereby delegitimizing the Kashmiri struggle for freedom.*
> 
> Certainly, India today no longer needs to highlight the role of the Pakistani army and intelligence in sponsoring extremist groups. It has appalling facts of its counter-insurgency operations in Kashmir -- tens of thousands killed, and innumerable many tortured, mutilated and orphaned. The tallying in 2009 of 2,700 unmarked graves containing the remains of people (often buried in groups) killed by security forces barely provoked any comment in the international media, let alone expressions of concern by Western leaders.
> 
> 
> *KILLERS IN KHAKI*
> 
> But *India’s diplomatic and public relations success has been achieved at considerable costs: the rise of militaristic nationalism, the assault on civil liberties, and a dangerously enhanced role in politics for men in uniform.*
> 
> Most of the million-plus men and women in the Indian military still manifest what Shashi Tharoor once described as “increasingly rare” qualities in India: “high standards of performance, honesty, hard work, self-sacrifice, incorruptibility, respect for tradition, discipline, team spirit.” As a child, I had myself wanted, like many Indians of my generation and class, to acquire the virtuous glow of an army officer’s uniform, and even attended a military school.
> 
> *It was therefore shocking and demoralizing to encounter, during a visit to Kashmir in 2000, accounts of extrajudicial killings and torture and rape by Indian soldiers -- stories that, though commonplace in Kashmir, were largely kept hidden from the Indian public by a patriotic media.*
> 
> But to those who reported from Kashmir in the past decade and a half -- as opposed to the many more who were content to disseminate briefings from Indian army and intelligence officials -- “The Meadow” presents a disturbingly familiar picture.
> 
> I was there when, during Bill Clinton’s visit to South Asia in March 2000, Indian army officers allegedly kidnapped and killed five Kashmiri villagers and presented their mutilated corpses to the international news media as the Pakistani killers of the 35 Sikhs who had been murdered by unidentified gunmen just hours before Clinton’s scheduled arrival in India. It has taken 12 years for India’s legal system even to acknowledge this well-documented atrocity: Last week, the Supreme Court gingerly asked the army how it wishes to prosecute the officers suspected of the coldblooded murder.
> 
> Since 2000, the number of armed militants has steadily decreased in Kashmir. But the human rights situation has not improved. Under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act in effect in Kashmir and the northeastern states (where the Indian army was first deployed in counter-insurgency), soldiers can kill on the basis of mere suspicion while continuing to enjoy near-total legal immunity.
> 
> *REGIME OF IMPUNITY*
> 
> The result is a regime of impunity. A coalition of Indian human rights groups in a report to the United Nations this year documented 789 extrajudicial killings in the northeastern state of Manipur alone between 2007 and 2010.
> 
> In recent years, the army has also been dragged into Operation Green Hunt, the Indian state’s extraordinarily big, armed offensive against Maoist insurgents in central India. Predictably, the use of scorched-earth tactics once deployed in border areas has undermined the general rule of law in the states of Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and West Bengal.
> 
> The widened powers of the military against the new electronic media’s background chorus of hypernationalism have given army officers a public role they never had. Breaking with old protocols, the previous army chief openly speculated about a “limited” war under a “nuclear overhang” with Pakistan.
> 
> It is also not at all clear if there is any proper governmental oversight of the Indian intelligence agencies, which, mimicking the doomed Pakistani quest for “strategic depth,” have been trying out potentially useful proxies in Pakistan’s Balochistan province as well as Afghanistan. These adventurist spies and the perennially belligerent men in uniform now seem to constitute as formidable a lobby against peace between India and Pakistan as the Islamic zealots on the other side of the border.
> 
> Backed by Hindu nationalist leaders, they even dare to overrule elected politicians such as Omar Abdullah, Kashmir’s chief minister, who has been pleading in vain for a withdrawal of the much-despised special powers act.
> 
> Their jingoism, echoed by hawkish think tanks and websites (India’s own military-intellectual complex), goes necessarily together with dubious arms purchases. India is now the world’s biggest arms market; a series of scandals have not stopped spending sprees that, as the recent outbursts of the outgoing army chief reveal, do little to prepare India for any conceivable war.
> 
> *INDIA NO BANANA REPUBLIC*
> 
> Things are about to get worse. The next Indian army chief comes into office later this month, trailed by allegations of his involvement in an extrajudicial killing in Kashmir. He was also in charge of Indian peacekeeping soldiers accused in 2008 of sexual misconduct in the Congo.
> 
> Unlike its Pakistani rival, the Indian army remains firmly under civilian control. A sensationalist recent story in a major Indian newspaper claimed that unauthorized movements of soldiers near New Delhi earlier this year had “spooked” the government. But it is hard to imagine the foolhardy army officers who would attempt a coup in India. Although beset by internal wars and draconian laws and chaotic governance, India is very far from degenerating into, as an exasperated Ratan Tata feared last year, a “banana republic.”
> 
> Yet there are plenty of reasons for alarm and dismay over a process that, starting in obscure battles in the northeastern states in the 1960s, was accelerated during the two previous decades in the valley of Kashmir. Levy and Scott-Clark’s book mainly excavates one of the many murky incidents of the 1990s. But its revised draft of history also sheds light on the present -- how a democratic state’s addiction to colonial-style dirty wars has damaged not so much the Kashmiri cause of freedom as India’s frail democracy and one of its last uncompromised institutions.
> 
> 
> (Pankaj Mishra, whose new book, “From the Ruins of Empire: The Revolt Against the West and the Remaking of Asia,” will be published in August, is a Bloomberg View columnist, based in London and Mashobra, India. The opinions expressed are his own.)
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2012-05-06/kashmir-is-killing-india-s-military-and-democracy


Indians are there to kill innocent Kashmiri Muslim brothers

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tamilnadu

X-2. said:


> Indians are there to kill innocent Kashmiri Muslim brothers


No bro,that wrong ,PA kills TTP and other terrorists are they killing muslim brothers too..in the real world ,if you go against the state you get kill specially if you pick up gun or something to hurt or kill someone.


----------



## Kaniska

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> U r bringing non issue here....I can say IAF bombed north and north east of India to crush Christian Insurgency....We are bombing Taliban, against whom whole world is fighting....
> 
> http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...-dirty-little-secret/articleshow/18565883.cms



This is the problem and Fundamental difference when i even face when i discuss with any sane poster like you...Did you go through the news? They are not simple insurgents. They technically taken over the capital of the State and controlled the treasury and all the Gov Installations. That is called as a war against a nation. And in 1966, we are trying to build our nation as a normal country..

If some one declares war against a nation, they will reciprocate.. Taliban is not declaring war with you...If you are really declaring war against Taliban, Pak- Afgan corridor would be much peaceful as it is today....World is fighting with the Taliban with whom Pakistan supports it...Your supported Taliban is creating terror in Afganistan...and world knows well that Pakistan is not doing anything against them, so US has to come withing your territory to bomb them...West technically drone strike kill all those Talibs who are supported by your Army..

Yes, i agree that you are fighting with Talibans...who are different than the ones you have mentioned,.


----------



## navtrek

X-2. said:


> Thi
> 
> *These roads railways, airport,and other health stuff is for 700000 Indians soldiers so they travel on mean time to kill Kashmiri peoples, any warfare analyst guys will understand good travel network is required for battle field, from so called loc or siachen otherwise shortage of stock may left 700000 trrps in misry as they do suicide dew to stress*



really!


----------



## Sheikh Rauf

navtrek said:


> Do you realize why Indian army is in Kashmir ? one word answer Pakistan!


So u saying people of Kashmiries are in love with u guys raizing Pakistani flag every day in front of indian occupied army is a slap to indian occupied army.. 
What their response with pellet fire to innocent people with no arm... they are rising and 700 thousands indian men cant handel them since and u cud never...
Pakistan will support them till indian solve this issue with Pakistan.. either indendence or Pakistan... or keep ur 700 thousands army there for humilation. Jay ho.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## X-2.

Tamilnadu said:


> No bro,that wrong ,PA kills TTP and other terrorists are they killing muslim brothers too..in the real world ,if you go against the state you get kill specially if you pick up gun or something to hurt or kill someone.


Ttp involved in Inside operations 
Killing schools kids , mosques,and many other public places were on there lists it's totally different from ttp to Kashmiri freedom movement as they don't target in Indian territory 
If u know tamil then u wud also know the pain of Tamils as wl !!


----------



## waz

chanakya84 said:


> As per the UN resolution, Pakistan will have to hand over Kashmir to India in totality. India will maintain minimum forces for security as per mandate. 0 Pakistani presence. Then UN forces will conduct the refrundum. we are ready for it. Bring it on....



That's a lie. It calls for Pakistani forces to withdraw and the region will be under supervision of UN forces. Of course the Azad Kashmir regiment will stay, as they are the native sons of that land. Not a single piece of the land my forefathers fought for and won will be given over to India.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## X-2.

navtrek said:


> really!


Off course otherwise there are places like asam etc too who need investment in health etc


----------



## Tamilnadu

X-2. said:


> Ttp involved in Inside operations
> Killing schools kids , mosques,and many other public places were on there lists it's totally different from ttp to Kashmiri freedom movement as they don't target in Indian territory
> If u know tamil then u wud also know the pain of Tamils as wl !!


Oh i dint realise you where talking about terrorists operating outside of India,we are least bothered about them,you can support them ,i thought you where talking about the terrorists who kill local kashmiries ,anyone who cannot defend themselfs and dont agree to the views of terrorists.
Apart from Tamil,i speak 6 other languages,i understand everyones pain.


----------



## django

navtrek said:


> *Health:*
> 
> Government is setting up to AIIMS in Jammu and Kashmir (up from 1 earlier) Centre agrees to two ‘AIIMS facilities’ in Jammu, Kashmir
> 
> There are already hospitals like the ones below both of which are super speciality hospitals. There are already SMGS, GMC in Jammu and SKIMS in Srinagar and more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Energy:*
> Jammu and Kashmir has a lot of hydel projects under construction and there is plan for worlds largest Solar power project in Ladakh
> 
> Houses the world largest solar project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDUCATION
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An IIT and IIM are also in the pipeline.
> 
> IIT Jammu to start this year with 90 students - Times of India
> Centre asks J&K govt to identify land for IIM
> 
> Jammu University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason for all this is Pakistan sponsored terrorism in the name of religion.


despite all this so called development, the people are still telling you to f off, whilst here in azad kashmir, as a proud resident i can tell you we love pak armed forces without precondition.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## -xXx-

waz said:


> That's a lie. It calls for Pakistani forces to withdraw and the region will be under supervision of UN forces. Of course the Azad Kashmir regiment will stay, as they are the native sons of that land. Not a single piece of the land my forefathers fought for and won will be given over to India.



Not a single mention of UN force in entire resolution. Where did you get this information?

Pakistan was required to simply leave with his army, tribesmen and nationals. That is all the mention Pakistan got in the resolution.

India had to maintain a minimum working force to administer the state and assist plebiscite administrator to conduct the process. That was too subject to confirmation of Pakistan withdrawal.

I would request you to quote where it mention the UN forces. It talk about hiring of locals for law and order maintenance but even that responsibility lies with Indian government and not UN.


----------



## waz

-xXx- said:


> Not a single mention of UN force in entire resolution. Where did you get this information?
> 
> Pakistan was required to simply leave with his army, tribesmen and nationals. That is all the mention Pakistan got in the resolution.
> 
> India had to maintain a minimum working force to administer the state and assist plebiscite administrator to conduct the process. That was too subject to confirmation of Pakistan withdrawal.
> 
> I would request you to quote where it mention the UN forces. It talk about hiring of locals for law and order maintenance but even that responsibility lies with Indian government and not UN.



Show me where the Indian army sets foot in Azad Kashmir. Do you honestly think Azad Kashmiris would tolerate an Indian administration? The UN would supervise our side, it's common sense....
Oh by the way, the locals will be the Azad Kashmir regiment as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## -xXx-

waz said:


> Show me where the Indian army sets foot in Azad Kashmir. Do you honestly think Azad Kashmiris would tolerate and Indian administration? The UN would supervise our side, it's common sense....



International business do not work on common sense, each and every step is well documented.

Indian army was supposed to set the foot in state of *Jammu and Kashmir* as mentioned in resolution and there was no Azad Kashmir then.

Please do not present your interpretation as some fact and go by the resolution. When things are written as clear as it could be, there is no scope of twisting using *supposed* common sense.

I am open to reconcile if you can show me where UN mandate its forces to operate on J&K.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## chanakya84

waz said:


> Show me where the Indian army sets foot in Azad Kashmir. Do you honestly think Azad Kashmiris would tolerate and Indian administration? The UN would supervise our side, it's common sense....
> Oh by the way, the locals will be the Azad Kashmir regiment as well.


As the so called Azad Kashmir comes over to Indian control, all the Pakistani authrities all Pakistani laws will automatically be nullified and Indian laws will be aplicable till pebliciste. hence the so called azad forces will have to lay down weapons, and will only be recruited by Indians. Once that is done peblisciste will happen in impartial way. 

Once India wins it, which it will and that too without cheating, (i repeat you are the bravehearts of the soil but suck in diplomacy and politics) Indians forces *will *set foot on the land for which the unneccasary blood was spilled.


----------



## Mo12

Wow great development of India Kashmir, can anyone show bridges, universties, hospital in Pakistan Kashmir as well.



X-2. said:


> Thi
> 
> *These roads railways, airport,and other health stuff is for 700000 Indians soldiers so they travel on mean time to kill Kashmiri peoples, any warfare analyst guys will understand good travel network is required for battle field, from so called loc or siachen otherwise shortage of stock may left 700000 trrps in misry as they do suicide dew to stress*



India has big planes which would be most effective to send tanks and troops to the other side.


----------



## waz

-xXx- said:


> International business do not work on common sense, each and every step is well documented.
> 
> Indian army was supposed to set the foot in state of *Jammu and Kashmir* as mentioned in resolution and there was no Azad Kashmir then.
> 
> Please do not present your interpretation as some fact and go by the resolution. When things are written as clear as it could be, there is no scope of twisting using *supposed* common sense.
> 
> I am open to reconcile if you can show me where UN mandate its forces to operate on J&K.



Then you need to read up on how the UN has operated over the last 50 years, especially regarding conflict resolution. They occupy the place where hostile forces squared off in order to create peace.
There is Azad Kashmir now, and the Indian army will never be allowed there by the locals, and the UN will respect and cater for that. 
I just presented my interpretation, you seem to think the UN doesn't have a role in this. How are they going to monitor the process without boots on the ground?
As for the UN mandate, here is the hint, it's a UN resolution, *their forces will be there*, as they have been in many other conflicts e.g. East Timor, South Sudan etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## chanakya84

Mo12 said:


> Wow great development of India Kashmir, can anyone show bridges, universties, hospital in Pakistan Kashmir as well.


Hence the same reason, Pakistan will lose the pebliscite if and when happens. People are riding the Islamic bogey since 70 years and they have got nothing on the name of development. 

Baaki we can send politicians from UP/Bihar to campaign before pebliciste..... they will present such a rosy picture of India, lol even the Pakistani punjabis will agree to do peblisciste in Punjab.


----------



## waz

chanakya84 said:


> As the so called Azad Kashmir comes over to Indian control, all the Pakistani authrities all Pakistani laws will automatically be nullified and Indian laws will be aplicable till pebliciste. hence the so called azad forces will have to lay down weapons, and will only be recruited by Indians. Once that is done peblisciste will happen in impartial way.
> 
> Once India wins it, which it will and that too without cheating, (i repeat you are the bravehearts of the soil but suck in diplomacy and politics) Indians forces *will *set foot on the land for which the unneccasary blood was spilled.



No it won't. It is Azad, my forefathers made sure of that. Not a single stone will have an Indian boot on it. There will be no Indian laws, our local administration and men, from the Azad Kashmir regiment will take care of the needs of the population. The UN forces will be there to make sure armed Indian are allowed no where near the region and they will oversee a fair ballot.
India winning, no it won't, otherwise you would have made a mention of it over the years, and once again Indian forces will never, ever set foot on Azad Kashir soil.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## chanakya84

waz said:


> Then you need to read up on how the UN has operated over the last 50 years, especially regarding conflict resolution. They occupy the place where hostile forces squared off in order to create peace.
> There is Azad Kashmir now, and the Indian army will never be allowed there by the locals, and the UN will respect and cater for that.
> I just presented my interpretation, you seem to think the UN doesn't have a role in this. How are they going to monitor the process without boots on the ground?
> As for the UN mandate, here is the hint, it's a UN resolution, *their forces will be there*, as they have been in many other conflicts e.g. East Timor, South Sudan etc.


On a lighter note , UN forces will be there of Europe, US, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and every damn country whose pussy cat you have bugged. We will ensure that in the background


----------



## -xXx-

waz said:


> Then you need to read up on how the UN has operated over the last 50 years, especially regarding conflict resolution. They occupy the place where hostile forces squared off in order to create peace.
> There is Azad Kashmir now, and the Indian army will never be allowed there by the locals, and the UN will respect and cater for that.
> I just presented my interpretation, you seem to think the UN doesn't have a role in this. How are they going to monitor the process without boots on the ground?
> As for the UN mandate, here is the hint, it's a UN resolution, *their forces will be there*, as they have been in many other conflicts e.g. East Timor, South Sudan etc.



UN passes resolution to be implemented at that time frame and not as per what happen to region after 7 decade.

The fact remain -

1- There was no Azad Kashmir for UN then. It mandated Indian government to maintain and control state of J&K that include whole Jammu, Kashmir, Laddakh, Askai Chin and GB.

2- The resolution specifically talks about responsibilities for
a) What Pakistan government need to do
b) What India government need to do
c) What UN need to do.

While describing the UN role, it restrict itself in appointing a general secretary as plebiscite administrator. UN is not that incompetent in drafting resolution that it can miss as important aspect as issuing UN forces and its responsibilities when it didn't miss even the possibilities of having locals for maintaining law and order.

*It may amuse you but it says in case locals are deemed insufficient by plebiscite administrator, it may ask for more forces from either from India or Pakistan, based on mutually agreed terms.

No UN forces even when there is lack of local help.*

Now coming to East Timor and South Sudan

1- Go read the resolutions which should mention the role of UN forces.

2- Those comes under chapter VII of UN charter which is enforceable, means UN has to enforce those resolution, thus comes into picture the UN forces.

@Joe Shearer


----------



## chanakya84

waz said:


> No it won't. It is Azad, my forefathers made sure of that. Not a single stone will have an Indian boot on it. There will no Indian laws, our local administration and men, from the Azad Kashmir regiment will take care of the needs of the population. The UN forces will be there to make sure armed Indian are allowed no where near the region and they will oversee a fair ballot.
> India winning, no it won't, otherwise you would have made a mention of it over the years, and once again Indian forces will never, ever set foot on Azad Kashir soil.


well than it totally negates the Kashmir resolution in current form. So either you will have to get the resolution modified. Or you can go back to the way the things are. We as Indians are ok with both. 

Though no one says it louder, but Kashmir is more of a stratergic issue rather than human rights issue. You dont care for human lives, (by "you" here i mean the establishment) it has more to do with the survival instinct. But let me tell you a fact, Pakitan will never let Kashmir solve. There are reasons behind it. They need a pending issue to unite the country. Let me tell you how? You have corruption, you have regional issues, nothing unites you as the Kashmir issue. 

For example, just before the current situation in Kashmir, everyone in pakistan was after the blood Nawaz Sharif because of cables and dwindling economy, now the focus has totally shifted to kashmir. He went in good books of many with just a few statements about Kashmir as simple as that.


----------



## RazaGujjar

-xXx- said:


> When did journalist becomes the jury? The letter of accession and its validity was never contested and considered valid in every argument conducted ever in any forum.
> 
> Hence I shall not put my efforts in discussing something based on hearsay. We have enough proven content to ponder on.
> 
> Thank you.



Typical Indian denial....if its not in a favorable light of India, it has to be false.

Surely, your nation isn't the most righteous in history?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wiseone2

AsianUnion said:


> *Indian Army has 700,000 Hindu, Sikh Security men for the brutal Occupation of Jammu & Kashmir While on the contrary Pakistan gets its major volunteer recruitment in Pakistan Army from Azad Kashmiris*



700,000 man army is a huge army


----------



## -xXx-

RazaGujjar said:


> Typical Indian denial....if its not in a favorable light of India, it has to be false.
> 
> Surely, your nation isn't the most righteous in history.



None of the international body including UN contested the authenticity of instrument of accession. Neither the Maharaja himself.

I will take their words on your supposed *journalist*.

Thank You.


----------



## waz

chanakya84 said:


> On a lighter note , UN forces will be there of Europe, US, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and every damn country whose pussy cat you have bugged. We will ensure that in the background



Afghanistan peace keeprs? No wonder you resort to icons in our post, it reads like a silly comic. 
Afghanistan doesn't contribute any troops to UN operations!
The top ten contributing countries go in this order; Ethiopia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Rwanda, Nepal, Senegal, Egypt, Ghana and Indonesia.
We'll take Egypt, Indonesia and Nepal, let's see your wonderful plan unfold. 
I find it hilarious that you even wrote down your fantasy of some pact with the US and Europe, to nab Kashmir for India. You should get out more.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HAIDER

Few pictures here and there doesn't prove anything. People of Kashmir been raising voice for last many decades and held number of huge protest in EU. They want independence and they deserve since 1947.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

-xXx- said:


> UN passes resolution to be implemented at that time frame and not as per what happen to region after 7 decade.
> 
> The fact remain -
> 
> 1- There was no Azad Kashmir for UN then. It mandated Indian government to maintain and control state of J&K that include whole Jammu, Kashmir, Laddakh, Askai Chin and GB.
> 
> 2- The resolution specifically talks about responsibilities for
> a) What Pakistan government need to do
> b) What India government need to do
> c) What UN need to do.
> 
> While describing the UN role, it restrict itself in appointing a general secretary as plebiscite administrator. UN is not that incompetent in drafting resolution that it can miss as important aspect as issuing UN forces and its responsibilities when it didn't miss even the possibilities of having locals for maintaining law and order.
> 
> *It may amuse you but it says in case locals are deemed insufficient by plebiscite administrator, it may ask for more forces from either from India or Pakistan, based on mutually agreed terms.
> 
> No UN forces even when there is lack of local help.*
> 
> Now coming to East Timor and South Sudan
> 
> 1- Go read the resolutions which should mention the role of UN forces.
> 
> 2- Those comes under chapter VII of UN charter which is enforceable, means UN has to enforce those resolution, thus comes into picture the UN forces.
> 
> @Joe Shearer



You're not quoting facts, your presenting your opinion.
There is an Azad Kashmir today, you can't simply erase present day realities. The UN will take note of these. 
Yes the resolution does talk about what each country needs to do. 
The UN will have to bring in its forces due to the sensitive nature of the region, they have done this time and time again. The resolution itself is old and doesn't take into account today's reality. 
Oh don't worry the locals will be enough, the AJK regiment will be in civilian clothes. 
The UN also has to carry out a referendum, it won't be possible without its forces. You pointing out my examples actually strengthens the argument for UN forces i.e. the potential for conflict is too great, so hence letting Indian administrators do the job simply won't do.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mo12

waz said:


> You're not quoting facts, your presenting your opinion.
> There is an Azad Kashmir today, you can't simply erase present day realities. The UN will take note of these.
> Yes the resolution does talk about what each country needs to do.
> The UN will have to bring in its forces due to the sensitive nature of the region, they have done this time and time again. The resolution itself is old and doesn't take into account today's reality.
> Oh don't worry the locals will be enough, the AJK regiment will be in civilian clothes.
> The UN also has to carry out a referendum, it won't be possible without its forces. You pointing out my examples actually strengthens the argument for UN forces i.e. the potential for conflict is too great, so hence letting Indian administrators do the job simply won't do.



Why hasnt China held a referendum on Tibet or Xinjiang?


----------



## AsianLion

wiseone2 said:


> 700,000 man army is a huge army




Imagine how much it costs to sustain, fight and operate military operations in Jammu & Kashmir? This is bleeding India economically, human lives and only going to increase, & increase....till final solution of Kashmir.


----------



## X-2.

Tamilnadu said:


> Oh i dint realise you where talking about terrorists operating outside of India,we are least bothered about them,you can support them ,i thought you where talking about the terrorists who kill local kashmiries ,anyone who cannot defend themselfs and dont agree to the views of terrorists.
> Apart from Tamil,i speak 6 other languages,i understand everyones pain.


We don't Have such issues in asad Kashmir neither Kashmiris in Indian occupied are killing any civilians like ttp do,thats the difference of terrorists and freedom fighters

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## chanakya84

waz said:


> Afghanistan peace keeprs? No wonder you resort to icons in our post, it reads like a silly comic.
> Afghanistan doesn't contribute any troops to UN operations!
> The top ten contributing countries go in this order; Ethiopia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Rwanda, Nepal, Senegal, Egypt, Ghana and Indonesia.
> We'll take Egypt, Indonesia and Nepal, let's see your wonderful plan unfold.
> I find it hilarious that you even wrote down your fantasy of some pact with the US and Europe, to nab Kashmir for India. You should get out more.


Dude come on, that was on lighter note. Have a sense of humor. 

we will ask Afghans to first contribute forces then we will do referundum. you already claim us to be evil little beings. let us behave like one. Lol

Ok let me be serious. 
Do you really think we would need a pact to nab Kashmir? Europe and US already consider Kashmir to be bilateral issue which should be solved between Pakistan and India. Lets get realistic no intifda, no terrorism, no other BS is ever going to solve it. India is ok with the status quo. As far as solving the Kashmir issue goes here is the most realistic plan without getting into emotional about forefathers. Even the Indians have spilled blood for Kashmir. But lets have a realistic practical approch towards problem

Stop whatever malicious activities India accuses Pakistan of
Stop whatever malicious activities Pakistan accuses India of
If Pakistan wants Kashmir, ok thumbs up. good. agreed. Now what you have to offer in return? Pakistan needs to have something which India would want of equal importance and value. Intial Pakitani approch was bleeding India with 1000 cuts but India survived it and started reciprocating in Pakistan(as claimed by many Pakistanis). So that approch is dead. To do that lets see why Kashmir is important to Pakistan
If a muslim majority state becomes part of India it totally negates the idea of Pakistan which says hindus and muslims cannot live together. 

India will hold the taps of waters of Pakistan which is a very dangerous equation. India can easily cause destruction in Pakistan as heavy as nukes without firing a single nuke
Silk route
National pride

Now the question is what you have to offer in return. Any intelligent Pakistani would think Indian policy is that if you kill our one we will kill your two. You dont cause problems for us we wont cause problems for you. India is ok with that stand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## -xXx-

waz said:


> You're not quoting facts, your presenting your opinion.
> There is an Azad Kashmir today, you can't simply erase present day realities. The UN will take note of these.
> Yes the resolution does talk about what each country needs to do.
> The UN will have to bring in its forces due to the sensitive nature of the region, they have done this time and time again. The resolution itself is old and doesn't take into account today's reality.
> Oh don't worry the locals will be enough, the AJK regiment will be in civilian clothes.
> The UN also has to carry out a referendum, it won't be possible without its forces. You pointing out my examples actually strengthens the argument for UN forces i.e. the potential for conflict is too great, so hence letting Indian administrators do the job simply won't do.



Then please ask for a new UN resolution as per today's date and realities, no point in asking for implementation of UN resolutions of Apr 21, 1948.

While you reach out to UN for new resolutions, *ensure they are passed under chapter VII* which can only mandate UN forces to come and settle the issue

*No resolution under chapter VI can get UN enforcement through its troop.*

You have given in your post all the reasons why UN resolutions of 1948 are not implementable today *in its current form*. That vindicate India's stand.

But you will be disappointed to know that as per Simla agreement, Pakistan is bind to resolve the issue bilaterally and can not reach out to third party anymore. It will be breach of mutual treaty. This is the reason why UN always suggest us to settle it mutually and may mediate in case both parties invite UN to do so. UN too want the nations to honor mutual treaties which are binding as per UN charter.

PS: I am presenting hardcore legal fact, I will be happy to be proven wrong if countered by legal argument, by now you have presented none.


----------



## X-2.

U are


Mo12 said:


> Wow great development of India Kashmir, can anyone show bridges, universties, hospital in Pakistan Kashmir as well.
> 
> 
> 
> India has big planes which would be most effective to send tanks and troops to the other side.


U are most welcome 
Give us honour to defend our Pakistan


----------



## waz

Mo12 said:


> Why hasnt China held a referendum on Tibet or Xinjiang?



Go ask them. Shall I point you to the right section?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## American Pakistani

Those 700,000 are all indian occupier terrorists. Death to 7 lakh indian occupier terrorists scum roaches.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LadyFinger

On a lighter note, there are other largely armed groups of non-state actors that would like to kill as many of your folks as they could and will apply their Sharia law on you, how would you feel about that?


chanakya84 said:


> Dude come on, that was on lighter note. Have a sense of humor.
> 
> we will ask Afghans to first contribute forces then we will do referundum. you already claim us to be evil little beings. let us behave like one. Lol
> 
> Ok let me be serious.
> Do you really think we would need a pact to nab Kashmir? Europe and US already consider Kashmir to be bilateral issue which should be solved between Pakistan and India. Lets get realistic no intifda, no terrorism, no other BS is ever going to solve it. India is ok with the status quo. As far as solving the Kashmir issue goes here is the most realistic plan without getting into emotional about forefathers. Even the Indians have spilled blood for Kashmir. But lets have a realistic practical approch towards problem
> 
> Stop whatever malicious activities India accuses Pakistan of
> Stop whatever malicious activities Pakistan accuses India of
> If Pakistan wants Kashmir, ok thumbs up. good. agreed. Now what you have to offer in return? Pakistan needs to have something which India would want of equal importance and value. Intial Pakitani approch was bleeding India with 1000 cuts but India survived it and started reciprocating in Pakistan(as claimed by many Pakistanis). So that approch is dead. To do that lets see why Kashmir is important to Pakistan
> If a muslim majority state becomes part of India it totally negates the idea of Pakistan which says hindus and muslims cannot live together.
> 
> India will hold the taps of waters of Pakistan which is a very dangerous equation. India can easily cause destruction in Pakistan as heavy as nukes without firing a single nuke
> Silk route
> National pride
> 
> Now the question is what you have to offer in return. Any intelligent Pakistani would think Indian policy is that if you kill our one we will kill your two. You dont cause problems for us we wont cause problems for you. India is ok with that stand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

-xXx- said:


> Then please ask for a new UN resolution as per today's date and realities, no point in asking for implementation of UN resolutions of Apr 21, 1948.
> 
> While you reach out to UN for new resolutions, *ensure they are passed under chapter VII* which can only mandate UN forces to come and settle the issue
> 
> *No resolution under chapter VI can get UN enforcement through its troop.*
> 
> You have given in your post all the reasons why UN resolutions of 1948 are not implementable today *in its current form*. That vindicate India's stand.
> 
> But you will be disappointed to know that as per Simla agreement, Pakistan is bind to resolve the issue bilaterally and can not reach out to third party anymore. It will be breach of mutual treaty. This is the reason why UN always suggest us to settle it mutually and may mediate in case both parties invite UN to do so. UN too want the nations to honor mutual treaties which are binding as per UN charter.



Oh dear chap, no need for another one. I'm arguing on the basis that in the resolution it clearly says in C part i "* That the presence of troops should not afford intimidation or appearance of intimidation to the inhabitants of the state". *
So you see Indian troops are intimidating and henceforth an alternative would be made available.
Anyway, we know this vote will never happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Azad-Kashmiri

NKVD said:


> Shias haha Child i Live in budgam a Shia Majority District There is piece here
> You guys sitting *Doing google on Internet on tabloids Have zero Knowledge about Ground Situation *
> 
> Do google be happy



Sound like what Modi does on the internet when he talked about human rights violations in Azad Kashmir. He had lofty words to say about ''liberating'' us, so when is your army coming? Too much talk, not enough action!

Believe it boy, we want you to come!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

chanakya84 said:


> Dude come on, that was on lighter note. Have a sense of humor.
> 
> we will ask Afghans to first contribute forces then we will do referundum. you already claim us to be evil little beings. let us behave like one. Lol
> 
> Ok let me be serious.
> Do you really think we would need a pact to nab Kashmir? Europe and US already consider Kashmir to be bilateral issue which should be solved between Pakistan and India. Lets get realistic no intifda, no terrorism, no other BS is ever going to solve it. India is ok with the status quo. As far as solving the Kashmir issue goes here is the most realistic plan without getting into emotional about forefathers. Even the Indians have spilled blood for Kashmir. But lets have a realistic practical approch towards problem
> 
> Stop whatever malicious activities India accuses Pakistan of
> Stop whatever malicious activities Pakistan accuses India of
> If Pakistan wants Kashmir, ok thumbs up. good. agreed. Now what you have to offer in return? Pakistan needs to have something which India would want of equal importance and value. Intial Pakitani approch was bleeding India with 1000 cuts but India survived it and started reciprocating in Pakistan(as claimed by many Pakistanis). So that approch is dead. To do that lets see why Kashmir is important to Pakistan
> If a muslim majority state becomes part of India it totally negates the idea of Pakistan which says hindus and muslims cannot live together.
> 
> India will hold the taps of waters of Pakistan which is a very dangerous equation. India can easily cause destruction in Pakistan as heavy as nukes without firing a single nuke
> Silk route
> National pride
> 
> Now the question is what you have to offer in return. Any intelligent Pakistani would think Indian policy is that if you kill our one we will kill your two. You dont cause problems for us we wont cause problems for you. India is ok with that stand.



This has all been discussed before. 
But anyway, the dispute will go on, and that's that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## chanakya84

LadyFinger said:


> On a lighter note, there are other largely armed groups of non-state actors that would like to kill as many of your folks as they could and will apply their Sharia law on you, how would you feel about that?


And yes Indians will sit like "Becharas". the problem with you guys is, you guys come up with brilliant plans, really brilliant from operation gibraltor to kargil, from bleeding india from 1000 cuts to mumbai 26/11 but there is a problem. You always forget their will be repurcussions. Some very serious repurcussions. India is 4 times bigger than you and you have 4 times less money. India has 4 times more money to invest in 4 times less land. Do you know who will be in deeper sh!t with this approch. You would already know that. Farzi bravado does not win wars it is won by intelligence.


----------



## LadyFinger

It is not my plan, it is someone else's plan. We are fighting them for now but they will never forget their 'ghazwa e hind' training after the fall of Syria.


chanakya84 said:


> And yes Indians will sit like "Becharas". the problem with you guys is, you guys come up with brilliant plans, really brilliant from operation gibraltor to kargil, from bleeding india from 1000 cuts to mumbai 26/11 but there is a problem. You always forget their will be repurcussions. Some very serious repurcussions. India is 4 times bigger than you and you have 4 times less money. India has 4 times more money to invest in 4 times less land. Do you know who will be in deeper sh!t with this approch. You would already know that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## chanakya84

waz said:


> This has all been discussed before.
> But anyway, the dispute will go on, and that's that.


And we are ok with that. At the same time, you dont poke us, we wont poke you. 

Isi baat par have some Jalebi


----------



## -xXx-

waz said:


> Oh dear chap, no need for another one. I'm arguing on the basis that in the resolution it clearly says in C part i "* That the presence of troops should not afford intimidation or appearance of intimidation to the inhabitants of the state". *
> So you see Indian troops are intimidating and henceforth an alternative would be made available.
> Anyway, we know this vote will never happen.



That is the expectation from Indian forces and unless the expectations are proved wrong by the acts of final minimum force, it should not be concluded that Indian force would have gone with intimidation.

Also, if that was the fear factor, Pakistan should have simply not agreed to the resolution in its current form and should have asked for UN troop explicitly. But Pakistan agreed to it.



> Anyway, we know this vote will never happen



I agree.

And we both knows why. Old resolution is not implementable, new resolution under chapter VII can not be obtained.

@waz My whole argument lies within the premise of what resolution *actually is*.

Your argument talks more about what resolution *should have been*.

I think we both are clear on the case now, lets take some rest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## chanakya84

LadyFinger said:


> It is not my plan, it is someone else's plan. We are fighting them for now but they will never forget their 'ghazwa e hind' training after the fall of Syria.


We have seen enough "Gazwa e hind" Enthusiasts for the past 20 years. Thanks to our little brothers on the west. But do our little brothers know that those Gazwa e hind enthusisasts also consider our little brothers as munafiqs. And first they want to do gazwa on the munfiqs on our west first. 

This is my theory, If it happens India will make sure that Pakistan never falls. Pakistan is wall for India against middle eastern BS. No one wants talibs next door to India. And if their would be a case where it would be sure that Pakistan will fall India and China will join forces. Reason being after India, China would the next target for these enthusiasts because that is the biggest kuffar land. 

Having said that we wont mind Pakistan engaged in never ending battle where no one is a clear winner.


----------



## -xXx-

LadyFinger said:


> It is not my plan, it is someone else's plan. *We are fighting them for now* but they will never forget their 'ghazwa e hind' training after the fall of Syria.



Is there a reason that you guys will fail and they will survive to do a "*gazar ka halwa e hind*"?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tamilnadu

X-2. said:


> We don't Have such issues in asad Kashmir neither Kashmiris in Indian occupied are killing any civilians like ttp do,thats the difference of terrorists and freedom fighters


Then you dont know what happened in kashmir ,how some lakhs of kashmiries have become refugees in their own country.how these terrorists have killed fellow kashmiries who dint agree with them.


----------



## chanakya84

-xXx- said:


> Is there a reason that you guys will fail and they will survive to do a "*gazar ka halwa e hind*"?


Remove kashmir and fanatics from Pakistan, Pakistan will become "Chaudhary" of the Islamic world being unilaterlly backed by India and China.


----------



## LadyFinger

The thing is, they have joined forces now and they have the same mentality. The news for you is that they think the time has come. And as the messenger (pbuh) foretold according to sources of hadith, the people who participated in jihad of Syria will also participate and win in Ghazwa e Hind. This is their interpretation and this is a word of God for them. 
As for Pakistan engaged in a non-ending war, no that will never happen, we are Muslims anyway (good or bad) and this has to do more with conquering lands of 'kafirs' anyway.


chanakya84 said:


> We have seen enough "Gazwa e hind" Enthusiasts for the past 20 years. Thanks to our little brothers on the west. But do our little brothers know that those Gazwa e hind enthusisasts also consider our little brothers as munafiqs. And first they want to do gazwa on the munfiqs on our west first.
> 
> This is my theory, If it happens India will make sure that Pakistan never falls. Pakistan is wall for India against middle eastern BS. No one wants talibs next door to India. And if their would be a case where it would be sure that Pakistan will fall India and China will join forces. Reason being after India, China would the next target for these enthusiasts because that is the biggest kuffar land.
> 
> Having said that we wont mind Pakistan engaged in never ending battle where no one is a clear winner.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## -xXx-

chanakya84 said:


> Remove kashmir and fanatics from Pakistan, Pakistan will become "Chaudhary" of the Islamic world being unilaterlly backed by India and China.



To be honest, Pakistan has the potential to lead Islamic world.

1- Its blessed with excellent geography, fertile land and healthy race.

2- Militarily strongest considering single nuke power.

3- Proximity to world most populous countries: China and India

Pak need to drop the historical baggage, mend some of its operating ethos and harvest progressiveness.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AsianLion

For you @chanakya84 and @-xXx- : It is pretty bad, Indian can broke down, further wet ur dhotis, as the Indian state & economy suffers:

*Excerpts from 'The Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU AND KASHMIR A REAPPRAISAL' *

The formal overt Indian intervention in the internal affairs of the State of Jammu and Kashmir began on about 9.00 a.m. on 27 October 1947, when Indian troops started landing at Srinagar airfield. India has officially dated the commencement of its claim that the State was part of Indian sovereign territory to a few hours earlier, at some point in the afternoon or evening of 26 October. From their arrival on 27 October 1947 to the present day, Indian troops have continued to occupy a large proportion of the State of Jammu and Kashmir despite the increasingly manifest opposition of a majority of the population to their presence. To critics of Indias position and actions in the State of Jammu and Kashmir the Government of New Delhi has consistently declared that the State of Jammu and Kashmir lies entirely within the sphere of internal Indian policy. Do the facts support the Indian contention in this respect?

The State of Jammu and Kashmir was a Princely State within the British Indian Empire. By the rules of the British transfer of power in Indian subcontinent in 1947 the Ruler of the State, Maharajah Sir Hari Singh, with the departure of the British and the lapsing of Paramountcy (as the relationship between State and British Crown was termed), could opt to join either India or Pakistan or, by doing nothing, become from 15 August 1947 the Ruler of an independent polity. The choice was the Rulers and his alone: there was no provision for popular consultation in the Indian Princely States during the final days of the British Raj. On 15th August 1947, by default, the State of Jammu and Kashmir became independent.

India maintains that this period of independence, the existence of which it has never challenged effectively, came to an end on 26/27 October as the result of two pairs of closely related transactions, which we must now examine. They are:

(a) an Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India which the Maharajah is alleged to have signed on 26 October 1947, and;

(b) the acceptance of this Instrument by the Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten, on 27 October 1947; plus

(c) a letter from the Maharajah to Lord Mountbatten, dated 26 October 1947, in which Indian military aid is sought in return for accession to India (on terms stated in an allegedly enclosed Instrument) and the appointment of Sheikh Abdullah to head an Interim Government of the State; and

(d) a letter from Lord Mountbatten to the Maharajah, dated 27 October 1947, acknowledging the above and noting that, once the affairs of the State have been settled and law and order is restored, the question of the States accession should be settled by a reference to the people.

In both pairs of documents it will be noted that the date of the communication from the Maharajah, be it the alleged Instrument of Accession or the letter to Lord Mountbatten, is given as 26 October 1947, that is to say before the Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the States affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947. It has been said that Lord Mountbatten insisted on the Maharajahs signature as a precondition for his approval of Indian intervention in the affairs of what would otherwise be an independent State.

The date, 26 October 1947, has hitherto been accepted as true by virtually all observers, be they sympathetic or hostile to the Indian case. It is to be found in an official communication by Lord Mountbatten, as Governor General of Pakistan, on 1 November 1947; and it is repeated in the White paper on Jammu and Kashmir which the Government of India laid before the Indian Parliament in March 1948. Pakistani diplomats have never challenged it. Recent research, however, has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the date is false. This fact emerges from the archives, and it is also quite clear from such sources as the memoirs of the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir at the time, Mehr Chand Mahajan, and the recently published correspondence of Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister. Circumstantial accounts of the events of 26 October 1947, notably that of V.P Menon (in his The Integration of the Indian States, London 1965), who said he was actually present when the Maharajah signed, are simply not true.

It is now absolutely clear that the two documents (a) the Instrument of Accession, and (c) the letter to Lord Mountbatten, could not possibly have been signed by the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. His Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight, and where their presence was noted by many observers. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the traveling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October, and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Ministers negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day.

The key point, of course, a has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that these documents could only have been signed after the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. When the Indian troops arrived at Srinagar air field, that State was still independent. Any agreements favourable to India signed after such intervention cannot escape the charge of having been produced under duress. It was, one presumes, to escape just such a charge that the false date 26 October 1947 was assigned to these two documents. The deliberately distorted account of that very senior Indian official, V.P. Menon, to which reference has already been made, was no doubt executed for the same end. Falsification of such a fundamental element as date of signature, however, once established, can only cast grave doubt over the validity of the document as a whole .

An examination of the transactions behind these four documents in the light of the new evidence produces a number of other serious doubts. It is clear, for example, that in the case of (c) and (d), the exchange of letters between the Maharajah and Lord Mountbatten, Lord Mountbattens reply must antedate the letter to which it is an answer unless, as seems more than probable, both were drafted by the Government of India before being taken up to Jammu on 27 October 1947 (by V.P. Menon and Jammu and Kashmir Prime Minister M.C. Mahajan, whose movements, incidentally, are correctly reported in the London Times of 28 October 1947) after the arrival of the Indian troops at Srinagar airfield. The case is very strong, therefore, that document (c), the Maharajahs letter to Lord Mountbatten, was dictated to the Maharajah.

Documents (c) and (d) were published by the Government of India on 28 October 1947. The far more important document (a), the alleged Instrument of Accession, was not published until many years later, if at all. It was not communicated to Pakistan at the outset of the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, nor was it presented in facsimile to the United Nations in early 1948 as part of the initial Indian reference to the Security Council. The 1948 White Paper in which the Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharajah: instead, it reproduces an unsigned from of Accession such as, it is imposed, the Maharajah might have signed. To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharajah ever did sign an Instrument of Accession. There are, indeed, grounds for suspecting that he did no such thing. The Instrument of Accession referred to in document (c); a letter which as we have seen was probably drafted by Indian officials prior to being shown to the Maharajah, may never have existed, and can hardly have existed when the letter was being prepared.

Even if there had been an Instrument of Accession, then if it followed the form indicated in the unsigned example of such an Instrument published in the Indian 1948 White Paper it would have been extremely restrictive in the rights conferred upon the Government of India. All that were in fact transferred from the State to the Government of India by such an Instrument were the powers over Defence, Foreign Relations and certain aspects of Communications. Virtually all else was left with the State Government. Thanks to Article 370 of the Indian Constitution of January 1950 (which, unlike much else relating to the former Princely States, has survived to some significant degree in current Indian constitution theory, if not in practice), the State of Jammu and Kashmir was accorded a degree of autonomy which does not sit at all comfortably with the current authoritarian Indian administration of those parts of the State which it holds.

Not only would such an Instrument have been restrictive, but also by virtue of the provisions, of (d), Lord Mountbattens letter to the Maharajah dated 27 October 1947, it would have been conditional. Lord Mountbatten, as Governor-General of India, made it clear that the State of Jammu and Kashmir would only be incorporated permanently within the Indian fold after approval as a result of some form of reference to the people, a procedure which soon (with United Nations participation) became defined as a fair and free plebiscite . India has never permitted such a reference to the people to be made.

Why would the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir not have signed an Instrument of Accession? The answer lies in the complex course of events of August, September and October 1947 emerged. The Maharajah, confronted with growing internal disorder (including a full scale rebellion in the Poonch region of the State), sought Indian military help without, it at all possible, surrendering his own independence. The Government of India delayed assisting him in the hope that in despair he would accede to India before any Indian actions had to be taken. In the event, India had to move first. Having secured what he wanted, Indian military assistance, the Maharajah would naturally have wished to avoid paying the price of the surrender of his independence by signing any instrument which he could possibly avoid signing. From the Afternoon of 27 October 1947 onwards a smoke screen conceals both the details and the immediate outcome of this struggle of wills between the Government of India and the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir. To judge from the 1948 White Paper an Instrument of accession may not have been signed by March 1948, by which time the Indian case for sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir was already being argued before the United Nations.

The patently false dates of documents (a) and (c) alter fundamentally the nature of the overt Indian intervention in Jammu and Kashmir on 27 October 1947. India was not defending its own but intervening in a foreign State. There can be no reasonable doubt that had Pakistan been aware of this falsification of the record it would have argued very differently in international for from the outset of the dispute; and had the United Nations understood the true chronology it would have listened with for less sympathy to arguments presented to it by successive Indian representatives. Given the facts as they are now known, it may well be that an impartial international tribunal would decided that India had no right at all to be in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.


The Indian Claim to Jammu and Kashmir - Conditional Accession, Plebiscites and the Reference to the United Nations:

While the date, and perhaps even the fact, of the accession to India of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in late October 1947 can be questioned, there is no dispute that at that time any such accession was presented to the world large as conditional and provisional. In his letter to the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir, bearing the date 27 October 1947, the Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, declared that:

"Consistently with that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance to the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Governments wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders the question of the States accession should be settled by a reference to the people."

The substance of this was communicated by Jawaharlal Nehru to Liaquat Ali Khan in a telegram of 28 October 1947 in which Nehru indicated that this was a policy with which he agreed. The point is clear enough. A reference to the people would be entirely futile unless it contained the potential of reversing the process of accession. If the people opted for Pakistan, or indeed, for continued independence, then any documents relating to accession which the Maharajah may have signed would be null and void. Such documents would perforce be provisional, in that they could confer rights only until the reference to the people took place; and they were conditional in that they could not continue in force indefinitely unless ratified by popular vote. This point is as valid today as it was in late October 1947.

Indian apologists have since endeavored to argue that the plebiscite proposal was personal to Mountbatten (which we can see it was not) and that it was in a real sense ex-gratia and in no way binding on subsequent Indian administrations. The fact of the matter, however, was that the plebiscite policy had been established long before the Kashmir crisis erupted in October 1947. It was an inherent part of the process by which the British Indian Empire was partitioned between the two successor Dominions of India and Pakistan. Plebiscites (or referenda-the terms tended to be used at this time as if they meant the same thing) had been held on the eve of the Transfer of Power in August 1947 in two areas. In the North West Frontier Province, which possessed a Congress Government despite a virtually total Muslim population, and in Sylhet, a Muslim majority district of the non-Muslim majority Province of Assam, there had been plebiscites where the people were given the choice of joining India or Pakistan. In both cases the vote was in favour of Pakistan. The Sylhet Plebiscite is of particular significance in that it gave a Muslim majority district of a State with an overall non-Muslim majority the opportunity to join its Muslim majority neighbour, Bengal.

The value of the plebiscitary process continued to be appreciated in India after the British Indian Empire had come to an end. In September 1947 the Government of India advocated, as a matter of policy, the holding of a plebiscite in the Princely State of Junagadh. Junagadh was in many respects the mirror image of Kashmir. Here a Muslim Ruler, the Nawab, had formally acceded to Pakistan on 15 August 1947 despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of his subjects were Hindus. The Government of India were united in opposing this action. However, as Jawaharlal Nehru put it on 30 September 1947 :

"We are entirely opposed to war and wish to avoid it. We want an amicable settlement of this issue and we propose therefore, that wherever there is a dispute in regard to any territory, the matter should be decided by a referendum or plebiscite of the people concerned. We shall accept the result of this referendum whatever it may be as it is our desire that a decision should be made in accordance with the wishes of the people concerned. We invite the Pakistan Government, therefore, to submit the Junagadh issue to a referendum of the people under impartial auspices."

In Indian eyes, in other words, Junagadhs accession to Pakistan, if it had any validity at all could only be provisional and conditional upon the outcome of a plebiscite of referendum. India, moreover, considered that the need for such a reference to the people was specifically determined by the fact that a majority of the States population followed a different religion to that of the Ruler. A plebiscite in Junagadh was duly held in February 1948, when the vote was for union with India. In Indian official thinking, it is clear, there was no question of a plebiscite in any State where both Ruler and people were non-Muslims.

Thus when the Kashmir crisis broke out in October 1947 the plebiscite was already established as the official Indian solution to this order of problem. On 25 October 1947, before the Kashmir crisis had fully developed and before Indian claims based on the Maharajahs accession to India had been voiced, Nehru in a telegram to Attlee, the British Prime Minister, declared that:

"I should like to make it clear that [the] question of aiding Kashmir..is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view, which we have repeatedly made public, is that [the] question of accession in any disputed territory must be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people, and we adhere to this view."

On 28 October 1947 the Governor General of Pakistan M.A. Jinnah, also agreed that the answer to Kashmir lay in a plebiscite, thus confirming the official Pakistan policy on this subject. From this moment the basic disagreement between the two Dominions, at least on paper, lay in the modalities for holding a plebiscite and what was understood by impartial auspices.

The concept of impartial supervision of the determination of sovereignty had been present from the outset of the run up to the partition of the Punjab and Bengal in early June 1947. A number of possibilities had been considered at this period, including the request for the services of the United Nations (which had then been rejected on technical grounds arising in the main from the short span of time allowed for the partition process to be implemented). In connection with the Junagadh question, on 30 September 1947 Nehru made it clear that if the United Nations were to be involved (as a result, perhaps, of a reference to that body by Pakistan), and the United Nations issued directions, India would naturally abide by those directions.

Between 28 October and 22 December 1947 there took place a series of Indo-Pakistan discussions over the Kashmir question, some with the leaders of the two sides meeting face to face, some through subordinate officials and some through British intermediaries acting either officially or unofficially. While frequently acrimonious, the general tenor of the negotiations was that some kind of plebiscite should be held in Jammu and Kashmir. At a meeting on 8 November 1947 between two very senior officials, V.P Menon for India and Chaudhri Muhammad Ali for Pakistan, a detailed scheme for holding a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir was worked out, with the apparent blessing of the Indian Deputy Prime Minister, Vallabhbhai Patel, in which the following principle was laid down : that neither Government [of India or Pakistan] would accept the accession of a State whose rule was of a different religion to the majority of his subjects without resorting to a plebiscite.

The 8 November scheme aborted; but the underlying principles remained on the agenda. There were two major questions. First : how and in what way should the State be restored to a condition of tranquility such as would permit the holding of any kind of free and fair plebiscite. Second: who should supervise the plebiscite when it finally came to he held. On both question, after exploring a number of devices including the employment of British officers to hold the ring while the votes were being cast, the consensus in the Governments of both India and Pakistan by 22 December 1947 was that the services of the United Nations, either through the Secretary General or the Security Council, offered the best prospect for success, though Nehru continued to express in public his reservations about foreign intervention.

At this point Lord Mountbatten, the Governor General of India, explained to Liaquat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, that the best way to get Nehru to decide finally in favour of reference to the United Nations was to permit India to take the first step, even if in the process Pakistan would have to submit to some measure of Indian indictment to which Pakistan would have every opportunity to make rebuttal at the United Nations. Liaquat Ali Khan, so the records make clear, accepted this proposal. On this basis, on 1 January 1948, India brought Security Council of the United Nations.

The Presentation of the Indian case, the Pakistani reply, and the series of debates which followed over the years, have all tended to obscure the original terms of that Indian reference. This was made under Article 35 of the Charter of the United Nations in which the mediation of the Security Council was expressly sough in a matter which otherwise threatened to disturb the course of international relations. The issue was an Indian request for United Nations mediation in a dispute which had transcended the diplomatic resources of the two parties directly involved, India and Pakistan, and not, as it is frequently represented, an Indian demand for United Nations condemnation of Pakistans aggression. This point, despite much Indian and Pakistan rhetoric, can be determined easily enough by relating the contents of the reference to the specifications of Article 35 of the United Nations Charter. The United Nations was asked to devise a formula whereby peace could be restored in the State of Jammu and Kashmir so that a fair and free plebiscite could be held to determine that States future. The matter of the Maharajah of Kashmirs accession to India was not in this context of the slightest relevance.

The Security Council of the United Nations responded to this request by devising a number of schemes for the restoration of law and order and the holding a plebiscite. These were duly set out in United Nations Resolutions which, though never implemented, still remain the collective expression of the voice of the international community as to how the Kashmir question ought to be settled. The conditions set out by the Security Council of the United Nations have not been met in any way by the subsequent internal political processes (including a variety of elections) in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and in any of its constituent parts.

The situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir remains unresolved, and it remains a matter of international interest. Given the background to and terms of the original Indian reference to the Security Council it cannot possibly be said that, today, Jammu and Kashmir (or those parts of it currently under Indian occupation) is a matter of purely internal Indian concern. The United Nations retains that status in this matter, which it was granted.


----------



## LadyFinger

Pakistan has been successful until now. We have defeated them but their mentality remains the same that has been coded into their brains. Unless they somehow get some cultural shock or a sudden insight. So it is a complex thing. Gajar ka halwa is good, I like it.  Ghazwa means battle, Arabic word.


-xXx- said:


> Is there a reason that you guys will fail and they will survive to do a "*gazar ka halwa e hind*"?


----------



## Joe Shearer

Wet Shirt Contest said:


> Actually much of their 700,000 figure is consist of CRPF and what on earth is 700,000* Hindu, Sikh Security ?*
> did you know how retarded people sound when they automatically equate Indians = hindos.



Where did the figure 700,000 come from?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AsianLion

*Kashmir: The Untold Story of Indian Occupation*

By Tara Dorabji

A few days before I left for India, American journalist, David Barsamian, was deported from New Delhi for his coverage of Kashmir. Barsamian reports for AlterNet one of the few national free speech radio outlets in the US. News reports quoted officials saying that his deportation resulted from his reporting on Kashmir during his 2009-10 trip to India, while on a tourist visa. If reporting the truth in Kashmir can get you deported, I was in danger.

On my first day in Srinagar, the local head of surveillance let me know he was fully aware of my arrival. It was a discreet enough interaction, but served its purpose: I was being watched. My threat? A pen and paper to record the stories of Kashmiris.

The silence of India’s occupation of Kashmir blankets the valley, like the morning smog obscures the Himalayan Mountains. There is a new face to the hundred-year-old struggle for Kashmiri sovereignty and independence. Sahil, age 12, lit up when I asked what his hope for Kashmir is. “I have a hope that there is a freedom in Kashmir.” Sahil’s father was disappeared in 2002. For nine years he and his mother have searched for his father, only his absence is present. Every day after school Sahil comes home to help his mother work—embroidering cloth to earn a few rupees.
The strong current of popular, nonviolent uprising for freedom continues to grow in Kashmir. It distinguishes itself from the armed rebellion of the early 90s, yet the demand is the same: liberation from occupation—the independence of Kashmir. Despite the Indian government’s own estimate of only 500-700 armed militants in the area, Kashmir remains the most densely militarized land on earth. *There are approximately 700,000 Indian military and paramilitary in Kashmir, policing a population of 12.5 million.*

Under the British partitioning of India in 1947, Kashmir joined India as a quasi-independent region. For a short time, Kashmiris enjoyed much self-rule, self-determination and indigenous leadership. Kashmir led the world in revolutionary land reform, implementing a broad redistribution of resources that created a population relatively equal in wealth. Was it that the Indian ruling elite feared that Kashmir would serve as a model for India? Could there have been a broad redistribution of resources in the subcontinent?

There are many interpretations of how the trust and relationship between Delhi and Srinagar eroded. The result was a deliberate stripping of Kashmiri independence, which on paper was protected under article 370 of the India constitution. While most of these rights have diminished, land protection in the valley is still observed and only Kashmiris can own land in the region. It is this provision that has prevented a complete repopulation of the area.

With the erosion of Kashmir’s autonomy, came the military repression and arguably an attempted genocide. From 1989 to 2011 there have been 8,000 documented disappearances and 70,000 deaths of Kashmiris resulting from the Indian occupation. Torture is rampant. Khurram Parvaiz, Liaison of the International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-Administered Kashmir (IPTK), works documenting the cases of torture. “The most underreported phenomenon in Jammu and Kashmir is torture. If you go to any village hundreds of people in every village have been tortured, not just men, but women, children and old people as well.” Parvaiz was involved in documenting the torture of over 1,500 people who became impotent because their genitals were electrocuted. He goes on to explain that there have been hundreds of boys who were raped by soldiers. In one case the abuse by the army was caught on video, still there were no convictions. Parvaiz continued to describe another case of torture, “I have documented very horrible cases, but this is the most horrible.” The army kept a 60-year-old man in solitary confinement for one month. During that time, he wasn’t given anything to eat, but his own flesh. They cut the flesh from his body and served it to him. This was all he was given to eat for a month. Recounting the torture Parvaiz said, “This was something that shook me. We have hundreds of Guantanamo Bays here. Why is nobody talking about it?”

The torture and death can be buried no longer. In July 2011, the State Human Rights Commission of Jammu and Kashmir (SHRC) released a report documenting 2,156 unidentified bodies in 38 graveyards. The state report verified the findings of Buried Evidence, released in 2009 by Parvaiz’s group. Parvaiz explained how the findings were initially swept under the rug, “The government said that these unmarked graves are all of foreign militants and people need not worry about it.” There have been limited DNA tests on the remains. Parvaiz cited that DNA tests of 53 bodies identified that 49 were Kashmiri civilians, one was a Kashmiri combatant and three were unidentified.
Parvaiz said, “It is the right of the family to have the body. The government does not want to give these bodies to the families because there is something to hide. They are hiding the marks of torture.”

Kashmiri children grow up watching graveyards populate their villages. As people are buried, the community holds their story, the memory. Oral history is their biggest weapon against India’s brutal occupation. Even under occupation, the stories of the dead cannot be silenced.

The families of the disappeared continue to fight for the truth. Bilkeez Manzoor became a member of the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons after her father disappeared in 2002. The army took him from their house in the middle of the night. They have not seen him since. Manzoor continues to fight for justice for her father and brought the case all the way to India’s supreme court. Manzoor recounted that she received threatening calls telling her not to continue with her case, “But I am not afraid. I thought I am strong; I should file this. I have never stopped.”
Manzoor explained her hopes for Kashmir. “I want independence. The armed forces, they destroy everyone’s lives through torture, through fake murders like disappearances. It is very horrible for us. When we have independence we’ll be free of this. With the independence of Kashmir, maybe the women will feel free.”

While the people of Kashmir resist occupation and struggle for freedom every day, their struggle is largely ignored by the international community. Khurram Parviz asked, “Why is the international community silent? The war which has been declared on the people of Jammu and Kashmir by the Indian state has been violent, has been brutal has matched all records of brutality around the world. What we have suffered in the last 20 years is no less than a war crime, yet there is silence by the international community.”

Looking at the high alpine lakes and valley surrounded by mountains, one cannot help, but think of Switzerland. With a population of 7.6 million people, Switzerland’s population is nearly half the size of Kashmir’s. Despite its small size, Switzerland spends about 1% of their GDP on military. If Switzerland can be independent, why not Kashmir?

Could the future independence of Kashmir be a headwaters in creating a new type of democracy? Perhaps if the nonviolent, popular movement of Kashmir is allowed self-determination a new brand of democracy will be born: a democracy that is not founded on control through military domination—one that does not wave the flag of democracy to cover up genocide.


----------



## chanakya84

AsianUnion said:


> For you @chanakya84 and @-xXx- : It is pretty bad, Indian can broke down, further wet ur dhotis, as the Indian state & economy suffers:
> 
> *Excerpts from 'The Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU AND KASHMIR A REAPPRAISAL' *
> 
> The formal overt Indian intervention in the internal affairs of the State of Jammu and Kashmir began on about 9.00 a.m. on 27 October 1947, when Indian troops started landing at Srinagar airfield. India has officially dated the commencement of its claim that the State was part of Indian sovereign territory to a few hours earlier, at some point in the afternoon or evening of 26 October. From their arrival on 27 October 1947 to the present day, Indian troops have continued to occupy a large proportion of the State of Jammu and Kashmir despite the increasingly manifest opposition of a majority of the population to their presence. To critics of Indias position and actions in the State of Jammu and Kashmir the Government of New Delhi has consistently declared that the State of Jammu and Kashmir lies entirely within the sphere of internal Indian policy. Do the facts support the Indian contention in this respect?
> 
> The State of Jammu and Kashmir was a Princely State within the British Indian Empire. By the rules of the British transfer of power in Indian subcontinent in 1947 the Ruler of the State, Maharajah Sir Hari Singh, with the departure of the British and the lapsing of Paramountcy (as the relationship between State and British Crown was termed), could opt to join either India or Pakistan or, by doing nothing, become from 15 August 1947 the Ruler of an independent polity. The choice was the Rulers and his alone: there was no provision for popular consultation in the Indian Princely States during the final days of the British Raj. On 15th August 1947, by default, the State of Jammu and Kashmir became independent.
> 
> India maintains that this period of independence, the existence of which it has never challenged effectively, came to an end on 26/27 October as the result of two pairs of closely related transactions, which we must now examine. They are:
> 
> (a) an Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India which the Maharajah is alleged to have signed on 26 October 1947, and;
> 
> (b) the acceptance of this Instrument by the Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten, on 27 October 1947; plus
> 
> (c) a letter from the Maharajah to Lord Mountbatten, dated 26 October 1947, in which Indian military aid is sought in return for accession to India (on terms stated in an allegedly enclosed Instrument) and the appointment of Sheikh Abdullah to head an Interim Government of the State; and
> 
> (d) a letter from Lord Mountbatten to the Maharajah, dated 27 October 1947, acknowledging the above and noting that, once the affairs of the State have been settled and law and order is restored, the question of the States accession should be settled by a reference to the people.
> 
> In both pairs of documents it will be noted that the date of the communication from the Maharajah, be it the alleged Instrument of Accession or the letter to Lord Mountbatten, is given as 26 October 1947, that is to say before the Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the States affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947. It has been said that Lord Mountbatten insisted on the Maharajahs signature as a precondition for his approval of Indian intervention in the affairs of what would otherwise be an independent State.
> 
> The date, 26 October 1947, has hitherto been accepted as true by virtually all observers, be they sympathetic or hostile to the Indian case. It is to be found in an official communication by Lord Mountbatten, as Governor General of Pakistan, on 1 November 1947; and it is repeated in the White paper on Jammu and Kashmir which the Government of India laid before the Indian Parliament in March 1948. Pakistani diplomats have never challenged it. Recent research, however, has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the date is false. This fact emerges from the archives, and it is also quite clear from such sources as the memoirs of the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir at the time, Mehr Chand Mahajan, and the recently published correspondence of Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister. Circumstantial accounts of the events of 26 October 1947, notably that of V.P Menon (in his The Integration of the Indian States, London 1965), who said he was actually present when the Maharajah signed, are simply not true.
> 
> It is now absolutely clear that the two documents (a) the Instrument of Accession, and (c) the letter to Lord Mountbatten, could not possibly have been signed by the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. His Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight, and where their presence was noted by many observers. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the traveling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October, and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Ministers negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day.
> 
> The key point, of course, a has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that these documents could only have been signed after the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. When the Indian troops arrived at Srinagar air field, that State was still independent. Any agreements favourable to India signed after such intervention cannot escape the charge of having been produced under duress. It was, one presumes, to escape just such a charge that the false date 26 October 1947 was assigned to these two documents. The deliberately distorted account of that very senior Indian official, V.P. Menon, to which reference has already been made, was no doubt executed for the same end. Falsification of such a fundamental element as date of signature, however, once established, can only cast grave doubt over the validity of the document as a whole .
> 
> An examination of the transactions behind these four documents in the light of the new evidence produces a number of other serious doubts. It is clear, for example, that in the case of (c) and (d), the exchange of letters between the Maharajah and Lord Mountbatten, Lord Mountbattens reply must antedate the letter to which it is an answer unless, as seems more than probable, both were drafted by the Government of India before being taken up to Jammu on 27 October 1947 (by V.P. Menon and Jammu and Kashmir Prime Minister M.C. Mahajan, whose movements, incidentally, are correctly reported in the London Times of 28 October 1947) after the arrival of the Indian troops at Srinagar airfield. The case is very strong, therefore, that document (c), the Maharajahs letter to Lord Mountbatten, was dictated to the Maharajah.
> 
> Documents (c) and (d) were published by the Government of India on 28 October 1947. The far more important document (a), the alleged Instrument of Accession, was not published until many years later, if at all. It was not communicated to Pakistan at the outset of the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, nor was it presented in facsimile to the United Nations in early 1948 as part of the initial Indian reference to the Security Council. The 1948 White Paper in which the Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharajah: instead, it reproduces an unsigned from of Accession such as, it is imposed, the Maharajah might have signed. To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharajah ever did sign an Instrument of Accession. There are, indeed, grounds for suspecting that he did no such thing. The Instrument of Accession referred to in document (c); a letter which as we have seen was probably drafted by Indian officials prior to being shown to the Maharajah, may never have existed, and can hardly have existed when the letter was being prepared.
> 
> Even if there had been an Instrument of Accession, then if it followed the form indicated in the unsigned example of such an Instrument published in the Indian 1948 White Paper it would have been extremely restrictive in the rights conferred upon the Government of India. All that were in fact transferred from the State to the Government of India by such an Instrument were the powers over Defence, Foreign Relations and certain aspects of Communications. Virtually all else was left with the State Government. Thanks to Article 370 of the Indian Constitution of January 1950 (which, unlike much else relating to the former Princely States, has survived to some significant degree in current Indian constitution theory, if not in practice), the State of Jammu and Kashmir was accorded a degree of autonomy which does not sit at all comfortably with the current authoritarian Indian administration of those parts of the State which it holds.
> 
> Not only would such an Instrument have been restrictive, but also by virtue of the provisions, of (d), Lord Mountbattens letter to the Maharajah dated 27 October 1947, it would have been conditional. Lord Mountbatten, as Governor-General of India, made it clear that the State of Jammu and Kashmir would only be incorporated permanently within the Indian fold after approval as a result of some form of reference to the people, a procedure which soon (with United Nations participation) became defined as a fair and free plebiscite . India has never permitted such a reference to the people to be made.
> 
> Why would the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir not have signed an Instrument of Accession? The answer lies in the complex course of events of August, September and October 1947 emerged. The Maharajah, confronted with growing internal disorder (including a full scale rebellion in the Poonch region of the State), sought Indian military help without, it at all possible, surrendering his own independence. The Government of India delayed assisting him in the hope that in despair he would accede to India before any Indian actions had to be taken. In the event, India had to move first. Having secured what he wanted, Indian military assistance, the Maharajah would naturally have wished to avoid paying the price of the surrender of his independence by signing any instrument which he could possibly avoid signing. From the Afternoon of 27 October 1947 onwards a smoke screen conceals both the details and the immediate outcome of this struggle of wills between the Government of India and the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir. To judge from the 1948 White Paper an Instrument of accession may not have been signed by March 1948, by which time the Indian case for sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir was already being argued before the United Nations.
> 
> The patently false dates of documents (a) and (c) alter fundamentally the nature of the overt Indian intervention in Jammu and Kashmir on 27 October 1947. India was not defending its own but intervening in a foreign State. There can be no reasonable doubt that had Pakistan been aware of this falsification of the record it would have argued very differently in international for from the outset of the dispute; and had the United Nations understood the true chronology it would have listened with for less sympathy to arguments presented to it by successive Indian representatives. Given the facts as they are now known, it may well be that an impartial international tribunal would decided that India had no right at all to be in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
> 
> 
> The Indian Claim to Jammu and Kashmir - Conditional Accession, Plebiscites and the Reference to the United Nations:
> 
> While the date, and perhaps even the fact, of the accession to India of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in late October 1947 can be questioned, there is no dispute that at that time any such accession was presented to the world large as conditional and provisional. In his letter to the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir, bearing the date 27 October 1947, the Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, declared that:
> 
> "Consistently with that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance to the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Governments wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders the question of the States accession should be settled by a reference to the people."
> 
> The substance of this was communicated by Jawaharlal Nehru to Liaquat Ali Khan in a telegram of 28 October 1947 in which Nehru indicated that this was a policy with which he agreed. The point is clear enough. A reference to the people would be entirely futile unless it contained the potential of reversing the process of accession. If the people opted for Pakistan, or indeed, for continued independence, then any documents relating to accession which the Maharajah may have signed would be null and void. Such documents would perforce be provisional, in that they could confer rights only until the reference to the people took place; and they were conditional in that they could not continue in force indefinitely unless ratified by popular vote. This point is as valid today as it was in late October 1947.
> 
> Indian apologists have since endeavored to argue that the plebiscite proposal was personal to Mountbatten (which we can see it was not) and that it was in a real sense ex-gratia and in no way binding on subsequent Indian administrations. The fact of the matter, however, was that the plebiscite policy had been established long before the Kashmir crisis erupted in October 1947. It was an inherent part of the process by which the British Indian Empire was partitioned between the two successor Dominions of India and Pakistan. Plebiscites (or referenda-the terms tended to be used at this time as if they meant the same thing) had been held on the eve of the Transfer of Power in August 1947 in two areas. In the North West Frontier Province, which possessed a Congress Government despite a virtually total Muslim population, and in Sylhet, a Muslim majority district of the non-Muslim majority Province of Assam, there had been plebiscites where the people were given the choice of joining India or Pakistan. In both cases the vote was in favour of Pakistan. The Sylhet Plebiscite is of particular significance in that it gave a Muslim majority district of a State with an overall non-Muslim majority the opportunity to join its Muslim majority neighbour, Bengal.
> 
> The value of the plebiscitary process continued to be appreciated in India after the British Indian Empire had come to an end. In September 1947 the Government of India advocated, as a matter of policy, the holding of a plebiscite in the Princely State of Junagadh. Junagadh was in many respects the mirror image of Kashmir. Here a Muslim Ruler, the Nawab, had formally acceded to Pakistan on 15 August 1947 despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of his subjects were Hindus. The Government of India were united in opposing this action. However, as Jawaharlal Nehru put it on 30 September 1947 :
> 
> "We are entirely opposed to war and wish to avoid it. We want an amicable settlement of this issue and we propose therefore, that wherever there is a dispute in regard to any territory, the matter should be decided by a referendum or plebiscite of the people concerned. We shall accept the result of this referendum whatever it may be as it is our desire that a decision should be made in accordance with the wishes of the people concerned. We invite the Pakistan Government, therefore, to submit the Junagadh issue to a referendum of the people under impartial auspices."
> 
> In Indian eyes, in other words, Junagadhs accession to Pakistan, if it had any validity at all could only be provisional and conditional upon the outcome of a plebiscite of referendum. India, moreover, considered that the need for such a reference to the people was specifically determined by the fact that a majority of the States population followed a different religion to that of the Ruler. A plebiscite in Junagadh was duly held in February 1948, when the vote was for union with India. In Indian official thinking, it is clear, there was no question of a plebiscite in any State where both Ruler and people were non-Muslims.
> 
> Thus when the Kashmir crisis broke out in October 1947 the plebiscite was already established as the official Indian solution to this order of problem. On 25 October 1947, before the Kashmir crisis had fully developed and before Indian claims based on the Maharajahs accession to India had been voiced, Nehru in a telegram to Attlee, the British Prime Minister, declared that:
> 
> "I should like to make it clear that [the] question of aiding Kashmir..is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view, which we have repeatedly made public, is that [the] question of accession in any disputed territory must be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people, and we adhere to this view."
> 
> On 28 October 1947 the Governor General of Pakistan M.A. Jinnah, also agreed that the answer to Kashmir lay in a plebiscite, thus confirming the official Pakistan policy on this subject. From this moment the basic disagreement between the two Dominions, at least on paper, lay in the modalities for holding a plebiscite and what was understood by impartial auspices.
> 
> The concept of impartial supervision of the determination of sovereignty had been present from the outset of the run up to the partition of the Punjab and Bengal in early June 1947. A number of possibilities had been considered at this period, including the request for the services of the United Nations (which had then been rejected on technical grounds arising in the main from the short span of time allowed for the partition process to be implemented). In connection with the Junagadh question, on 30 September 1947 Nehru made it clear that if the United Nations were to be involved (as a result, perhaps, of a reference to that body by Pakistan), and the United Nations issued directions, India would naturally abide by those directions.
> 
> Between 28 October and 22 December 1947 there took place a series of Indo-Pakistan discussions over the Kashmir question, some with the leaders of the two sides meeting face to face, some through subordinate officials and some through British intermediaries acting either officially or unofficially. While frequently acrimonious, the general tenor of the negotiations was that some kind of plebiscite should be held in Jammu and Kashmir. At a meeting on 8 November 1947 between two very senior officials, V.P Menon for India and Chaudhri Muhammad Ali for Pakistan, a detailed scheme for holding a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir was worked out, with the apparent blessing of the Indian Deputy Prime Minister, Vallabhbhai Patel, in which the following principle was laid down : that neither Government [of India or Pakistan] would accept the accession of a State whose rule was of a different religion to the majority of his subjects without resorting to a plebiscite.
> 
> The 8 November scheme aborted; but the underlying principles remained on the agenda. There were two major questions. First : how and in what way should the State be restored to a condition of tranquility such as would permit the holding of any kind of free and fair plebiscite. Second: who should supervise the plebiscite when it finally came to he held. On both question, after exploring a number of devices including the employment of British officers to hold the ring while the votes were being cast, the consensus in the Governments of both India and Pakistan by 22 December 1947 was that the services of the United Nations, either through the Secretary General or the Security Council, offered the best prospect for success, though Nehru continued to express in public his reservations about foreign intervention.
> 
> At this point Lord Mountbatten, the Governor General of India, explained to Liaquat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, that the best way to get Nehru to decide finally in favour of reference to the United Nations was to permit India to take the first step, even if in the process Pakistan would have to submit to some measure of Indian indictment to which Pakistan would have every opportunity to make rebuttal at the United Nations. Liaquat Ali Khan, so the records make clear, accepted this proposal. On this basis, on 1 January 1948, India brought Security Council of the United Nations.
> 
> The Presentation of the Indian case, the Pakistani reply, and the series of debates which followed over the years, have all tended to obscure the original terms of that Indian reference. This was made under Article 35 of the Charter of the United Nations in which the mediation of the Security Council was expressly sough in a matter which otherwise threatened to disturb the course of international relations. The issue was an Indian request for United Nations mediation in a dispute which had transcended the diplomatic resources of the two parties directly involved, India and Pakistan, and not, as it is frequently represented, an Indian demand for United Nations condemnation of Pakistans aggression. This point, despite much Indian and Pakistan rhetoric, can be determined easily enough by relating the contents of the reference to the specifications of Article 35 of the United Nations Charter. The United Nations was asked to devise a formula whereby peace could be restored in the State of Jammu and Kashmir so that a fair and free plebiscite could be held to determine that States future. The matter of the Maharajah of Kashmirs accession to India was not in this context of the slightest relevance.
> 
> The Security Council of the United Nations responded to this request by devising a number of schemes for the restoration of law and order and the holding a plebiscite. These were duly set out in United Nations Resolutions which, though never implemented, still remain the collective expression of the voice of the international community as to how the Kashmir question ought to be settled. The conditions set out by the Security Council of the United Nations have not been met in any way by the subsequent internal political processes (including a variety of elections) in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and in any of its constituent parts.
> 
> The situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir remains unresolved, and it remains a matter of international interest. Given the background to and terms of the original Indian reference to the Security Council it cannot possibly be said that, today, Jammu and Kashmir (or those parts of it currently under Indian occupation) is a matter of purely internal Indian concern. The United Nations retains that status in this matter, which it was granted.


Dude do you have any idea around Indian economy?
In another thread you were quoting the 21 billion India spends on Kashmir while we also spend 51 billion on UP. 
We are spending just 1.7 percent on the defense which is still less than your net defense spending. 

Repeating the same stuff does not change the ground reality. India can very well afford to continue to have Kashmir. We are not buying weapons per se, exclusively for Kashmir. If not for Kashmir we would still be having the same amount of armed forces owing to size and population of India. In Kashmir they are just being put to use. 

Do you think our missile defense programs, high end fighter planes are meant for Kashmir, they are the major share in our defense spendings. At the same time it is forcing Pakistan to increase its defense budgets pushing its economy to brink.



AsianUnion said:


> *Kashmir: The Untold Story of Indian Occupation*
> 
> By Tara Dorabji
> 
> A few days before I left for India, American journalist, David Barsamian, was deported from New Delhi for his coverage of Kashmir. Barsamian reports for AlterNet one of the few national free speech radio outlets in the US. News reports quoted officials saying that his deportation resulted from his reporting on Kashmir during his 2009-10 trip to India, while on a tourist visa. If reporting the truth in Kashmir can get you deported, I was in danger.
> 
> On my first day in Srinagar, the local head of surveillance let me know he was fully aware of my arrival. It was a discreet enough interaction, but served its purpose: I was being watched. My threat? A pen and paper to record the stories of Kashmiris.
> 
> The silence of India’s occupation of Kashmir blankets the valley, like the morning smog obscures the Himalayan Mountains. There is a new face to the hundred-year-old struggle for Kashmiri sovereignty and independence. Sahil, age 12, lit up when I asked what his hope for Kashmir is. “I have a hope that there is a freedom in Kashmir.” Sahil’s father was disappeared in 2002. For nine years he and his mother have searched for his father, only his absence is present. Every day after school Sahil comes home to help his mother work—embroidering cloth to earn a few rupees.
> The strong current of popular, nonviolent uprising for freedom continues to grow in Kashmir. It distinguishes itself from the armed rebellion of the early 90s, yet the demand is the same: liberation from occupation—the independence of Kashmir. Despite the Indian government’s own estimate of only 500-700 armed militants in the area, Kashmir remains the most densely militarized land on earth. *There are approximately 700,000 Indian military and paramilitary in Kashmir, policing a population of 12.5 million.*
> 
> Under the British partitioning of India in 1947, Kashmir joined India as a quasi-independent region. For a short time, Kashmiris enjoyed much self-rule, self-determination and indigenous leadership. Kashmir led the world in revolutionary land reform, implementing a broad redistribution of resources that created a population relatively equal in wealth. Was it that the Indian ruling elite feared that Kashmir would serve as a model for India? Could there have been a broad redistribution of resources in the subcontinent?
> 
> There are many interpretations of how the trust and relationship between Delhi and Srinagar eroded. The result was a deliberate stripping of Kashmiri independence, which on paper was protected under article 370 of the India constitution. While most of these rights have diminished, land protection in the valley is still observed and only Kashmiris can own land in the region. It is this provision that has prevented a complete repopulation of the area.
> 
> With the erosion of Kashmir’s autonomy, came the military repression and arguably an attempted genocide. From 1989 to 2011 there have been 8,000 documented disappearances and 70,000 deaths of Kashmiris resulting from the Indian occupation. Torture is rampant. Khurram Parvaiz, Liaison of the International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-Administered Kashmir (IPTK), works documenting the cases of torture. “The most underreported phenomenon in Jammu and Kashmir is torture. If you go to any village hundreds of people in every village have been tortured, not just men, but women, children and old people as well.” Parvaiz was involved in documenting the torture of over 1,500 people who became impotent because their genitals were electrocuted. He goes on to explain that there have been hundreds of boys who were raped by soldiers. In one case the abuse by the army was caught on video, still there were no convictions. Parvaiz continued to describe another case of torture, “I have documented very horrible cases, but this is the most horrible.” The army kept a 60-year-old man in solitary confinement for one month. During that time, he wasn’t given anything to eat, but his own flesh. They cut the flesh from his body and served it to him. This was all he was given to eat for a month. Recounting the torture Parvaiz said, “This was something that shook me. We have hundreds of Guantanamo Bays here. Why is nobody talking about it?”
> 
> The torture and death can be buried no longer. In July 2011, the State Human Rights Commission of Jammu and Kashmir (SHRC) released a report documenting 2,156 unidentified bodies in 38 graveyards. The state report verified the findings of Buried Evidence, released in 2009 by Parvaiz’s group. Parvaiz explained how the findings were initially swept under the rug, “The government said that these unmarked graves are all of foreign militants and people need not worry about it.” There have been limited DNA tests on the remains. Parvaiz cited that DNA tests of 53 bodies identified that 49 were Kashmiri civilians, one was a Kashmiri combatant and three were unidentified.
> Parvaiz said, “It is the right of the family to have the body. The government does not want to give these bodies to the families because there is something to hide. They are hiding the marks of torture.”
> 
> Kashmiri children grow up watching graveyards populate their villages. As people are buried, the community holds their story, the memory. Oral history is their biggest weapon against India’s brutal occupation. Even under occupation, the stories of the dead cannot be silenced.
> 
> The families of the disappeared continue to fight for the truth. Bilkeez Manzoor became a member of the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons after her father disappeared in 2002. The army took him from their house in the middle of the night. They have not seen him since. Manzoor continues to fight for justice for her father and brought the case all the way to India’s supreme court. Manzoor recounted that she received threatening calls telling her not to continue with her case, “But I am not afraid. I thought I am strong; I should file this. I have never stopped.”
> Manzoor explained her hopes for Kashmir. “I want independence. The armed forces, they destroy everyone’s lives through torture, through fake murders like disappearances. It is very horrible for us. When we have independence we’ll be free of this. With the independence of Kashmir, maybe the women will feel free.”
> 
> While the people of Kashmir resist occupation and struggle for freedom every day, their struggle is largely ignored by the international community. Khurram Parviz asked, “Why is the international community silent? The war which has been declared on the people of Jammu and Kashmir by the Indian state has been violent, has been brutal has matched all records of brutality around the world. What we have suffered in the last 20 years is no less than a war crime, yet there is silence by the international community.”
> 
> Looking at the high alpine lakes and valley surrounded by mountains, one cannot help, but think of Switzerland. With a population of 7.6 million people, Switzerland’s population is nearly half the size of Kashmir’s. Despite its small size, Switzerland spends about 1% of their GDP on military. If Switzerland can be independent, why not Kashmir?
> 
> Could the future independence of Kashmir be a headwaters in creating a new type of democracy? Perhaps if the nonviolent, popular movement of Kashmir is allowed self-determination a new brand of democracy will be born: a democracy that is not founded on control through military domination—one that does not wave the flag of democracy to cover up genocide.


Lol posting from conspiracy sites which also have articles like 

*David Icke’s argument of alien-controlled 1% Illuminati bloodlines*

This is called height of desperation dude.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AsianLion

One of the good talks on kashmir recently :
ENGINEER RASHID ON PRESENT SITUATION IN KASHMIR WITH SYED ROUF:


----------



## Joe Shearer

This would have been amusing, in a Sisyphean way, except for the coarse and vulgar ethnic slur in the preamble, which deserves a stern rebuke.



AsianUnion said:


> For you @chanakya84 and @-xXx- : It is pretty bad, Indian can broke down, further wet ur dhotis, as the Indian state & economy suffers:
> 
> *Excerpts from 'The Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU AND KASHMIR A REAPPRAISAL' *
> 
> The formal overt Indian intervention in the internal affairs of the State of Jammu and Kashmir began on about 9.00 a.m. on 27 October 1947, when Indian troops started landing at Srinagar airfield. India has officially dated the commencement of its claim that the State was part of Indian sovereign territory to a few hours earlier, at some point in the afternoon or evening of 26 October. From their arrival on 27 October 1947 to the present day, Indian troops have continued to occupy a large proportion of the State of Jammu and Kashmir despite the increasingly manifest opposition of a majority of the population to their presence. To critics of Indias position and actions in the State of Jammu and Kashmir the Government of New Delhi has consistently declared that the State of Jammu and Kashmir lies entirely within the sphere of internal Indian policy. Do the facts support the Indian contention in this respect?
> 
> The State of Jammu and Kashmir was a Princely State within the British Indian Empire. By the rules of the British transfer of power in Indian subcontinent in 1947 the Ruler of the State, Maharajah Sir Hari Singh, with the departure of the British and the lapsing of Paramountcy (as the relationship between State and British Crown was termed), could opt to join either India or Pakistan or, by doing nothing, become from 15 August 1947 the Ruler of an independent polity. The choice was the Rulers and his alone: there was no provision for popular consultation in the Indian Princely States during the final days of the British Raj. On 15th August 1947, by default, the State of Jammu and Kashmir became independent.
> 
> India maintains that this period of independence, the existence of which it has never challenged effectively, came to an end on 26/27 October as the result of two pairs of closely related transactions, which we must now examine. They are:
> 
> (a) an Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India which the Maharajah is alleged to have signed on 26 October 1947, and;
> 
> (b) the acceptance of this Instrument by the Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten, on 27 October 1947; plus
> 
> (c) a letter from the Maharajah to Lord Mountbatten, dated 26 October 1947, in which Indian military aid is sought in return for accession to India (on terms stated in an allegedly enclosed Instrument) and the appointment of Sheikh Abdullah to head an Interim Government of the State; and
> 
> (d) a letter from Lord Mountbatten to the Maharajah, dated 27 October 1947, acknowledging the above and noting that, once the affairs of the State have been settled and law and order is restored, the question of the States accession should be settled by a reference to the people.
> 
> In both pairs of documents it will be noted that the date of the communication from the Maharajah, be it the alleged Instrument of Accession or the letter to Lord Mountbatten, is given as 26 October 1947, that is to say before the Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the States affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947. It has been said that Lord Mountbatten insisted on the Maharajahs signature as a precondition for his approval of Indian intervention in the affairs of what would otherwise be an independent State.
> 
> The date, 26 October 1947, has hitherto been accepted as true by virtually all observers, be they sympathetic or hostile to the Indian case. It is to be found in an official communication by Lord Mountbatten, as Governor General of Pakistan, on 1 November 1947; and it is repeated in the White paper on Jammu and Kashmir which the Government of India laid before the Indian Parliament in March 1948. Pakistani diplomats have never challenged it. Recent research, however, has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the date is false. This fact emerges from the archives, and it is also quite clear from such sources as the memoirs of the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir at the time, Mehr Chand Mahajan, and the recently published correspondence of Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister. Circumstantial accounts of the events of 26 October 1947, notably that of V.P Menon (in his The Integration of the Indian States, London 1965), who said he was actually present when the Maharajah signed, are simply not true.



One set of accounts is untrue, the other set of accounts is true. The written evidence of the Governor-General of India is untrue, some shadowy witnesses are, of course, of canonical integrity.

Continue to live in a fool's paradise.



> It is now absolutely clear that the two documents (a) the Instrument of Accession, and (c) the letter to Lord Mountbatten, could not possibly have been signed by the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu.



There is the eye-witness account of the then DMO, Brigadier Manekshaw - some may have heard of him in a different connection - that he was himself present, along with Mr. Menon, in Srinagar, through the day of 26th October, 1947, and that they left in the evening for Srinagar Airport for return to Delhi, while the Maharaja left for Jammu with his entourage - on the 26th, indeed, but after events described were over.



> His Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight, and where their presence was noted by many observers.



Might we know the identity of a single one of these 'many observers'?



> There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the traveling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October, and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Ministers negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day.



A story born out of Mahajan's memoirs, whereas both Menon and Manekshaw indicate that they were in Srinagar the previous day, reported to the council on the 27th, and could have gone to Jammu only after that early morning meeting.



> The key point, of course, a has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that these documents could only have been signed after the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. When the Indian troops arrived at Srinagar air field, that State was still independent. Any agreements favourable to India signed after such intervention cannot escape the charge of having been produced under duress. It was, one presumes, to escape just such a charge that the false date 26 October 1947 was assigned to these two documents. The deliberately distorted account of that very senior Indian official, V.P. Menon, to which reference has already been made, was no doubt executed for the same end. Falsification of such a fundamental element as date of signature, however, once established, can only cast grave doubt over the validity of the document as a whole .



So both Menon and Manekshaw lied, but the shadowy unidentified sources and the sources describing a 10:00 am journey to Jammu of Menon and Mahajan was the truth.

Right.

As the regnant Queen of Siam, I order an enquiry into the circumstances behind the discovery that the whole of Kashmir is constituted of a particularly fragrant variation of Gorgonzola cheese.



> An examination of the transactions behind these four documents in the light of the new evidence produces a number of other serious doubts. It is clear, for example, that in the case of (c) and (d), the exchange of letters between the Maharajah and Lord Mountbatten, Lord Mountbattens reply must antedate the letter to which it is an answer unless, as seems more than probable, both were drafted by the Government of India before being taken up to Jammu on 27 October 1947 (by V.P. Menon and Jammu and Kashmir Prime Minister M.C. Mahajan, whose movements, incidentally, are correctly reported in the London Times of 28 October 1947) after the arrival of the Indian troops at Srinagar airfield. The case is very strong, therefore, that document (c), the Maharajahs letter to Lord Mountbatten, was dictated to the Maharajah.



Now we have a third and a fourth liar in the picture, in the lists against our shadowy 'many observers': the Lord Mountbatten of Burma; the Government of India.

Pretty quick progression.

The conspiracy gathers pace.



> Documents (c) and (d) were published by the Government of India on 28 October 1947. The far more important document (a), the alleged Instrument of Accession, was not published until many years later, if at all.



And why should it have been? Were any of the other Instruments of Accession published? Was this a unique document of some sort? Was this not the same bland boilerplate instrument attached to the Government of India Act 1935? Does the publication of important and relevant documents, on time, require that the entire body of correspondence be attached alongside?

Absurdity upon absurdity. One quibble following another.



> It was not communicated to Pakistan at the outset of the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, nor was it presented in facsimile to the United Nations in early 1948 as part of the initial Indian reference to the Security Council. The 1948 White Paper in which the Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharajah: instead, it reproduces an unsigned from of Accession such as, it is imposed, the Maharajah might have signed. To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharajah ever did sign an Instrument of Accession. There are, indeed, grounds for suspecting that he did no such thing. The Instrument of Accession referred to in document (c); a letter which as we have seen was probably drafted by Indian officials prior to being shown to the Maharajah, may never have existed, and can hardly have existed when the letter was being prepared.



This is a stupid argument.

In a thousand instances, the Maharaja acted in the full knowledge of the fact that he had signed such an Instrument, with the limitations laid down, and moved constitutionally and legally on the foundations of this instrument.

The instrument that he signed, its explicit limitation of the act of accession to three specific subjects of defence, foreign affairs and communications, could at any time have been forged, with his willing consent, not just in its original form, but in a form that included the other subjects as well.

Instead, the Indian Constituent Assembly (entirely constituted of liars, according to this latterday Munchausen Testament that we are being asked to read) took cognisance of a non-existent document, and took into account its peculiar limitations, all without knowing that it existed, entirely on the basis of the letters, which contain no mention of the limited accession.

This Constituent Assembly, which went into such minute detail on all matters that it deliberated upon, even went to the extent of framing provisions for accommodating the Maharaja's non-existent Instrument of Accession and the peculiarities that it displayed - peculiarities in the sense of its particular wording.



> Even if there had been an Instrument of Accession, then if it followed the form indicated in the unsigned example of such an Instrument published in the Indian 1948 White Paper it would have been extremely restrictive in the rights conferred upon the Government of India. All that were in fact transferred from the State to the Government of India by such an Instrument were the powers over Defence, Foreign Relations and certain aspects of Communications. Virtually all else was left with the State Government. Thanks to Article 370 of the Indian Constitution of January 1950 (which, unlike much else relating to the former Princely States, has survived to some significant degree in current Indian constitution theory, if not in practice), the State of Jammu and Kashmir was accorded a degree of autonomy which does not sit at all comfortably with the current authoritarian Indian administration of those parts of the State which it holds.



This flatly contradicts the earlier rhodomontade.



> Not only would such an Instrument have been restrictive, but also by virtue of the provisions, of (d), Lord Mountbattens letter to the Maharajah dated 27 October 1947, it would have been conditional. Lord Mountbatten, as Governor-General of India, made it clear that the State of Jammu and Kashmir would only be incorporated permanently within the Indian fold after approval as a result of some form of reference to the people, a procedure which soon (with United Nations participation) became defined as a fair and free plebiscite . India has never permitted such a reference to the people to be made.



It would seem from the proceedings of the Plebiscite Commission itself that this conclusion is a lie. All who have followed the earlier detailed discussions on this precise subject know why.



> Why would the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir not have signed an Instrument of Accession?



Ah, back to our study of the nature and constitution of Gorgonzola Kashmirensis.



> The answer lies in the complex course of events of August, September and October 1947 emerged. The Maharajah, confronted with growing internal disorder (including a full scale rebellion in the Poonch region of the State), sought Indian military help without, it at all possible, surrendering his own independence. The Government of India delayed assisting him in the hope that in despair he would accede to India before any Indian actions had to be taken. In the event, India had to move first. Having secured what he wanted, Indian military assistance, the Maharajah would naturally have wished to avoid paying the price of the surrender of his independence by signing any instrument which he could possibly avoid signing. From the Afternoon of 27 October 1947 onwards a smoke screen conceals both the details and the immediate outcome of this struggle of wills between the Government of India and the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir. To judge from the 1948 White Paper an Instrument of accession may not have been signed by March 1948, by which time the Indian case for sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir was already being argued before the United Nations.



Apply Occam's Razor.



> The patently false dates of documents (a) and (c) alter fundamentally the nature of the overt Indian intervention in Jammu and Kashmir on 27 October 1947. India was not defending its own but intervening in a foreign State. There can be no reasonable doubt that had Pakistan been aware of this falsification of the record it would have argued very differently in international for from the outset of the dispute; and had the United Nations understood the true chronology it would have listened with for less sympathy to arguments presented to it by successive Indian representatives. Given the facts as they are now known, it may well be that an impartial international tribunal would decided that India had no right at all to be in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.



The British Government had already informed the princes that no other Dominion would be recognised other than India or Pakistan. That was the fly in the ointment for the ambitions and hopes of Kashmir, Hyderabad - and Kalat. There was no foreign state.

An impartial tribunal would also note that one party to the discussion had concealed the intervention of its professional military at the time of the UN debate which led to the first UN Resolution. A far more damaging fact than the rigmarole presented above.



> The Indian Claim to Jammu and Kashmir - Conditional Accession, Plebiscites and the Reference to the United Nations:
> 
> While the date, and perhaps even the fact, of the accession to India of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in late October 1947 can be questioned, there is no dispute that at that time any such accession was presented to the world large as conditional and provisional. In his letter to the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir, bearing the date 27 October 1947, the Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, declared that:
> 
> "Consistently with that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance to the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Governments wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders the question of the States accession should be settled by a reference to the people."
> 
> The substance of this was communicated by Jawaharlal Nehru to Liaquat Ali Khan in a telegram of 28 October 1947 in which Nehru indicated that this was a policy with which he agreed. The point is clear enough. A reference to the people would be entirely futile unless it contained the potential of reversing the process of accession. If the people opted for Pakistan, or indeed, for continued independence, then any documents relating to accession which the Maharajah may have signed would be null and void. Such documents would perforce be provisional, in that they could confer rights only until the reference to the people took place; and they were conditional in that they could not continue in force indefinitely unless ratified by popular vote. This point is as valid today as it was in late October 1947.



Is the concept of a condition dependent on another condition too difficult to grasp?



> Indian apologists have since endeavored to argue that the plebiscite proposal was personal to Mountbatten (which we can see it was not) and that it was in a real sense ex-gratia and in no way binding on subsequent Indian administrations. The fact of the matter, however, was that the plebiscite policy had been established long before the Kashmir crisis erupted in October 1947. It was an inherent part of the process by which the British Indian Empire was partitioned between the two successor Dominions of India and Pakistan. Plebiscites (or referenda-the terms tended to be used at this time as if they meant the same thing) had been held on the eve of the Transfer of Power in August 1947 in two areas. In the North West Frontier Province, which possessed a Congress Government despite a virtually total Muslim population, and in Sylhet, a Muslim majority district of the non-Muslim majority Province of Assam, there had been plebiscites where the people were given the choice of joining India or Pakistan. In both cases the vote was in favour of Pakistan. The Sylhet Plebiscite is of particular significance in that it gave a Muslim majority district of a State with an overall non-Muslim majority the opportunity to join its Muslim majority neighbour, Bengal.



On the one hand, we are asked to believe that the princely states in Subsidiary Alliance with the British, ruled by officers of the Indian Political Service, with rulers advised that their independent existence would not be supported by the British government, landed up as independent powers, due to an alleged discrepancy in the dates determined by the mass evidence of many observers, and contradicting the evidence of V. P. Menon, Brig. Manekshaw, the Lord Mountbatten, the cabinet of the Government of India, the Constituent Assembly of India, Maharaja Hari Singh, through his subsequent actions supporting everything that he is alleged to have signed for, Yuvaraj Karan Singh, still alive, and still available to tell us what happened on those dates.

On the other hand, the simpleton, the arrant idiot who has composed this what-the-butler-saw account is ignorant of the difference between the British Crown Colony, which was divided into two Dominions by the India Independence Act, and the clarificatory plebiscites carried out there, with the authority vested in the former independent rulers of the princely states to come to a decision based on their will and based on the principle of contiguity with the Dominion that they chose.

Why are we wasting time on this silly paper?



> The value of the plebiscitary process continued to be appreciated in India after the British Indian Empire had come to an end. In September 1947 the Government of India advocated, as a matter of policy, the holding of a plebiscite in the Princely State of Junagadh. Junagadh was in many respects the mirror image of Kashmir. Here a Muslim Ruler, the Nawab, had formally acceded to Pakistan on 15 August 1947 despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of his subjects were Hindus. The Government of India were united in opposing this action. However, as Jawaharlal Nehru put it on 30 September 1947 :
> 
> "We are entirely opposed to war and wish to avoid it. We want an amicable settlement of this issue and we propose therefore, that wherever there is a dispute in regard to any territory, the matter should be decided by a referendum or plebiscite of the people concerned. We shall accept the result of this referendum whatever it may be as it is our desire that a decision should be made in accordance with the wishes of the people concerned. We invite the Pakistan Government, therefore, to submit the Junagadh issue to a referendum of the people under impartial auspices."
> 
> In Indian eyes, in other words, Junagadhs accession to Pakistan, if it had any validity at all could only be provisional and conditional upon the outcome of a plebiscite of referendum. India, moreover, considered that the need for such a reference to the people was specifically determined by the fact that a majority of the States population followed a different religion to that of the Ruler. A plebiscite in Junagadh was duly held in February 1948, when the vote was for union with India. In Indian official thinking, it is clear, there was no question of a plebiscite in any State where both Ruler and people were non-Muslims.



No.

In Indian thinking there was no question of a plebiscite in any state where the accession was not unsound.

In Junagadh, its subsidiary vassal states had broken away; its subjects had formed a movement for agitating against the ruler's administration, and, above all, there was not a single Indian soldier on Junagadh until the time that the ruler's Diwan, in the absence of the absconding ruler, who had left his state, handed over authority to the nearest, rather surprised Indian official in Kathiawar and himself decamped.



> Thus when the Kashmir crisis broke out in October 1947 the plebiscite was already established as the official Indian solution to this order of problem. On 25 October 1947, before the Kashmir crisis had fully developed and before Indian claims based on the Maharajahs accession to India had been voiced, Nehru in a telegram to Attlee, the British Prime Minister, declared that:
> 
> "I should like to make it clear that [the] question of aiding Kashmir..is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view, which we have repeatedly made public, is that [the] question of accession in any disputed territory must be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people, and we adhere to this view."



A fine veil is now drawn over the overt affiliation to the Congress and its secular view of nationhood, in flat contradiction to the Muslim League and its comparative parochial view, by the National Conference, the only organised democratic entity in the Valley of Kashmir. It is also sought to be obscured, in this rather badly formulated and deliberately obscuratory paper, that the leader of this organisation had sought a plebiscite against the ruler's flirting with the idea of joining Pakistan. Ram Chandra Kak, the predecessor of Mahajan, had actually been deputed to the Muslim League to discuss with Liaqat Ali Khan the possibility of accession to Pakistan, in flat contradiction of the wishes of the people of the Valley.

This was the origin of Nehru's stand for a plebiscite.

It is ironic that now the question of plebiscite which was raised in those days in defence against an accession to Pakistan against the Valley of Kashmir people's wishes by the Maharaja is today projected as a defence against an accession to India against the Valley of Kashmir people's wishes by the Maharaja.



> On 28 October 1947 the Governor General of Pakistan M.A. Jinnah, also agreed that the answer to Kashmir lay in a plebiscite, thus confirming the official Pakistan policy on this subject. From this moment the basic disagreement between the two Dominions, at least on paper, lay in the modalities for holding a plebiscite and what was understood by impartial auspices.



On 28th October 1947, going by the testimony not of 'many observers', but of Akbar Khan, as recorded in his own book on the events, and of Tariq Ali, as recorded in his own writings and books, personnel of the Pakistan Army were deep inside Kashmir, leading demobilised ex-soldiers of the Indian Army, armed by the Pakistan Army, officered by Pakistan Army officers 'on leave' and all done at the express instructions of the Prime Minister reporting to the Governor-General who magnanimously agreed that a plebiscite was the answer to a region where his deputed forces were enjoying the hospitality of armed rebels against the administration.

I do not have the words for this bland exposition of apparent facts, ignoring the brutal reality of events that had taken place and were, on this date of 28th October, continuing. Three days after this grandiloquent acceptance, an armed and bloody mutiny occurred in another part of the state; the same Government of Pakistan sent a representative to take charge.

It seems that consistency is the virtue of asses.



> The concept of impartial supervision of the determination of sovereignty had been present from the outset of the run up to the partition of the Punjab and Bengal in early June 1947. A number of possibilities had been considered at this period, including the request for the services of the United Nations (which had then been rejected on technical grounds arising in the main from the short span of time allowed for the partition process to be implemented). In connection with the Junagadh question, on 30 September 1947 Nehru made it clear that if the United Nations were to be involved (as a result, perhaps, of a reference to that body by Pakistan), and the United Nations issued directions, India would naturally abide by those directions.
> 
> Between 28 October and 22 December 1947 there took place a series of Indo-Pakistan discussions over the Kashmir question, some with the leaders of the two sides meeting face to face, some through subordinate officials and some through British intermediaries acting either officially or unofficially. While frequently acrimonious, the general tenor of the negotiations was that some kind of plebiscite should be held in Jammu and Kashmir. At a meeting on 8 November 1947 between two very senior officials, V.P Menon for India and Chaudhri Muhammad Ali for Pakistan, a detailed scheme for holding a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir was worked out, with the apparent blessing of the Indian Deputy Prime Minister, Vallabhbhai Patel, in which the following principle was laid down : that neither Government [of India or Pakistan] would accept the accession of a State whose rule was of a different religion to the majority of his subjects without resorting to a plebiscite.
> 
> The 8 November scheme aborted; but the underlying principles remained on the agenda. There were two major questions. First : how and in what way should the State be restored to a condition of tranquility such as would permit the holding of any kind of free and fair plebiscite. Second: who should supervise the plebiscite when it finally came to he held. On both question, after exploring a number of devices including the employment of British officers to hold the ring while the votes were being cast, the consensus in the Governments of both India and Pakistan by 22 December 1947 was that the services of the United Nations, either through the Secretary General or the Security Council, offered the best prospect for success, though Nehru continued to express in public his reservations about foreign intervention.
> 
> At this point Lord Mountbatten, the Governor General of India, explained to Liaquat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, that the best way to get Nehru to decide finally in favour of reference to the United Nations was to permit India to take the first step, even if in the process Pakistan would have to submit to some measure of Indian indictment to which Pakistan would have every opportunity to make rebuttal at the United Nations. Liaquat Ali Khan, so the records make clear, accepted this proposal. On this basis, on 1 January 1948, India brought Security Council of the United Nations.
> 
> The Presentation of the Indian case, the Pakistani reply, and the series of debates which followed over the years, have all tended to obscure the original terms of that Indian reference. This was made under Article 35 of the Charter of the United Nations in which the mediation of the Security Council was expressly sough in a matter which otherwise threatened to disturb the course of international relations. The issue was an Indian request for United Nations mediation in a dispute which had transcended the diplomatic resources of the two parties directly involved, India and Pakistan, and not, as it is frequently represented, an Indian demand for United Nations condemnation of Pakistans aggression. This point, despite much Indian and Pakistan rhetoric, can be determined easily enough by relating the contents of the reference to the specifications of Article 35 of the United Nations Charter. The United Nations was asked to devise a formula whereby peace could be restored in the State of Jammu and Kashmir so that a fair and free plebiscite could be held to determine that States future. The matter of the Maharajah of Kashmirs accession to India was not in this context of the slightest relevance.
> 
> The Security Council of the United Nations responded to this request by devising a number of schemes for the restoration of law and order and the holding a plebiscite. These were duly set out in United Nations Resolutions which, though never implemented, still remain the collective expression of the voice of the international community as to how the Kashmir question ought to be settled. The conditions set out by the Security Council of the United Nations have not been met in any way by the subsequent internal political processes (including a variety of elections) in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and in any of its constituent parts.
> 
> The situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir remains unresolved, and it remains a matter of international interest. Given the background to and terms of the original Indian reference to the Security Council it cannot possibly be said that, today, Jammu and Kashmir (or those parts of it currently under Indian occupation) is a matter of purely internal Indian concern. The United Nations retains that status in this matter, which it was granted.



What a shoddy document, and what a mentality that puts this on the table as an argument. Accompanied, of course, by a vulgarity seen in the lowest denominator of the lumpenproletariat available in large numbers on both sides of the Radcliffe Line; in this case, we have a fine specimen of the green version.

@hellfire 



LadyFinger said:


> Pakistan has been successful until now. We have defeated them but their mentality remains the same that has been coded into their brains. Unless they somehow get some cultural shock or a sudden insight. So it is a complex thing. Gajar ka halwa is good, I like it.  Ghazwa means battle, Arabic word.



Please look it up. Ghazwa is not simply a battle, it was adopted from the raids of the Quraish on caravans to describe those efforts of Hazrat Mohammed to shore up the infant Muslim state in Medina. It has a scriptural connotation now which far exceeds a simple battle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

I think the number maybe 1 million Indian security personnel in IOK and may swell up during war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

-xXx- said:


> UN passes resolution to be implemented at that time frame and not as per what happen to region after 7 decade.
> 
> The fact remain -
> 
> 1- There was no Azad Kashmir for UN then. It mandated Indian government to maintain and control state of J&K that include whole Jammu, Kashmir, Laddakh, Askai Chin and GB.
> 
> 2- The resolution specifically talks about responsibilities for
> a) What Pakistan government need to do
> b) What India government need to do
> c) What UN need to do.
> 
> While describing the UN role, it restrict itself in appointing a general secretary as plebiscite administrator. UN is not that incompetent in drafting resolution that it can miss as important aspect as issuing UN forces and its responsibilities when it didn't miss even the possibilities of having locals for maintaining law and order.
> 
> *It may amuse you but it says in case locals are deemed insufficient by plebiscite administrator, it may ask for more forces from either from India or Pakistan, based on mutually agreed terms.
> 
> No UN forces even when there is lack of local help.*
> 
> Now coming to East Timor and South Sudan
> 
> 1- Go read the resolutions which should mention the role of UN forces.
> 
> 2- Those comes under chapter VII of UN charter which is enforceable, means UN has to enforce those resolution, thus comes into picture the UN forces.
> 
> @Joe Shearer



A small correction.

At the time of the discussions in the UN on the aggression, Pakistan refused any knowledge or thought of control over the 'raiders'. It was only during the actual sitting of the plebiscite commission that there was a grudging admission of Pakistani involvement. So if we read the earlier resolutions carefully, there was no mention of the role of the Pakistani government, as it was not known at that time how deep Pakistan's involvement was. There was no role of the Pakistan Army mentioned either; it simply wasn't in Kashmir, according to the Pakistani delegates.



Sarge said:


> I think the number maybe 1 million Indian security personnel in IOK and may swell up during war.



Less than 300,000. I can provide you a brigade by brigade analysis.


----------



## Hellfire

@Joe Shearer this one? I saw it last night when it was put up and only few comments. Guessed the member who posted and pushed off ..... Check communication to you just now sent before I came here


----------



## Joe Shearer

hellfire said:


> @Joe Shearer this one? I saw it last night when it was put up and only few comments. Guessed the member who posted and pushed off ..... Check communication to you just now sent before I came here



Who is the member who posted? and I checked your communication but didn't find anything unusual - perhaps I am missing something.


----------



## Rahi812

NKVD said:


> I am Kashmiri I Love My India My govt My Land My Army
> 
> I Don't give dam What a Pakistani think



Very well said. Which part of Kashmir you live in.


----------



## Joe Shearer

chanakya84 said:


> Dude do you have any idea around Indian economy?
> In another thread you were quoting the 21 billion India spends on Kashmir while we also spend 51 billion on UP.
> We are spending just 1.7 percent on the defense which is still less than your net defense spending.
> 
> Repeating the same stuff does not change the ground reality. India can very well afford to continue to have Kashmir. We are not buying weapons per se, exclusively for Kashmir. If not for Kashmir we would still be having the same amount of armed forces owing to size and population of India. In Kashmir they are just being put to use.
> 
> Do you think our missile defense programs, high end fighter planes are meant for Kashmir, they are the major share in our defense spendings. At the same time it is forcing Pakistan to increase its defense budgets pushing its economy to brink.
> 
> 
> Lol posting from conspiracy sites which also have articles like
> 
> *David Icke’s argument of alien-controlled 1% Illuminati bloodlines*
> 
> This is called height of desperation dude.



Please look up the date of Tara Dorabji's article. It is one of the hardy perennials.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Menace2Society

NKVD said:


> I am Kashmiri I Love My India My govt My Land My Army
> 
> I Don't give dam What a Pakistani think



You are not Kashmiri. You are like Afghan refugee in Pakistan. Go back to Kerala

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

Joe Shearer said:


> Less than 300,000. I can provide you a brigade by brigade analysis.



Sure, with numbers of BSF, CRPF, IAF personnel, local police and any other security forces.


----------



## Joe Shearer

American Pakistani said:


> Those 700,000 are all indian occupier terrorists. Death to 7 lakh indian occupier terrorists scum roaches.



How did you get the figure of 700,000? That seems rather high!


----------



## Hellfire

Joe Shearer said:


> Who is the member who posted? and I checked your communication but didn't find anything unusual - perhaps I am missing something.


The third member named in the conversation, whise post you quoted earlier where you tagged



How did you get the figure of 700,000? That seems rather high!

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/indias-7...rom-azad-kashmir.446172/page-13#ixzz4IUiYk0NQ

He knows it. Just trolling as usual


----------



## Joe Shearer

waz said:


> Go ask them. Shall I point you to the right section?



LOL.

BAD @waz !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hellfire

Sarge said:


> Sure, with numbers of BSF, CRPF, IAF personnel, local police and any other security forces.




Given by me earlier also in another thread and by @Joe Shearer in a number of threads



Joe Shearer said:


> LOL.
> 
> BAD @waz !



Yeah, I laughed at that one.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Sarge said:


> Sure, with numbers of BSF, CRPF, IAF personnel, local police and any other security forces.



Including those. There are too many flights of imagination about Kashmir

Are you looking for the Valley only, or for all of Kashmir? And formations not to be broken up between Kashmir state and other nearby states, or strictly those within Kashmir state? 

I've given this information to far less intelligent members, no reason why I shouldn't share this with you. 

You are always free to disbelieve these ORBATs of course! 



wiseone2 said:


> 700,000 man army is a huge army



Divide by 23,000 to get the number of divisions. Then look up the number of infantry divisions in the entire Army. Take out 58 battalions (1,000 per battalion) of RR and around 60 battalions of CRPF (1,000 per). 

You'll be shocked at the number you get.

Who produced this 700,000 number out of his arse?



X-2. said:


> Thi
> 
> *These roads railways, airport,and other health stuff is for 700000 Indians soldiers so they travel on mean time to kill Kashmiri peoples, any warfare analyst guys will understand good travel network is required for battle field, from so called loc or siachen otherwise shortage of stock may left 700000 trrps in misry as they do suicide dew to stress*



Can you explain how you got the figure of 700,000 Indian troops?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

Joe Shearer said:


> Including those. There are too many flights of imagination about Kashmir
> 
> Are you looking for the Valley only, or for all of Kashmir? And formations not to be broken up between Kashmir state and other nearby states, or strictly those within Kashmir state?
> 
> I've given this information to far less intelligent members, no reason why I shouldn't share this with you.
> 
> You are always free to disbelieve these ORBATs of course!


Indian security forces in the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh region. [one coloured (fawn)]


Exclusions (Do not inlcude):
Himachal Pardesh (india)
Punjab (India)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Joe Shearer said:


> Including those. There are too many flights of imagination about Kashmir
> 
> Are you looking for the Valley only, or for all of Kashmir? And formations not to be broken up between Kashmir state and other nearby states, or strictly those within Kashmir state?
> 
> I've given this information to far less intelligent members, no reason why I shouldn't share this with you.
> 
> You are always free to disbelieve these ORBATs of course!
> 
> 
> 
> Divide by 23,000 to get the number of divisions. Then look up the number of infantry divisions in the entire Army. Take out 58 battalions (1,000 per battalion) of RR and around 60 battalions of CRPF (1,000 per).
> 
> You'll be shocked at the number you get.
> 
> Who produced this 700,000 number out of his arse?



The 700k figure came up first during the 90's uprising. That too due to an overestimate of the number of people kept in the line as BSF, Police and everyone else with an Indian flag became part of the 700k. That does not mean that there is not a *substantial *presence that could be in the six figures(or more if the LoC flares up) but a lot of it is rotating troops and in certain cases forward deployment. I would not take 500k troops as serious but it could be a realistic figure if one looks at say a situation such as Kargil where it is a large conventional mobilisation of what are substantial regular troop numbers.

The Kashmir population is around 12 million of which at maximum 1 million could be taken as potential "dissidents" based on how the Indian government behaves. The Pakistan Army was able to control a much larger dissident population in erstwhile BD using only 70000 so this figure is more propaganda than anything else.

That being said, the 70000 had a very open hand depending upon the morality of the OC sector, whilst the hands for the IA were only untied in the 90s and now recently. Where the dissent was actually quite quelled during the period of the previous government because the Youth were allowed to avail all the facilities of an Indian citizen(and more). Now, they have erased all that effort of the past and my whatsapp conversations with those on the ground prior to the internet blackout suggest that it is not getting any better; even the types who only care for calm as long as their business is going are now getting agitated.

That is never a good sign.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

Sarge said:


> Indian security forces in the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh region. [one coloured (fawn)]
> 
> 
> Exclusions (Do not inlcude):
> Himachal Pardesh (india)
> Punjab (India)
> View attachment 329303



Fair enough. Brief heads-up - details follow after I've cleaned up (myself).

XIV Corps with two divisions in the north, one in Kargil, one in Leh;
XV Corps with two divisions in the Valley, in Kupwara and in Baramula;
XVI Corps with three divisions, but only two in J&K, at Rajauri and in Jammu (one more in Una in Himachal, not counted)

15,000 fighting troops per division, 8,000 support troops per division, so 23,000 highest headcount for infantry division. 
That's (2+2+2=) 6 divisions, 138,000 regular soldiers.

Add another 58 battalions of counter-insurgency troops, drawn from the regular Army, the Rashtriya Rifles, at 1,000 per battalion - 58,000.

Add another 60 battalions of central reserve police force (CRPF) = 60 x 1,000 = 60,000.

A minuscule number of local police. BSF detachments on the borders.

That's 138,000 + 118,000 = 256,000 soldiers. Less than 300,000.

Even if you add 100,000 on the strength of the local police and the BSF and use reductio ad absurdum, it's still less than 456,000.

This figure was first mentioned by the well-known military analyst, Arundhati Roy, in full flow, and has entered urban legend since that time. Nobody, no commentator, has managed to figure out why they are using it.

PS: the whole police strength of West Bengal was 48,000. Add another three battalions of Eastern Frontier Rifles, at one time legendary for their discipline and elan: 3,000. Total 51,000 in a border state with Naxal problems (Naxalbari is a part of Darjeeling district; there is even an actual tea estate called Naxalbari Tea Estate). BUT XXXIII Corps is headquartered there, so add three divisions, 69,000 troops, plus the HQ staff of Command HQ at Fort William. So that's 120,000 in WB, compared to 256,000 in J&K.

UP has more security than J&K.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Hellfire

Joe Shearer said:


> 15,000 fighting troops per division, 8,000 support troops per division, so 23,000 highest headcount for infantry division.
> That's (2+2+2=) 6 divisions, 138,000 regular soldiers.
> 
> Add another 58 battalions of counter-insurgency troops, drawn from the regular Army, the Rashtriya Rifles, at 1,000 per battalion - 58,000.
> 
> Add another 60 battalions of central reserve police force (CRPF) = 60 x 1,000 = 60,000.
> 
> A minuscule number of local police. BSF detachments on the borders.
> 
> That's 138,000 + 118,000 = 256,000 soldiers. Less than 300,000.
> 
> Even if you add 100,000 on the strength of the local police and the BSF and use reductio ad absurdum, it's still less than 456,000..



@Sarge the figures for the divisions are of old ORBAT prior to restructuring and downsizing. And the figure is assuming 100% availability, whereas standard not more than 75% is always a working figure.

@Joe Shearer i had tagged you earlier. There are 62 RR units ... That is 62000 troops.



Oscar said:


> I would not take 500k troops as serious but it could be a realistic figure if one looks at say a situation such as Kargil where it is a large conventional mobilisation of what are substantial regular troop numbers.




Selectively quoting. At the time of Kargil and slightly prior, few Assam Rifles units were operational as also in Kargil two divisions were inducted from North East that is 20 and 27 mountain ex 33 Corps, to bolster the numbers, which were again deinducted shortly thereafter along with AR units (phased draw down started in Gujral era).

The figure by @Joe Shearer is off by 15-20% as downsizing and rationalisation of forces took place and standard division today may not field more than 18000 troops by a stretch.

Realistically not more than 300,000 at 100% availability, can be the overall force levels in J&K as a whole. 

The figure for vale proper can be rationalised by collating data as provided by @Joe Shearer

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Signalian

Joe Shearer said:


> Fair enough. Brief heads-up - details follow after I've cleaned up (myself).
> 
> XIV Corps with two divisions in the north, one in Kargil, one in Leh;
> XV Corps with two divisions in the Valley, in Kupwara and in Baramula;
> XVI Corps with three divisions, but only two in J&K, at Rajauri and in Jammu (one more in Una in Himachal, not counted)
> 
> 15,000 fighting troops per division, 8,000 support troops per division, so 23,000 highest headcount for infantry division.
> That's (2+2+2=) 6 divisions, 138,000 regular soldiers.
> 
> Add another 58 battalions of counter-insurgency troops, drawn from the regular Army, the Rashtriya Rifles, at 1,000 per battalion - 58,000.
> 
> Add another 60 battalions of central reserve police force (CRPF) = 60 x 1,000 = 60,000.
> 
> A minuscule number of local police. BSF detachments on the borders.
> 
> That's 138,000 + 118,000 = 256,000 soldiers. Less than 300,000.
> 
> Even if you add 100,000 on the strength of the local police and the BSF and use reductio ad absurdum, it's still less than 456,000.
> 
> This figure was first mentioned by the well-known military analyst, Arundhati Roy, in full flow, and has entered urban legend since that time. Nobody, no commentator, has managed to figure out why they are using it.
> 
> PS: the whole police strength of West Bengal was 48,000. Add another three battalions of Eastern Frontier Rifles, at one time legendary for their discipline and elan: 3,000. Total 51,000 in a border state with Naxal problems (Naxalbari is a part of Darjeeling district; there is even an actual tea estate called Naxalbari Tea Estate). BUT XXXIII Corps is headquartered there, so add three divisions, 69,000 troops, plus the HQ staff of Command HQ at Fort William. So that's 120,000 in WB, compared to 256,000 in J&K.
> 
> UP has more security than J&K.



Facing PA forces are :
10 Corps
FCNA (4 Brigades)
12th Infantry Div (6 Brigades)
19th Infantry (3 Brigades)
23rd Infantry (3 Brigades)

Roughly 126,000 Troops.
Paramilitary are GB scouts numbering 2500 troops.

Further East are :
30 Corps
8th Infantry Div (3 brigades)
15th Infantry Div (3 Brigades)
These are used to protect the flanks of 10 Corps from East as well as protect the junction of Kashmir and Punjab so its not only facing Indian troops from kashmir but also 26th infantry Div at Jammu and 29th Infantry Div at Pathankot of 9 Corps India.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## navtrek

django said:


> despite all this so called development, the people are still telling you to f off, whilst here in azad kashmir, as a proud resident i can tell you we love pak armed forces without precondition.



because India dosent train and send terrorists to your side. The Indian army is deployed because of Pakistan if not Kashmir would be a very developed state by now and people would have loved their armed forces.


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

Joe Shearer said:


> Where did the figure 700,000 come from?



i think 700,000 is exaggerated


----------



## django

navtrek said:


> because India dosent train and send terrorists to your side. The Indian army is deployed because of Pakistan if not Kashmir would be a very developed state by now and people would have loved their armed forces.


HHAHAHAHA, as if Hindia is some kind of angelic nation, I am sure you have your incompetent Yadav/Patel types over here though they have not made any progress due to patriotic folks over here.


----------



## Indian_Devil

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> They are demanding Plebiscite...They are demanding freedom not Shariah....


They want ISIS. they want khalifat. They want shariah... And they think Pakistan will provide them all these... so they want Pakistan... And They are minority in Kashmir according to Mehbooba Mufti an aboriginal of Kashmir and CM of Kashmir... So we Indians will listen to her and not some Pakistani sitting in Islamabad stroking his keyboard hard and cursing Indians...


----------



## Musafir117

navtrek said:


> INFRASTRUCTURE
> 
> The first cable bridge in North India at Basoli, J&K
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAMMU AIRPORT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LEH AIRPORT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SRINAGAR AIRPORT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KASHMIR RAILWAYS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WORLDS TALLEST ARC TYPE BRIDGE COMING UP IN J&K
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is also plan to build a new expressway from New Delhi to Katra
> 
> Government planning India's longest 600 km expressway to connect Delhi and Katra


Thanks for building for us we take it all as well with Kashmir

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## xyxmt

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> Azad Kashmir is lot better than IOK.....no brainer to find that out......Curfew, pellet guns and daily protests against forces are common thing in IOK (Indian Occupied Kashmir)....thats why it is said...OCCUPIED....for a reason...



even comparing the situation between these two Kashmirs is a sin.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

xyxmt said:


> even comparing the situation between these two Kashmirs is a sin.



I agree. Indians are not serious regarding Kashmir. So, they should bear the responsibility too if some unrest happens in Kashmir....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MimophantSlayer

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> Azad Kashmir is lot better than IOK.....no brainer to find that out......Curfew, pellet guns and daily protests against forces are common thing in IOK (Indian Occupied Kashmir)....thats why it is said...OCCUPIED....for a reason...



Wait wait.

Shot and beaten like this you mean?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hellfire

@Sarge

For any normalization of relationships, first and foremost is the reduction in the propaganda and hate mongering. It is quite apparent between the two nations, and more so on this forum. Unfortunately a fact.

That is why, an attempt at countering the 700000 figure. This attempt at scoring brownies by distortion of facts, is merely ensuring perpetuation of inaccuracies that breed a new generation of ignorants, further vitiating the environment. The solution will only be a political one at the end of the day. That requires an informed citizenry and a politician at the same time.

When I said 300000 at outside limits for all troops, I mean CAPFs, Army, RR, JKP, BSF . As you will be aware, the majority of IA is along LC. Hardly any troops are stationed in the valley. The hype is built on the convoys which move to support the deployment along LC.

Your ORBAT is commensurate with the minimal dissuasive posturing needed. Had it been 700000 IA troops, you would gave got your ARN and ARS Northwards in perpetuation.

Thanks


----------



## Ind4Ever

This guy is so. Insecured

Get ur eyes checked and see the spirit of our Jawans from Kashmir... Waiting to kill all is proxy warriors to defend his mother land Hindustan... 

https://defence.pk/threads/khurshee...took-8-bullets-for-india.446211/#post-8619815



cyclops said:


> Wait wait.
> 
> Shot and beaten like this you mean?


More the accuse India more realistic image of Pakistan occupied territories get exposed. No wonder they are so frustrated of their helplessness


----------



## Signalian

hellfire said:


> @Sarge
> 
> For any normalization of relationships, first and foremost is the reduction in the propaganda and hate mongering. It is quite apparent between the two nations, and more so on this forum. Unfortunately a fact.
> 
> That is why, an attempt at countering the 700000 figure. This attempt at scoring brownies by distortion of facts, is merely ensuring perpetuation of inaccuracies that breed a new generation of ignorants, further vitiating the environment. The solution will only be a political one at the end of the day. That requires an informed citizenry and a politician at the same time.
> 
> When I said 300000 at outside limits for all troops, I mean CAPFs, Army, RR, JKP, BSF . As you will be aware, the majority of IA is along LC. Hardly any troops are stationed in the valley. The hype is built on the convoys which move to support the deployment along LC.
> 
> Your ORBAT is commensurate with the minimal dissuasive posturing needed. Had it been 700000 IA troops, you would gave got your ARN and ARS Northwards in perpetuation.
> 
> Thanks


700,000 is a political figure just like 100,000 figure for Pakistani POWs in 1971. 

I dont get into politics of situation that much and Kashmir(whether Azad Kashmir or IOK) has too much controversy about it. My best guess would be that, the number of CRPF and RR deployed are there to counter Insurgents/mujahideen. The BSF present is also a part of COIN force to an extent. 
GB scouts are around 2500 in number only. Usually there are Sunni-Shia conflicts in GB area of Pakistan Kashmir. This is why we dont see Rangers and FC in kashmir and the GB scouts are mostly locals trained paramilitary for defence of areas in case of war or COIN duty. NLI is now regular infantry and will be used as offensive or defensive force just like other infantry regiments.

In any case, if during a war PA forces do make a thrust inside IO-Kashmir , unfortunately the sheer numbers of BSF, RR and CRPF present in kashmir can delay the PA advance and probably give enough time for IA to fly in or para drop reinforcements to deny PA capturing a critical sector.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

cyclops said:


> Wait wait.
> 
> Shot and beaten like this you mean?



hahahahahah......Hey my Kashmiri brethren....when did you and your fellow Kashmiris shout slogans against Pakistan? Azad-Kashmiri @django Zibago

Why Indians are replying for sake of argument....It is Pakistan who is briefing whole world what is happening in Indian Occupied Kashmir......Indians don't even want to talk Kashmir, let alone doing propaganda against Azad Kashmir and his highly patriotic people.....

Azad Kashmir was/is/will be doing fine with Pakistan.....

http://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/350709-PMLNs-Masood-Khan-takes-oath-as-new-AJK-Presiden

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MimophantSlayer

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> hahahahahah......Hey my Kashmiri brethren....when did you and your fellow Kashmiris shout slogans against Pakistan? Azad-Kashmiri @django Zibago
> 
> Why Indians are replying for sake of argument....It is Pakistan who is briefing whole world what is happening in Indian Occupied Kashmir......Indians don't even want to talk Kashmir, let alone doing propaganda against Azad Kashmir and his highly patriotic people.....
> 
> Azad Kashmir was/is/will be doing fine with Pakistan.....
> 
> http://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/350709-PMLNs-Masood-Khan-takes-oath-as-new-AJK-Presiden



Pakistan briefing the whole world?
Like this you mean?
And failing miserably.





While India doing just fine.
Proving how Pakistan is the one harboring terrorists.
http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12483.doc.htm


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

cyclops said:


> Pakistan briefing the whole world?
> Like this you mean?
> And failing miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While India doing just fine.
> Proving how Pakistan is the one harboring terrorists.
> http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12483.doc.htm



I tagged members from Azad Kashmir....they will tell you who is terrorist and who is not...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Azad-Kashmiri

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> hahahahahah......Hey my Kashmiri brethren....when did you and your fellow Kashmiris shout slogans against Pakistan? Azad-Kashmiri @django Zibago
> 
> Why Indians are replying for sake of argument....It is Pakistan who is briefing whole world what is happening in Indian Occupied Kashmir......Indians don't even want to talk Kashmir, let alone doing propaganda against Azad Kashmir and his highly patriotic people.....
> 
> Azad Kashmir was/is/will be doing fine with Pakistan.....
> 
> http://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/350709-PMLNs-Masood-Khan-takes-oath-as-new-AJK-Presiden



The same old trashy videos they keep circulating and I've already answered them in past. Not long ago lawers held a protest for higher pay in Mirpur. Some of my Ulema ikram are from Kotli and there are many Madaris there, so there is NO anti-self (Pakistan) protests! We ALWAYS get protests in the summer months when the bigli is out for 22 hours. 

You'll be surprised majority of the protesters are women; free of sexual harassment and fear of rape, or being shot like in IOK. Azad Kashmir is the most peaceful part of Pakistan, you don't have trouble of any kind. 

Let the Hindustanis believe their own lies, WE WANT THEM TO COME INTO AZAD KASHMIR and then they'll see our ''love'' for them. These fools don't realize we hate them more than the average Pakistani. The ONLY terrorists here are the Hindustanis and we've been witnessing their crimes and the UN Human Rights Commission has logged them. I've posted reports from them in the past and as typically Hindustanis reject them. Never the less, their crimes are known to the world and recent acts of terrorism towards the people of IOK is indicative of this.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## somebozo

This is a rubbish article written by some Pakistani propagandist..and represents false reality on both side.


----------



## django

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> hahahahahah......Hey my Kashmiri brethren....when did you and your fellow Kashmiris shout slogans against Pakistan? Azad-Kashmiri @django Zibago
> 
> Why Indians are replying for sake of argument....It is Pakistan who is briefing whole world what is happening in Indian Occupied Kashmir......Indians don't even want to talk Kashmir, let alone doing propaganda against Azad Kashmir and his highly patriotic people.....
> 
> Azad Kashmir was/is/will be doing fine with Pakistan.....
> 
> http://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/350709-PMLNs-Masood-Khan-takes-oath-as-new-AJK-Presiden


These are mainly old load shedding protests. Azad Kashmir people will willingly lay their lives down for their fatherland Pakistan, we hate them more than say a even a Lahori, we have refugee friends who have told us what the situation is in IOK, it makes our blood boil.Kudos friend.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AsianLion

*A Framework for Peace in Kashmir Already Exists. All Modi Must Do Is Embrace It.*

BY PREM SHANKAR JHA ON 24/08/2016 • LEAVE A COMMENT

*The government’s goal should be to create incentives for all shades of opinion in Jammu and Kashmir to engage politically with the question of what kind of relationship the state should have with the Indian Union.*

An opposition delegation from Jammu and Kashmir during a meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in New Delhi on Monday. Credit: PTI

It took Prime Minister Narendra Modi 45 days to break his silence on Kashmir, but his assertion that there has to be a dialogue to find “a permanent and lasting solution to the problem within the framework of the constitution,” has rekindled the hope of peace in the Valley.

If the reactions of the Kashmiri opposition leaders who met him are a reliable yardstick, even more important than what he said, was the way he said it. It now remains for Modi to convert his spontaneous, though belated, reaction into a programme of action that will be acceptable to the Kashmiris and the rest of India, and open the gates to peace in the subcontinent.

This will, however, not be easy. The first hurdle the government will face is finding someone to hold a dialogue with. To have any hope of success, a settlement has to be between the parties that have the power and the authority to meet the commitments they make at the negotiating table. The opposition leaders with whom Modi met, and even the PDP, the BJP’s coalition partner in the state, enjoy neither. The most they can do today is articulate the grievances of the Kashmiris and suggest ways of meeting them. Their power to make the people accept these proposals – let alone implement them – is almost non-existent.

The grim truth is that Kashmir no longer has leaders with whom Delhi can enter into a meaningful dialogue because, over the years, Pakistan and our Indian security agencies have killed or discredited nearly all those who could have spoken with authority on behalf of their people.

To restart a dialogue, Delhi will have to first find, or create, a new leadership in Kashmir. In the joint coordination committee of the two wings of the Hurriyat and the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, there are the makings of one, for this was the same formation that had worked smoothly with the state police in 2008 to keep the unrest that followed the Amarnath land scam and the Jammu blockade peaceful.

But today, its most respected leaders – Syed Ali Shah Gilani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Yasin Malik – are under house arrest, or in jail. Moreover, when they are released, it is by no means certain that their unity will survive the transition from protest to negotiation. The risk must nevertheless be taken, but it can be minimised if the government – of its own accord – places a proposal on the table that none of them can afford to ignore.

What might such a proposal be?

*Nehru’s understanding may hold the key*

A good way to begin is by asking ourselves a hypothetical question: What would the reaction in Kashmir, India and Pakistan be if Delhi were to announce that it has decided to cede independence to a freely elected government in Jammu and Kashmir.

This question is not as outrageous as it sounds, for it was first posed to Jawaharlal Nehru at the tail end of the eighth meeting of the defence committee of the Indian cabinet on October 25, 1947. Nehru’s response had been immediate and unhesitating: that he would “not mind Kashmir remaining an independent country [_sic_] under India’s sphere of influence”.

He said this not only because the question was hypothetical and because he knew – both as a Kashmiri and a close friend to Sheikh Abdullah – that Kashmiris wanted, above all, to preserve their syncretic identity and culture. This would automatically keep them aligned with New Delhi, which had opted from the start for a federal democratic system based upon ethnicity. Does Nehru’s intuitive understanding of Kashmiri aspirations in 1947 still hold true today? At this critical moment in India’s history, this question needs to be asked and answered once again.

Let us start with what the reaction in the Valley would be. Once the initial suspicion of this radical announcement is dispelled, popular unrest will subside. Curfew will be lifted, the police and paramilitary forces will stand down, and normal life will resume. This will not suit those who have been organising the stone pelting, either out of political and religious conviction or because they have been on the dole from the ISI. But these people will have to explain to the youth why they should continue putting their lives in danger even when India has met their fundamental demand. More importantly, the youth will themselves face the concentrated opposition of their parents, something that is conspicuously lacking today. Those who have been systematically instigating stone pelting as a form of protest will therefore find themselves without a following and will have to change their goals and strategy.

After the initial euphoria, Kashmiris will have to decide who the recipient of the power that Delhi is ready to transfer should be. Since that decision rests upon elections, political energy will get redirected towards winning them. Here, the simple majority voting system will come into play. In order to win, political groups will have to enter into coalitions. This will force them to make compromises with other parties and groups that do not share all of their goals. The compromises will inevitably weaken the political extremes and strengthen the centre. The lines between the two wings of the Hurriyat, and between them and the mainstream parties, will begin to blur. Thus, Kashmir’s lost _Kashmiriyat_ will be reborn.

The reborn _Kashmiriyat_ will be inherently moderate for many reasons. First, even in the stressed conditions of today, large segments of the population do not want a complete separation from India. This is because complete independence brings military, political and financial insecurity with it.

Independence will also lay bare the social, religious and ethnic fissures that are present in Kashmir. The Shias, Gujars and the Paharis will almost certainly want to retain some of the protection that national laws give them as a shield against discrimination. The Pandit community will also want the same, both inside and outside the Valley. There will also be a difference of opinion between the older Kashmiris and the ‘youth’, between the poor and the middle class, and between the urban and rural segments of both.

Finally, most Kashmiris will want their economic links with India to remain intact. Any political formation that wishes to win the election will have to take these aspirations and anxieties into account. Thus, the pressure to seek a solution, that is short of a complete separation, is likely to surface shortly after tempers begin to subside.

In Jammu and Ladakh, however, this announcement will be received with mixed feelings and in the case of the latter, with alarm. Ladakh will feel cut-off and the Shia population of Kargil, which has consistently recorded some of the highest turnouts in the state and central elections, will feel particularly threatened.

Ladakh’s fears can be resolved by giving it the full union territory status that it has been yearning for, and by building modern road and rail links between the region and Himachal Pradesh.

There will be mixed feelings in Jammu because, while many in the state want to separate themselves from Kashmir and Ladakh in order to entirely enter into the mainstream of Indian politics, the others – possibly a majority that values their historical and cultural links with Kashmir – will want the status quo to continue. Despite this, it is difficult not to conclude that both parts of the state will be better off if they break the shackles that bind them, for today, communal fervour and intolerance in each is feeding off the other. This vicious cycle needs to be broken.

This decision, however, should not be taken by Delhi, but rather, be left to the people of Jammu and Ladakh to take if they wish. This can be done by attaching a single question referendum to the election that will create the next government in Kashmir.

In Pakistan, such an announcement will be received with consternation because it will put the ghost of a plebiscite to rest and it will be left without an issue to fight India over. This will put the noses of both, the military and the mullahs, out of joint, because Kashmir is the lone common trough from which both have fed and prospered, for decades.

It will have to deal with a spate of similar demands in Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir that the Indian decision will set off. To contain these, Pakistan will be forced to democratise its administration in all three, but it will try to do as little as possible. The only sure way to do that will be to ask India to limit its devolution of autonomy as well. Thus, while Pakistan will claim a victory in public, it is likely that it will ask India to limit Kashmiri independence to the proposals contained in the Delhi Agreement of 1952.

With a little deft diplomacy, Modi could therefore revive the Manmohan-Musharaf framework agreement and end the rift created in the subcontinent by the partition. It hardly needs to be added that were India to take such a bold step, its stock in the world would rise sky high and its ‘soft power’ would soar.

*The limits of Indian democracy*

So, if there are only positives in such an initiative and no negatives, what is it that has stood in the way of making such an offer for 25 long years? The short answer is the limitations of Indian democracy itself.

First, any change in the territorial boundaries of India will require a constitutional amendment. This will require a consensus between all the major political parties in both houses of the parliament, which does not exist today and is unlikely to be obtained in the foreseeable future.

Second, a scream will arise from a hundred million throats that this will be the second great betrayal of the idea of India, after the partition of 1947. This just might set off a communal backlash against Muslims which will destroy that idea far more comprehensively than the partition did and could just destroy India as well.

The third is the domino theory argument that this will open a pandora’s box of demands from other states that could lead to the disintegration of India. It does not matter whether these fears are well grounded, the mere fact that they exist and that there are forces in the country that will give it a communal twist, puts it out of bounds.

Fortunately, a way out of this also happens to exist in the constitution. As P. Chidambaram had proposed when he was home minister, it lies in a public commitment by the prime minister, backed by an all party resolution, to restore the full autonomy that was guaranteed to it by the Instrument of Accession and Article 370 of the constitution. It states that “the power of parliament to make laws for the said state shall be limited to those matters in the union list and the concurrent list which, in consultation with the government of the state, are declared by the president to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the state to the dominion of India”.

The Instrument of Accession specified only three subjects in which a princely state had to cede its powers to the federal government. These were defence, external affairs and communications. However, between 1956 and 1994, 47 presidential orders extended 94 of the 97 subjects in the union list (the powers of the central government) to the state. These made 260 of the then extant 395 Articles of the constitution of India.

Only a limited number of these extensions were political – most had to do with industry, trade and transit, education, social welfare, labour laws, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India, the division of tax revenues, the devolution of plan grants and other such issues and were initiated by the state government. But in their entirety, they constitute a massive erosion of the autonomy promised in the Instrument of Accession and guaranteed to Kashmir by Article 370 of the constitution.

It is this encroachment that needs to be reversed. Once they regain their autonomy, it is exceedingly unlikely that Kashmiris will want to limit their interaction with India to just the three subjects listed in the Instrument of Accession. But today, Kashmiris need to feel empowered. They need to regain and exercise the right to choose the parts of their present relationship with India that they wish to retain.

The BJP has been asking for the complete abolition of Article 370 for the past five decades. Hence, I am fully aware of how difficult it must have been for the prime minister to concede that the solution must be found _within_ the framework of the constitution. But greatness is demonstrated most clearly by the capacity of a leader to admit his or her mistakes and change course. If Modi is able to do this, most of the shortcomings of his first two years in office will be eventually forgotten.


----------



## X-2.

Mo12 said:


> Wow great development of India Kashmir, can anyone show bridges, universties, hospital in Pakistan Kashmir as well.
> 
> 
> 
> India has big planes which would be most effective to send tanks and troops to the other side.


You are most welcome



Joe Shearer said:


> Including those. There are too many flights of imagination about Kashmir
> 
> Are you looking for the Valley only, or for all of Kashmir? And formations not to be broken up between Kashmir state and other nearby states, or strictly those within Kashmir state?
> 
> I've given this information to far less intelligent members, no reason why I shouldn't share this with you.
> 
> You are always free to disbelieve these ORBATs of course!
> 
> 
> 
> Divide by 23,000 to get the number of divisions. Then look up the number of infantry divisions in the entire Army. Take out 58 battalions (1,000 per battalion) of RR and around 60 battalions of CRPF (1,000 per).
> 
> You'll be shocked at the number you get.
> 
> Who produced this 700,000 number out of his arse?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain how you got the figure of 700,000 Indian troops?


It was old Indian source dear


----------



## utraash

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> Your army is killing everyone....Wahabbis, Shias, children etc.......Is there anyone left unaffected of Indian torture on innocent civilians who are just demanding what Indians once promised to conduct.....PLEBISCITE


Unfortunately we don't share our borders with Utopia ... Nor the OP is utopian....
Nor your figures are correct... I have those nos which I won't share in public but be assured actual deployment of army alone is significantly less than cited nos here.... 
Crpf has some significant presence across valley but keeping the scale of violent protest & terrorists infested zone these nos fall short to maintain the law & order some time along with the fact they are not military but a paramilitary equivalent to local police in many ways which also comes under the home ministry not the defence.... 
Bsf has no such large scale deployment in valley.... 

Brother we have said it to infinite times that loss which we had to bear to maintain that piece of land has crossed all barriers thus making it near to impossible to negotiate over it now, therefore your whines are of no use to compel us morally for plebiscite. Same time be assured the current turmoil will not last for more than 2 months now once the winters approaches, valley has the history of turbulence in summer only.... 

Reconciliation with the reality always helps....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

X-2. said:


> You are most welcome
> 
> 
> It was old Indian source dear



I really don't think so. Other than Arundhati Roy, or Khurram Parvez, nobody has been known to be so delightfully obscure about figures.


----------



## X-2.

Joe Shearer said:


> I really don't think so. Other than Arundhati Roy, or Khurram Parvez, nobody has been known to be so delightfully obscure about figures.


There are few sources,if u more curious u can ask anyone in related army stiff in your family or friend 
You can still come up with no-no no 700000 but yet it is 

http://projectcensored.org/kashmir-the-untold-story-of-indian-occupation/

http://kashmirdiasporaa.blogspot.fr/2013/11/700000-indian-soldiers-suffocate-voice.html

http://www.countercurrents.org/vltchek080215.htm

http://www.crescent-online.net/2016...cts-in-kashmir-tanvir-alam-5381-articles.html

Check wiki for strength of troops 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## American Pakistani

Joe Shearer said:


> How did you get the figure of 700,000? That seems rather high!



I know rite! Ask your generals to pull these 7 lakh indian occupier terrorists so that the figure can come down.



X-2. said:


> There are few sources,if u more curious u can ask anyone in related army stiff in your family or friend
> You can still come up with no-no no 700000 but yet it is
> 
> http://projectcensored.org/kashmir-the-untold-story-of-indian-occupation/
> 
> http://kashmirdiasporaa.blogspot.fr/2013/11/700000-indian-soldiers-suffocate-voice.html
> 
> http://www.countercurrents.org/vltchek080215.htm
> 
> http://www.crescent-online.net/2016...cts-in-kashmir-tanvir-alam-5381-articles.html
> 
> Check wiki for strength of troops
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir



He is a professional troll. I explained him that 2 dozen times, shared videos, links etc but he keep repeating that same thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## X-2.

American Pakistani said:


> I know rite! Ask your generals to pull these 7 lakh indian occupier terrorists so that the figure can come down.
> 
> 
> 
> He is a professional troll. I explained him that 2 dozen times, shared videos, links etc but he keep repeating that same thing.


At last we can try one day there will be silence


----------



## AsianLion

navtrek said:


> because India dosent train and send terrorists to your side. The Indian army is deployed because of Pakistan if not Kashmir would be a very developed state by now and people would have loved their armed forces.




Pakistan ain't spending anything in Kashmir as opposed indian security spending, its India which is bleeding badly internationally, economically by sustaining 700,000 soldiers in Jammu and Kashmir, social & financial burden of closed down curfew state, killing n torture of Kashmiri people raising serious human rights violations and spending billions with loss of Indian blood.


----------



## Joe Shearer

American Pakistani said:


> I know rite! Ask your generals to pull these 7 lakh indian occupier terrorists so that the figure can come down.
> 
> 
> 
> He is a professional troll. I explained him that 2 dozen times, shared videos, links etc but he keep repeating that same thing.



You know nothing.

Read Oscar's post on the subject. And learn. You might gain some dignity in the process.


----------



## Joe Shearer

AsianUnion said:


> Pakistan ain't spending anything in Kashmir as opposed indian security spending, its India which is bleeding badly internationally, economically by sustaining 700,000 soldiers in Jammu and Kashmir, social & financial burden of closed down curfew state, killing n torture of Kashmiri people raising serious human rights violations and spending billions with loss of Indian blood.



According to the order of battle of the Indian Army, 156,000 soldiers, 62,000 R&R and perhaps some 50,000 police.


----------



## Pakistani E

Regardless of the number of occupying troops, is it not an established fact that Azad Kashmir is far more peaceful than Jammu and Kashmir? You don't see any protests at all against Pakistan in Azad Kashmir, while we can't really say the same for the other side can we? 

I think the discussion of the numbers is a deliberate derailing of the thread by Indian members since they can't really answer the fact their side of Kashmir is full of unrest against them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Pakistani Exile said:


> You don't see


That is true.

Very few people are allowed there in the first place. 



Pakistani Exile said:


> established fact that Azad Kashmir is far more peaceful than Jammu and Kashmir


We both know that if an Islamic Constitution is adopted and the rulers of Kashmir and the soldiers are Muslim - there will be peace here as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pakistani Exile said:


> Regardless of the number of occupying troops, is it not an established fact that Azad Kashmir is far more peaceful than Jammu and Kashmir? You don't see any protests at all against Pakistan in Azad Kashmir, while we can't really say the same for the other side can we?
> 
> I think the discussion of the numbers is a deliberate derailing of the thread by Indian members since they can't really answer the fact their side of Kashmir is full of unrest against them.



I have contradicted this canard everywhere that it has occurred. Check my posts. 

And as far as answering your supposition, not fact is concerned, I have no intention of engaging someone in a discussion who has no access to ground realities beyond publications dedicated to one side, no thoughts on the matter other than the common national refrain, and no desire to change their point of view. Why should I discuss anything but the numbers in these circumstances? If you have the balls to come to the discussion prepared to change your mind, that would another thing. For anyone to take up this spurious challenge and engage with you is the most foolish thing that has been suggested for a very long, long time.


----------



## American Pakistani

Joe Shearer said:


> You know nothing.
> 
> Read Oscar's post on the subject. And learn. You might gain some dignity in the process.



Don't read arnab or indian army propaganda too much. That will save you from embarrassment and provide you some dignity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

American Pakistani said:


> Don't read arnab or indian army propaganda too much. That will save you from embarrassment and provide you some dignity.



I read neither.

The embarrassment is on reading you, and realising that I share the forum with intellects like yours. After reading your posts, no return to dignity can be thought of.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellfire

American Pakistani said:


> Don't read arnab or indian army propaganda too much. That will save you from embarrassment and provide you some dignity.




Still at it?

Oscar has taken the trouble to give some indication

*The 700k figure came up first during the 90's uprising. That too due to an overestimate of the number of people kept in the line as BSF, Police and everyone else with an Indian flag became part of the 700k. That does not mean that there is not a substantial presence that could be in the six figures(or more if the LoC flares up) but a lot of it is rotating troops and in certain cases forward deployment. I would not take 500k troops as serious but it could be a realistic figure if one looks at say a situation such as Kargil where it is a large conventional mobilisation of what are substantial regular troop numbers.*

*The Kashmir population is around 12 million of which at maximum 1 million could be taken as potential "dissidents" based on how the Indian government behaves. The Pakistan Army was able to control a much larger dissident population in erstwhile BD using only 70000 so this figure is more propaganda than anything else.*

*That being said, the 70000 had a very open hand depending upon the morality of the OC sector, whilst the hands for the IA were only untied in the 90s and now recently. Where the dissent was actually quite quelled during the period of the previous government because the Youth were allowed to avail all the facilities of an Indian citizen(and more). Now, they have erased all that effort of the past and my whatsapp conversations with those on the ground prior to the internet blackout suggest that it is not getting any better; even the types who only care for calm as long as their business is going are now getting agitated.*

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/indias-7...rom-azad-kashmir.446172/page-13#ixzz4IckPrxse

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## American Pakistani

Joe Shearer said:


> I read neither.
> 
> The embarrassment is on reading you, and realising that I share the forum with intellects like yours. After reading your posts, no return to dignity can be thought of.



Lol, but you do read and even quote. Is that some kind of indian way to avoid embarrassment and acheive max dignity?


----------



## Joe Shearer

American Pakistani said:


> Lol, but you do read and even quote. Is that some kind of indian way to avoid embarrassment and acheive max dignity?



My shit in visible display embarrasses me. That doesn't stop me from wiping my arse.


----------



## American Pakistani

hellfire said:


> Still at it?
> 
> Oscar has taken the trouble to give some indication
> 
> *The 700k figure came up first during the 90's uprising. That too due to an overestimate of the number of people kept in the line as BSF, Police and everyone else with an Indian flag became part of the 700k. That does not mean that there is not a substantial presence that could be in the six figures(or more if the LoC flares up) but a lot of it is rotating troops and in certain cases forward deployment. I would not take 500k troops as serious but it could be a realistic figure if one looks at say a situation such as Kargil where it is a large conventional mobilisation of what are substantial regular troop numbers.*
> 
> *The Kashmir population is around 12 million of which at maximum 1 million could be taken as potential "dissidents" based on how the Indian government behaves. The Pakistan Army was able to control a much larger dissident population in erstwhile BD using only 70000 so this figure is more propaganda than anything else.*
> 
> *That being said, the 70000 had a very open hand depending upon the morality of the OC sector, whilst the hands for the IA were only untied in the 90s and now recently. Where the dissent was actually quite quelled during the period of the previous government because the Youth were allowed to avail all the facilities of an Indian citizen(and more). Now, they have erased all that effort of the past and my whatsapp conversations with those on the ground prior to the internet blackout suggest that it is not getting any better; even the types who only care for calm as long as their business is going are now getting agitated.*
> 
> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/indias-7...rom-azad-kashmir.446172/page-13#ixzz4IckPrxse



That is his personal opinion which he is entitled of. I have quoted multiple sources. In every picture of IOK one can see almost equal number of indian occupier terrorists that proves the truth in those sources.



Joe Shearer said:


> My shit in visible display embarrasses me. That doesn't stop me from wiping my arse.



Why does it embarrass you? Is it not supposed to work that way?


----------



## Joe Shearer

American Pakistani said:


> That is his personal opinion which he is entitled of. I have quoted multiple sources. In every picture of IOK one can see almost equal number of indian occupier terrorists that proves the truth in those sources.
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it embarrass you? Is it not supposed to work that way?



I know you find it strange. Quite as is expected.


----------



## Hellfire

American Pakistani said:


> That is his personal opinion which he is entitled of. I have quoted multiple sources. In every picture of IOK one can see almost equal number of indian occupier terrorists that proves the truth in those sources.



Hmm. Yup. Nicely summed up. Took time to engage you as apart from your rant, you are a sensible member. But yet continue to remain in denial and ignorance. Sad.

Ok! You got us .....


----------



## Pakistani E

Joe Shearer said:


> I have contradicted this canard everywhere that it has occurred. Check my posts.
> 
> And as far as answering your supposition, not fact is concerned, I have no intention of engaging someone in a discussion who has no access to ground realities beyond publications dedicated to one side, no thoughts on the matter other than the common national refrain, and no desire to change their point of view. Why should I discuss anything but the numbers in these circumstances? If you have the balls to come to the discussion prepared to change your mind, that would another thing. For anyone to take up this spurious challenge and engage with you is the most foolish thing that has been suggested for a very long, long time.



Right, and what ground realities would those be? That there are violent protests going on Kashmir? The UN documented torture stories of rape and murder by Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir? The refusal to accept there is unrest among a certain section of Kashmiris and blaming it all on my ignorance of "ground realities" is a cheap cop out that I did not except from a personality such as yourself.

I don't need to explain anything, the large protests in Jammu and Kashmir are enough explanation. The need for thousands of troops and an ongoing insurgency are enough to deflect any ignorance of the ground realities in Kashmir on my part. Nothing can "contradict" the fact that there is a insurgency and tension and violence in Jammu and Kashmir for a particular reason. Blaming that all on my refusal to agree with your narrative or my ignorance is a clear simplification of "ground realities".

That's fine by me, as at the end of the day you are an Indian and I am a Pakistani, and we will always stick to our own national narratives which is probably why this conflict will never be solved. Enjoy the rest of your evening.



SarthakGanguly said:


> That is true.
> 
> Very few people are allowed there in the first place.



And how many Azad Kashmiris do you know? One maybe two? I doubt that as well. I've got an idea, since it is not possible for Indians to go to Azad Kashmir why don't you ask the many Indians in the U.K to approach a Azad Kashmiri and ask them on their love for India or perhaps their vengeful hatred for the oppressive Pakistanis? Would that be an agreeable middle ground for someone who cannot get in to Azad Kashmir?


----------



## American Pakistani

Joe Shearer said:


> I know you find it strange. Quite as is expected.



You are explaining as if your system should not work that way. Or you are some holy m0ly indian who don't $h1t at all.


----------



## Hellfire

Pakistani Exile said:


> Right, and what ground realities would those be? That there are violent protests going on Kashmir? The UN documented torture stories of rape and murder by Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir? The refusal to accept there is unrest among a certain section of Kashmiris and blaming it all on my ignorance of "ground realities" is a cheap cop out that I did not except from a personality such as yourself.
> 
> I don't need to explain anything, the large protests in Jammu and Kashmir are enough explanation. The need for thousands of troops and an ongoing insurgency are enough to deflect any ignorance of the ground realities in Kashmir on my part. Nothing can "contradict" the fact that there is a insurgency and tension and violence in Jammu and Kashmir for a particular reason. Blaming that all on my refusal to agree with your narrative or my ignorance is a clear simplification of "ground realities".
> 
> That's fine by me, as at the end of the day you are an Indian and I am a Pakistani, and we will always stick to our own national narratives which is probably why this conflict will never be solved. Enjoy the rest of your evening.



Nice rejoinder.

One question:

Can you explain lack of unrest, opposition to Pakistani Forces during _Operation Gibraltar _and a peaceful Kashmir valley till 1989? Curious to know your answer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## American Pakistani

hellfire said:


> Hmm. Yup. Nicely summed up. Took time to engage you as apart from your rant, you are a sensible member. But yet continue to remain in denial and ignorance. Sad.
> 
> Ok! You got us .....



I don't need your certificates. You can continue to believe what you believe and me what I, unless some Pakistani or IOK Kashmiri can prove otherwise.


----------



## Pakistani E

SarthakGanguly said:


> We both know that if an Islamic Constitution is adopted and the rulers of Kashmir and the soldiers are Muslim - there will be peace here as well.



Come on, Yar you already know my opinion on this. I have already stated numerous times that Pakistan and indeed the majority of Hurriyat leaders lost the good will of the majority of Kashmiris when they chose to deliberately turn this national struggle in to that of a Jihad of a particular sect. Come now, don't put me together with the others just because I refuse to accept Indian acquisition of Jammu and Kashmir. I am just butthurt from the injustices committed during Dogra regime and my hatred for them has just been transferred to the Indian side even though I have no qualms in accepting Indian rule is a thousand times better, nay it would be an insult to even compare the two. My only reasoning and logic is that the Kashmiris have the right to self determination, IF they want it. Just like the Indians had when they agitated against the British, or any other people in the world. My view of Kashmir conflict is not clouded by a mirage of religious fantasies but a more nationalist one. Even though, I try hard not to let a jingoistic narrative take over my feelings.


----------



## Zibago

No need to worry about us Azad Kashmiris we are happy with Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pakistani Exile said:


> Right, and what ground realities would those be? That there are violent protests going on Kashmir? The UN documented torture stories of rape and murder by Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir? The refusal to accept there is unrest among a certain section of Kashmiris and blaming it all on my ignorance of "ground realities" is a cheap cop out that I did not except from a personality such as yourself.



Thank you for the back-handed compliment. Please restrict these to your favourites in future. When I say something, you may be sure that I have very good reasons to say it, and it is not a bit of idle propaganda. 

There is no role of the UN in Kashmir, and it is surprising that you bring UN-documented torture stories. That there is unrest among a certain section of Kashmiris is not in question; what is in question is that it is representative of all Kashmiris or even of a majority of Kashmiris, here the reference being to the Kashmiri Muslims of the Valley. If you had any personal experience, or personal knowledge, or any vicarious knowledge of a region in the grip of terror, you would know that a small, violent minority dictates terms to everybody else. Including to a large and passive majority that wishes for good governance, and, as far as political and social desires and goals are concerned, that wishes for a restoration of the autonomy that should have been Kashmir's by constitutional right, for the restoration of the dignity of the individual or group subjected to numerous security checks even on functioning thoroughfares, and for the addressing of the corruption that has hollowed out Kashmiri society.

You seem to be unaware, or to be unwilling to identify these as realities on the ground. That is specifically what I meant, and by sneering at me you change nothing on the ground. At best, it might give you the satisfaction that an urchin gets by pissing in the park and proving that he can do so without harm - unless, of course, he is unlikely enough to have a policeman standing right behind him.



> I don't need to explain anything, the large protests in Jammu and Kashmir are enough explanation.



No, you don't need to explain anything. Merely an incessant repetition of fantasies will gain you your point. I accept that by your standards you are being perfectly logical and expressing yourself in irresistible terms.



> The need for thousands of troops and an ongoing insurgency are enough to deflect any ignorance of the ground realities in Kashmir on my part.



That is why you don't need to explain anything. The need for thousands of troops has been clearly and explicitly written. Your own knowledgeable observers have acknowledged that numbers quoted are exaggerated. They have also pointed out how many soldiers Pakistan herself has on the borders, and the figures match, as far as soldiery is concerned. In addition, there are some 100,000 counter-insurgency troops and policemen involved; you might like to compare that to Pakistan's deployment in KP or even to the deployment of Rangers and other para-military personnel in Karachi, proportionate to the population of those places. 

The ratio will shock you, but I am confident that you do not have the self-confidence, or the faith in your own so-called arguments.



> Nothing can "contradict" the fact that there is a insurgency and tension and violence in Jammu and Kashmir for a particular reason. Blaming that all on my refusal to agree with your narrative or my ignorance is a clear simplification of "ground realities".



Nothing is needed to be done to contradict the "facts", since those who wish to wallow in a self-righteous soup are enjoying themselves too much to step out of the wallow. 



> That's fine by me, as at the end of the day you are an Indian and I am a Pakistani, and we will always stick to our own national narratives which is probably why this conflict will never be solved. Enjoy the rest of your evening.



Precisely what I mean by being tied to your own prejudices. If you have not investigated my attitude to reality and facts, especially on matters relating to India and Pakistan, you know nothing and are not equipped to enter a discussion entertaining, as you do, your own little prejudices as canonical truths revealed to you personally.

Nothing so blind as those who refuse to see.



Pakistani Exile said:


> Come on, Yar you already know my opinion on this. I have already stated numerous times that Pakistan and indeed the majority of Hurriyat leaders lost the good will of the majority of Kashmiris when they chose to deliberately turn this national struggle in to that of a Jihad of a particular sect. Come now, don't put me together with the others just because I refuse to accept Indian acquisition of Jammu and Kashmir. I am just butthurt from the injustices committed during Dogra regime and my hatred for them has just been transferred to the Indian side even though I have no qualms in accepting Indian rule is a thousand times better, nay it would be an insult to even compare the two. My only reasoning and logic is that the Kashmiris have the right to self determination, IF they want it. Just like the Indians had when they agitated against the British, or any other people in the world. My view of Kashmir conflict is not clouded by a mirage of religious fantasies but a more nationalist one. Even though, I try hard not to let a jingoistic narrative take over my feelings.



Your reasoning is emotionally tenable, not legally.



American Pakistani said:


> You are explaining as if your system should not work that way. Or you are some holy m0ly indian who don't $h1t at all.



No.

I am explaining in the simplest possible terms an insult to one whose skin and whose vocabularies protect him equally from insult.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## W-11

What is the point to built the infrastructure when the citizen don't wanna live in the country?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

American Pakistani said:


> That is his personal opinion which he is entitled of. I have quoted multiple sources. In every picture of IOK one can see almost equal number of indian occupier terrorists that proves the truth in those sources.
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it embarrass you? Is it not supposed to work that way?



You have quoted ONE SINGLE SOURCE: a casual remark by Musharraf in an unimportant TV interview.


----------



## American Pakistani

Joe Shearer said:


> Thank you for the back-handed compliment. Please restrict these to your favourites in future. When I say something, you may be sure that I have very good reasons to say it, and it is not a bit of idle propaganda.
> 
> There is no role of the UN in Kashmir, and it is surprising that you bring UN-documented torture stories. That there is unrest among a certain section of Kashmiris is not in question; what is in question is that it is representative of all Kashmiris or even of a majority of Kashmiris, here the reference being to the Kashmiri Muslims of the Valley. If you had any personal experience, or personal knowledge, or any vicarious knowledge of a region in the grip of terror, you would know that a small, violent minority dictates terms to everybody else. Including to a large and passive majority that wishes for good governance, and, as far as political and social desires and goals are concerned, that wishes for a restoration of the autonomy that should have been Kashmir's by constitutional right, for the restoration of the dignity of the individual or group subjected to numerous security checks even on functioning thoroughfares, and for the addressing of the corruption that has hollowed out Kashmiri society.
> 
> You seem to be unaware, or to be unwilling to identify these as realities on the ground. That is specifically what I meant, and by sneering at me you change nothing on the ground. At best, it might give you the satisfaction that an urchin gets by pissing in the park and proving that he can do so without harm - unless, of course, he is unlikely enough to have a policeman standing right behind him.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't need to explain anything. Merely an incessant repetition of fantasies will gain you your point. I accept that by your standards you are being perfectly logical and expressing yourself in irresistible terms.
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you don't need to explain anything. The need for thousands of troops has been clearly and explicitly written. Your own knowledgeable observers have acknowledged that numbers quoted are exaggerated. They have also pointed out how many soldiers Pakistan herself has on the borders, and the figures match, as far as soldiery is concerned. In addition, there are some 100,000 counter-insurgency troops and policemen involved; you might like to compare that to Pakistan's deployment in KP or even to the deployment of Rangers and other para-military personnel in Karachi, proportionate to the population of those places.
> 
> The ratio will shock you, but I am confident that you do not have the self-confidence, or the faith in your own so-called arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is needed to be done to contradict the "facts", since those who wish to wallow in a self-righteous soup are enjoying themselves too much to step out of the wallow.
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely what I mean by being tied to your own prejudices. If you have not investigated my attitude to reality and facts, especially on matters relating to India and Pakistan, you know nothing and are not equipped to enter a discussion entertaining, as you do, your own little prejudices as canonical truths revealed to you personally.
> 
> Nothing so blind as those who refuse to see.
> 
> 
> 
> Your reasoning is emotionally tenable, not legally.
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> I am explaining in the simplest possible terms an insult to one whose skin and whose vocabularies protect him equally from insult.



Your insults are insignificant to me just like your little bharat mata. I know you can't control your upbringing, you know.



Joe Shearer said:


> You have quoted ONE SINGLE SOURCE: a casual remark by Musharraf in an unimportant TV interview.



I have quoted multiple source. One tv interview and 2 sources one from express Tribune and another from the news international.


----------



## notnownotever

jhnkjnkjn

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tshering22

I don't know what's with this 7 lakh soldiers all the time.

If those 7 lakh were let loose with the autonomy to deal the way they wanted, this could have been sorted out much more easily.


----------



## waz

-xXx- said:


> That is the expectation from Indian forces and unless the expectations are proved wrong by the acts of final minimum force, it should not be concluded that Indian force would have gone with intimidation.
> 
> Also, if that was the fear factor, Pakistan should have simply not agreed to the resolution in its current form and should have asked for UN troop explicitly. But Pakistan agreed to it.



That expectation will never be met, you know and I know that. With that in mind Azad Kashmir forces will ensure security our side, or if the Indian object, then it will be UN forces. Pakistan did agree to the resolution, but there are grey areas, hence my comments. 





-xXx- said:


> I agree.
> 
> And we both knows why. Old resolution is not implementable, new resolution under chapter VII can not be obtained.
> 
> @waz My whole argument lies within the premise of what resolution *actually is*.
> 
> Your argument talks more about what resolution *should have been*.
> 
> I think we both are clear on the case now, lets take some rest.



Right, but I'm dealing with present realities, where your arguments are resting in the past. The resolution is still sound, provided certain needs are met. But I'll agree such a vote will never happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nicky G

Tshering22 said:


> I don't know what's with this 7 lakh soldiers all the time.
> 
> If those 7 lakh were let loose with the autonomy to deal the way they wanted, this could have been sorted out much more easily.



I believe that figure also includes CRPF, BSF, local police and GOd knows what else. Still that number would be too high.

As for letting loose, we can't and won't. We'll continue to show maximum restraint while ensuring things don't escalate beyond a point. It's the price you pay for being a civilized society.


----------



## Joe Shearer

American Pakistani said:


> Your insults are insignificant to me just like your little bharat mata. I know you can't control your upbringing, you know.
> 
> 
> 
> I have quoted multiple source. One tv interview and 2 sources one from express Tribune and another from the news international.



LOL.

So now, to you, a newspaper report is authentic enough? Well done. Not for nothing are you member of a defence forum.


----------



## Tshering22

Nicky G said:


> As for letting loose, we can't and won't. We'll continue to show maximum restraint while ensuring things don't escalate beyond a point. It's the price you pay for being a civilized society.



No we won't pay any price. There is always a more efficient method of taking down enemies.


----------



## American Pakistani

Joe Shearer said:


> LOL.
> 
> So now, to you, a newspaper report is authentic enough? Well done. Not for nothing are you member of a defence forum.



You said I posted only one source and I told you I posted multiple. It seems like you are very low on memory card.


----------



## Nicky G

Tshering22 said:


> No we won't pay any price. There is always a more efficient method of taking down enemies.



By paying a price, I mean we can't go butcher our own citizens as some other nations tend to do. We'll do it differently.


----------



## Joe Shearer

American Pakistani said:


> You said I posted only one source and I told you I posted multiple. It seems like you are very low on memory card.



Not really.

It is apparent that your sources are all equally leaky and unreliable.If you are the sort of superficial and uninformed person who relies on newspaper headlines and on TV interviews, on YouTube recordings by part-time enthusiasts, what is the point of even trying to educate you? When cornered, in the past, you have always pleaded that one person, in one interview on TV, where there was no question of authentication, gave a certain reply, brushing aside as best as you could the hard data that was placed before you. Do you think that your schoolboy insults impress anyone, or that anyone has a better opinion of your expertise and knowledge when they see you running away from a challenge and taking refuge behind TV interviews and newspaper reports?

It seems that you are very low on self-esteem, to keep coming back for punishment and to keep intruding into subjects about which you have such abysmally low information.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 911

Its false. Never seen the figure of 700,000 anywhere except on Scroll.in
http://scroll.in/article/812010/do-...tants-kashmiri-rights-activist-khurram-parvez
But then this blog is famous for its lies and endorsing people who lie.


----------



## -xXx-

waz said:


> Right, but I'm dealing with present realities, where your arguments are resting in the past.



Talking about UN resolution is living in the past itself, isn't it?

Present realities is that there is no scope of third party intervention, including UN, so no point in talking of any foreign forces in state of J&K.



> The resolution is still sound, provided certain needs are met. But I'll agree such a vote will never happen.



You are self contradicting here. The resolutions are far from being sound if they are not implementable in its original form.

Application of UN forces, as per your wish, left resolution bogus and obsolete. The whole resolution need to be drafted again, word by word, that practically mean passing a new one and that too under chapter VII.

Thank You.


----------



## Tshering22

Nicky G said:


> By paying a price, I mean we can't go butcher our own citizens as some other nations tend to do. We'll do it differently.



Then let us find a middle path to solve this. Neither we will die nor we will kill innocents.


----------



## Pakistani E

Joe Shearer said:


> Thank you for the back-handed compliment. Please restrict these to your favourites in future. When I say something, you may be sure that I have very good reasons to say it, and it is not a bit of idle propaganda.
> 
> There is no role of the UN in Kashmir, and it is surprising that you bring UN-documented torture stories. That there is unrest among a certain section of Kashmiris is not in question; what is in question is that it is representative of all Kashmiris or even of a majority of Kashmiris, here the reference being to the Kashmiri Muslims of the Valley. If you had any personal experience, or personal knowledge, or any vicarious knowledge of a region in the grip of terror, you would know that a small, violent minority dictates terms to everybody else. Including to a large and passive majority that wishes for good governance, and, as far as political and social desires and goals are concerned, that wishes for a restoration of the autonomy that should have been Kashmir's by constitutional right, for the restoration of the dignity of the individual or group subjected to numerous security checks even on functioning thoroughfares, and for the addressing of the corruption that has hollowed out Kashmiri society.
> 
> You seem to be unaware, or to be unwilling to identify these as realities on the ground. That is specifically what I meant, and by sneering at me you change nothing on the ground. At best, it might give you the satisfaction that an urchin gets by pissing in the park and proving that he can do so without harm - unless, of course, he is unlikely enough to have a policeman standing right behind him.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't need to explain anything. Merely an incessant repetition of fantasies will gain you your point. I accept that by your standards you are being perfectly logical and expressing yourself in irresistible terms.
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you don't need to explain anything. The need for thousands of troops has been clearly and explicitly written. Your own knowledgeable observers have acknowledged that numbers quoted are exaggerated. They have also pointed out how many soldiers Pakistan herself has on the borders, and the figures match, as far as soldiery is concerned. In addition, there are some 100,000 counter-insurgency troops and policemen involved; you might like to compare that to Pakistan's deployment in KP or even to the deployment of Rangers and other para-military personnel in Karachi, proportionate to the population of those places.
> 
> The ratio will shock you, but I am confident that you do not have the self-confidence, or the faith in your own so-called arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is needed to be done to contradict the "facts", since those who wish to wallow in a self-righteous soup are enjoying themselves too much to step out of the wallow.
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely what I mean by being tied to your own prejudices. If you have not investigated my attitude to reality and facts, especially on matters relating to India and Pakistan, you know nothing and are not equipped to enter a discussion entertaining, as you do, your own little prejudices as canonical truths revealed to you personally.
> 
> Nothing so blind as those who refuse to see.
> 
> 
> 
> Your reasoning is emotionally tenable, not legally.
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> I am explaining in the simplest possible terms an insult to one whose skin and whose vocabularies protect him equally from insult.



Oops forgot UN observers are not allowed in to Indian held Kashmir, and HRW and Amnesty International and other bodies of international repute are also wasting time on writing these made up reports of abuses. Since it is clear that my words hold little value, and why should they since I am not aware of "ground realities" I let the following reports document human rights abuses, although I worry that since they are also not written by Indians or not in too favour of the Indian security forces, they may also be dismissed as they are not aware of these mythical ground realities that only a true patriotic Indian can understand:

*"In their efforts to crush the insurgency, Indian forces in Kashmir have engaged in massive human rights violations, including extrajudicial executions, rape, torture and deliberate assaults on health care workers."

"From the outset, that crackdown was marked by brutality against civilians, including the shooting of unarmed demonstrators, civilian massacres and summary executions of detainees."

"Summary executions of detainees and indiscriminate attacks on civilians escalated during the operation, and during another which followed, called Operation Shiva. Over the next several months, the security forces also engaged in frequent arson attacks, burning houses, shops and entire neighborhoods."*

*"The Asia Watch/PHR team which visited Kashmir in October 1992 traveled throughout the Kashmir valley from Srinagar to Handwara and Sopore in the northwest, and Anantnag and Shopian in the southeast. They directly investigated 44 extrajudicial killings, eight cases of torture, and fifteen rapes committed by Indian security forces."

"In the second mission conducted in April and May, 1993, Asia Watch and PHR-Denmark, documented an additional 22 extrajudicial killings and a case of torture and attempted summary execution by the security forces. During both research missions, Asia Watch and PHR interviewed local health professionals, journalists, teachers, human rights activists and lawyers, and reviewed habeas corpus petitions, High Court judgments, and medical documents on hundreds of incidents of abuse by the security forces."

"In the case of the Sopore massacre, the investigation into which the government holds up as an example of "swift and firm action", Border Security Force troops went on a rampage and killed at least 43 persons, some of whom died of gunshot wounds, others of whom were burned alive when the troops set fire to their shops and homes. Independent investigations into the incident by human rights groups and international and Indian journalists corroborated eyewitness accounts that BSF forces deliberately opened fire on civilians and set fire to buildings."*

*"Even when the authorities have ordered inquiries into incidents of abuse, the investigations are frequently never conducted or the findings not made public. Director General of Police (DGP) B. S. Bedi, when he was first appointed to Srinagar, had promised to make public the findings of all such inquiries. When questioned in a press interview in October 1992 about his failure to do so, he responded, "We have done so deliberately -- it would lower the morale of the forces. Why should we tell everyone? They will talk about it right and left."

"Although an inquiry was ordered into the killing of 25 civilians in Handwara on October 12, 1990, the findings have never been made public. An inquiry ordered into the killings of 33 civilians in Srinagar on June 12, 1991, has never commenced. An investigation was ordered in the case of five women reportedly raped near Anantnag on December 5, 1991, but the magistrate's report has never been submitted."*

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/INDIA937.PDF
*
"Since the government crackdown against militants in Kashmir began in earnest in January 1990, reports of rape by security personnel have become more frequent. Rape most often occurs during crackdowns, cordon-and-search operations during which men are held for identification in parks or schoolyards while security forces search their homes. In these situations, the security forces frequently engage in collective punishment against the civilian population, most frequently by beating or otherwise assaulting residents, and burning their homes. Rape is used as a means of targetting women whom the security forces accuse of being militant sympathizers; in raping them, the security forces are attempting to punish and humiliate the entire community"*

*"In many attacks, the selection of victims is seemingly arbitrary and the women, like other civilians assaulted or killed, are targeted simply because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Since most cases of rape take place during cordon-and-search operations, just living in a certain area can put women at risk of rape."

"Rape by Indian police is common throughout India; the victims are generally poor women and those from vulnerable low-caste and tribal minority groups.9 In some cases, women are taken into custody as suspects in petty crime or on more serious charges; in others, women are detained as hostages for relatives wanted in criminal or political cases; in still others, women are detained simply so that the police can extort a bribe to secure their release. In all of these cases, women in the custody of security forces are at risk of rape. Rape has also been widely reported during counter-insurgency operations elsewhere in India, particularly in Assam and other areas of conflict in northeastern India.10 In both conflict and non-conflict situations, the central element of rape by the security forces is power. Soldiers and police use rape as a weapon: to punish, intimidate, coerce, humiliate and degrade."*

*"In one well-publicized case, in May 1990 a young bride, Mubina Gani, was detained and raped by BSF soldiers while she was traveling from the wedding to her husband's home. Her aunt was also raped. The security forces had also fired on the party, killing one man and wounding several others. The government claimed that the party had been caught in "cross-fire." After the incident was publicized in the local and international press, Indian authorities ordered the police to conduct an inquiry. Although the inquiry concluded that the women had been raped, the security forces were never prosecuted."

I had to stop posting further from this as it is far too painful for me to read and absolutely thrashes this farcical moral ground Indians try to claim in the Kashmir conflict.*

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/INDIA935.PDF

*“The government has long been well aware that widespread killings and disappearances have occurred in Kashmir, but it has looked the other way,” Ganguly said. “The discovery of these unidentified bodies will make it impossible to continue the long cover-up of the facts or to deny justice to the families of victims.”

A similar pattern of abuses and cover-up took place in the neighboring state of Punjab during counterinsurgency operations from 1984 to 1995, Human Rights Watch said. Indian security forces were implicated in thousands of killings and secret cremations to hide the evidence.*

https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/08/24/india-investigate-unmarked-graves-jammu-and-kashmir

With keeping the above in mind, the great Indian democracy then proceeds to protect the people who commit these abuses:

*"more than 96% of all complaints brought against the army in Jammu & Kashmir have been dismissed as “false and baseless” or “with other ulterior motives of maligning the image of Armed Forces.”*

*"Amnesty International reports in the early to mid-1990s documented a large number of instances of torture and deaths in custody of security forces."

This organization alone recorded more than 800 cases of torture and deaths in the custody of army and other security forces in the 1990s, and hundreds of other cases of extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances from 1989 to 2013.*

https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ASA2018742015ENGLISH.PDF

"Violations of human rights and humanitarian law by the regular security forces - the army, the Border Security Force (BSF) and the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) - have also continued. These violations include the deliberate killing of detainees in the custody of the security forces in Kashmir and reprisal killings of civilians. Human rights groups and press accounts have registered reports of such killings every month, 5 but there is no sign that security personnel have been prosecuted in a single case of summary execution."

"Methods of torture include severe beatings, electric shock, crushing the leg muscles with a wooden roller, and burning with heated objects. The Indian government has not made public any investigations into any of the many documented cases of torture, nor has it ever announced that a member of the security forces was prosecuted or punished for torture. Although the government denies that torture is practiced systematically and as a matter of policy in Kashmir, government officials have admitted that torture takes place."

"Security personnel in Kashmir have also been responsible for rape as a counterinsurgency tactic. In response to international attention to the problem, the Indian government has made public a number of prosecutions of members of security forces for rape. However, reports of rape and other sexual assaults in Kashmir persist.7 In many cases, these incidents are never investigated by judicial and medical authorities competent to determine culpability."

https://www.hrw.org/reports/1996/India2.htm

After looking at the above reports and numerous others that crowd my computer memory, I have come to the conclusion that not only does the Indian state knowingly and purposely engage in terrorist acts with utter disregard for human rights and continues the occurrence of such acts. After reading such reports and documented proof, I am repeatedly told by the Indian friends here that I must accept only what they are saying to be true and the rest of some how borne of my "prejudiced Pakistani mind", how can I in such a environment dismiss everything I have read and studied and accept what these people are saying even though reports after reports confirm the horrors committed but also shows them consistently trying to cover up or outright deny the existence of such incidents.

Tell me how and why I should just accept what you or other Indian tells me when the records and proofs show the opposite? I agree I may be ignorant of "some" facts and "ground realities" but is the world also ignorant of these and only a Indian that tows the official line is on the truth? What a height of moral and intellectual dishonesty, to not only disregard my opinion but also to them claim that you or others who's mind set is similar to you must only be telling the truth and the me and others who disagree with are either wilfully ignorant or outright propagandists.

I have never sneered at anyone, I consider it below me to sneer at someone who is maybe trying to make relevant point, but I find myself disappointed that instead of engaging me with honesty and respect you have chosen to insult me in veiled, obtuse words. After this, you again engage in senseless personal tirades by stating how I am peddling my fantasies borne out of prejudice, well Sir, if I am engaged with tirelessly working to peddle my fantasies, then so are you and the great number of Indians on this forum who post and day and night with utter devotion in demonstrating how benevolent the state of the republic of India is and all is fine in the Kashmir valley. 

Then, the argument of numbers and ratios is brought in. Well, dear these are not relevant examples you give. The regions of KPK and Karachi are not demanding independence/autonomy from Pakistan. The KPK region is rocked by an international conflict consisting of religious rabids attempting to hijack the whole of the state under its wrapped ideology. It is not an occupation by which a so called democratic state fires the bullets on an unarmed 12 years' old by resting it's democratic infused rifle on the shoulder of an armed soldier.

While we are at Karachi, it will not be too grand to entertain this argument, the population of the whole of Karachi district is several folds larger than that of Jammu and Kashmir. Even then, the violence in Karachi is of a criminal and political nature, not an armed rebellion against the state of Pakistan. Pray tell me, what use is this comparison?

I have never ever even engaged in the politics of numbers, I have not disputed your numbers nor presented an exaggeration. The numbers are irrelevant like I have mentioned before, my original point which was lost under the emotionally charged personal rant of yours was, to remind any observer, to point out that there is no insurgency in Azad Kashmir, there is not young boys and men being killed under the guise of security. There are no women being raped to protect the democratic ideals of weak minded nation, no old who men who are fed their body bits every day till they are finally killed.

Sir, my skin is tough enough to weather your words and insults, but the skins of young boys who are peppered with bird shots to re-enforce the democratic tyranny of the majority is clearly not. My rants may be indeed be emotional and not legally binding, but they are no less factual as yours.



hellfire said:


> Nice rejoinder.
> 
> One question:
> 
> Can you explain lack of unrest, opposition to Pakistani Forces during _Operation Gibraltar _and a peaceful Kashmir valley till 1989? Curious to know your answer.



If the Jewish people could wait over 2,000 years to make an effort to retake their nation with the help of outsiders, please tell me why the Kashmiris are not allowed the same?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Nicky G said:


> I believe that figure also includes CRPF, BSF, local police and GOd knows what else. Still that number would be too high.
> 
> As for letting loose, we can't and won't. We'll continue to show maximum restraint while ensuring things don't escalate beyond a point. It's the price you pay for being a civilized society.



No, it does not. Even if you include the state Cabinet, you can't get to anywhere even near the figure. I have cited these figures often enough; it'd be so nice if you checked earlier posts and made an authoritative statement, rather than a sheepish equivocal one, so very uncertain about the correct picture.


----------



## RazaGujjar

Kashmir does not belong to Hindus...for centuries the people of Kashmir have been predominately Muslim.

Furthermore, they look nothing like the people of Hindustan. Give them their freedom.


----------



## Hellfire

Pakistani Exile said:


> If the Jewish people could wait over 2,000 years to make an effort to retake their nation with the help of outsiders, please tell me why the Kashmiris are not allowed the same?



I see you have avoided giving an answer to a direct question. Is it a difficult one? The period is very clear - 1947 till 1989. Can you give a rational reasoning for the same?

Because, by the analogy as you have given above of the Jews, may I remind you that the Islamic invasions of Indian subcontinent were a tale of millions of Hindus being killed en-masse, rapes and tortures?

Firishta (1560-1620), the author of _Tarihk-i-Firishta_ and _Gulshan-i-Ibrahim_ declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.

Dr. Koenraad Elst in his article “Was There an Islamic Genocide of Hindus?” states:

“_There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like punishing the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty._

_The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526)._"


Irfan Husain in his article “Demons from the Past” observes:

“_While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan…The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed..Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster_.

"_Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage..._”


The Afghan ruler Mahmud al-Ghazni invaded India no less than seventeen times between 1001 - 1026 AD. The book ‘Tarikh-i-Yamini’ - written by his secretary documents several episodes of his bloody military campaigns :

"_The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at the Indian city of Thanesar] that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it…the infidels deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river...but many of them were slain, taken or drowned... Nearly fifty thousand men were killed_."


In the contemporary record - ' Taj-ul-Ma’asir' by Hassn Nizam-i-Naishapuri, it is stated that when Qutb-ul- Din Aibak (of Turko - Afghan origin and the First Sultan of Delhi 1194-1210 AD) conquered Meerat, he demolished all the Hindu temples of the city and erected mosques on their sites. In the city of Aligarh, he converted Hindu inhabitants to Islam by the sword and beheaded all those who adhered to their own religion.

The Persian historian Wassaf writes in his book 'Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar' that when the Alaul-Din Khilji (An Afghan of Turkish origin and second ruler of the Khilji Dynasty in India 1295-1316 AD) captured the city of Kambayat at the head of the gulf of Cambay, he killed the adult male Hindu inhabitants for the glory of Islam, set flowing rivers of blood, sent the women of the country with all their gold, silver, and jewels, to his own home, and made about twentv thousand Hindu maidens his private slaves.

This ruler once asked his spiritual advisor (or ‘Qazi’) as to what was the Islamic law prescribed for the Hindus. The Qazi replied:

“_Hindus are like the mud; if silver is demanded from them, they must with the greatest humility offer gold. If a Mohammadan desires to spit into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu should open it wide for the purpose. God created the Hindus to be slaves of the Mohammadans. The Prophet hath ordained that, if the Hindus do not accept Islam, they should be imprisoned, tortured, finally put to death, and their property confiscated_.”




By your logic, Hindus of the Indian sub-continent must get their 'homeland' too? That means right till Afghanistan, hence the "Akhand Bharat"?

@Joe Shearer today I had to bring this out. What a sad rebuttal by the member.

@Nilgiri @utraash @jbgt90 @Rain Man @SarthakGanguly

@WAJsal @waz this may become a troll fest, so if you feel, please remove the post. However, the member's logic had to be rebutted.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Pakistani E

hellfire said:


> I see you have avoided giving an answer to a direct question. Is it a difficult one? The period is very clear - 1947 till 1989. Can you give a rational reasoning for the same?
> 
> Because, by the analogy as you have given above of the Jews, may I remind you that the Islamic invasions of Indian subcontinent were a tale of millions of Hindus being killed en-masse, rapes and tortures?
> 
> Firishta (1560-1620), the author of _Tarihk-i-Firishta_ and _Gulshan-i-Ibrahim_ declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.
> 
> Dr. Koenraad Elst in his article “Was There an Islamic Genocide of Hindus?” states:
> 
> “_There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like punishing the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty._
> 
> _The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526)._"
> 
> 
> Irfan Husain in his article “Demons from the Past” observes:
> 
> “_While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan…The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed..Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster_.
> 
> "_Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage..._”
> 
> 
> The Afghan ruler Mahmud al-Ghazni invaded India no less than seventeen times between 1001 - 1026 AD. The book ‘Tarikh-i-Yamini’ - written by his secretary documents several episodes of his bloody military campaigns :
> 
> "_The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at the Indian city of Thanesar] that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it…the infidels deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river...but many of them were slain, taken or drowned... Nearly fifty thousand men were killed_."
> 
> 
> In the contemporary record - ' Taj-ul-Ma’asir' by Hassn Nizam-i-Naishapuri, it is stated that when Qutb-ul- Din Aibak (of Turko - Afghan origin and the First Sultan of Delhi 1194-1210 AD) conquered Meerat, he demolished all the Hindu temples of the city and erected mosques on their sites. In the city of Aligarh, he converted Hindu inhabitants to Islam by the sword and beheaded all those who adhered to their own religion.
> 
> The Persian historian Wassaf writes in his book 'Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar' that when the Alaul-Din Khilji (An Afghan of Turkish origin and second ruler of the Khilji Dynasty in India 1295-1316 AD) captured the city of Kambayat at the head of the gulf of Cambay, he killed the adult male Hindu inhabitants for the glory of Islam, set flowing rivers of blood, sent the women of the country with all their gold, silver, and jewels, to his own home, and made about twentv thousand Hindu maidens his private slaves.
> 
> This ruler once asked his spiritual advisor (or ‘Qazi’) as to what was the Islamic law prescribed for the Hindus. The Qazi replied:
> 
> “_Hindus are like the mud; if silver is demanded from them, they must with the greatest humility offer gold. If a Mohammadan desires to spit into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu should open it wide for the purpose. God created the Hindus to be slaves of the Mohammadans. The Prophet hath ordained that, if the Hindus do not accept Islam, they should be imprisoned, tortured, finally put to death, and their property confiscated_.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your logic, Hindus of the Indian sub-continent must get their 'homeland' too? That means right till Afghanistan, hence the "Akhand Bharat"?
> 
> @Joe Shearer today I had to bring this out. What a sad rebuttal by the member.
> 
> @Nilgiri @utraash @jbgt90 @Rain Man @SarthakGanguly




Sure the Indians can have a go as well, don't you already believe that since India has the superiority of numbers and strength that Pakistanis and Kashmiris can do nothing? Many many times Indians on this forum and around the world, including your politicians and military leaders have already themselves accepted the fact the only thing keeping Kashmir with them is the threat of arms, why then are you so worried when Kashmiris try the same trick?

The so called Islamic invasions of India were anything but Islamic, if they were you wouldn't have mughal rulers marrying local Hindu women while they remain hindu, or fighting amongst themselves with the aid of other Hindu rulers. Religion was just a good excuse for the orgy of plunder, something the Christians also engaged in Africa and Central and South America. All of the above so called Ghazis engaged in looting and acts of violence, you are barking up the wrong tree by giving their example to me, I have already given my opinion on these so called Islamic invasions of India. What a joke.


----------



## Jaanbaz

700,000 supapowa soldiers for just one territory.


----------



## Hellfire

Pakistani Exile said:


> Sure the Indians can have a go as well, don't you already believe that since India has the superiority of numbers and strength that Pakistanis and Kashmiris can do nothing? Many many times Indians on this forum and around the world, including your politicians and military leaders have already themselves accepted the fact the only thing keeping Kashmir with them is the threat of arms, why then are you so worried when Kashmiris try the same trick?
> 
> The so called Islamic invasions of India were anything but Islamic, if they were you wouldn't have mughal rulers marrying local Hindu women while they remain hindu, or fighting amongst themselves. What a joke. All of the above so called Ghazis engaged in looting and acts of violence, you are barking up the wrong tree by giving their example to me, I have already given my opinion on these so called Islamic invasions of India.



It is not your opinion. I asked a straight forward question. If you can answer, be kind enough to answer in a straightforward manner. If unable to without indulging in circumlocution, then do let know. No use wasting our time.

The question was


Can you explain lack of unrest, opposition to Pakistani Forces during _Operation Gibraltar _and a peaceful Kashmir valley till 1989? Curious to know your answer.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/indias-7...rom-azad-kashmir.446172/page-16#ixzz4Ie2Ov157

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani E

hellfire said:


> It is not your opinion. I asked a straight forward question. If you can answer, be kind enough to answer in a straightforward manner. If unable to without indulging in circumlocution, then do let know. No use wasting our time.



What were the Indians doing between 1857 and 1947? What were the Jews doing for 2,000 years? What were the Polish doing for centuries? What were the Irish doing under British rule? You seem to want to push the subject of discussion towards 1989 so you can claim that Pakistanis started it all. Well, why was Shiekh Abdullah in prison for? What speech did he make making a certain demand that he was put in prison way before 1989?

It is of course a circular discussion, your argument merely presents a time limit to that of the Kashmir valley but excuses all the others. You don't have to engage me at all, I merely left my opinion but my reply to the point you are making is not nearly as irrelevant as the ones presented by other Indians to myself.


----------



## Joe Shearer

hellfire said:


> I see you have avoided giving an answer to a direct question. Is it a difficult one? The period is very clear - 1947 till 1989. Can you give a rational reasoning for the same?
> 
> Because, by the analogy as you have given above of the Jews, may I remind you that the Islamic invasions of Indian subcontinent were a tale of millions of Hindus being killed en-masse, rapes and tortures?
> 
> Firishta (1560-1620), the author of _Tarihk-i-Firishta_ and _Gulshan-i-Ibrahim_ declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.
> 
> Dr. Koenraad Elst in his article “Was There an Islamic Genocide of Hindus?” states:
> 
> “_There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like punishing the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty._
> 
> _The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526)._"
> 
> 
> Irfan Husain in his article “Demons from the Past” observes:
> 
> “_While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan…The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed..Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster_.
> 
> "_Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage..._”
> 
> 
> The Afghan ruler Mahmud al-Ghazni invaded India no less than seventeen times between 1001 - 1026 AD. The book ‘Tarikh-i-Yamini’ - written by his secretary documents several episodes of his bloody military campaigns :
> 
> "_The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at the Indian city of Thanesar] that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it…the infidels deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river...but many of them were slain, taken or drowned... Nearly fifty thousand men were killed_."
> 
> 
> In the contemporary record - ' Taj-ul-Ma’asir' by Hassn Nizam-i-Naishapuri, it is stated that when Qutb-ul- Din Aibak (of Turko - Afghan origin and the First Sultan of Delhi 1194-1210 AD) conquered Meerat, he demolished all the Hindu temples of the city and erected mosques on their sites. In the city of Aligarh, he converted Hindu inhabitants to Islam by the sword and beheaded all those who adhered to their own religion.
> 
> The Persian historian Wassaf writes in his book 'Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar' that when the Alaul-Din Khilji (An Afghan of Turkish origin and second ruler of the Khilji Dynasty in India 1295-1316 AD) captured the city of Kambayat at the head of the gulf of Cambay, he killed the adult male Hindu inhabitants for the glory of Islam, set flowing rivers of blood, sent the women of the country with all their gold, silver, and jewels, to his own home, and made about twentv thousand Hindu maidens his private slaves.
> 
> This ruler once asked his spiritual advisor (or ‘Qazi’) as to what was the Islamic law prescribed for the Hindus. The Qazi replied:
> 
> “_Hindus are like the mud; if silver is demanded from them, they must with the greatest humility offer gold. If a Mohammadan desires to spit into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu should open it wide for the purpose. God created the Hindus to be slaves of the Mohammadans. The Prophet hath ordained that, if the Hindus do not accept Islam, they should be imprisoned, tortured, finally put to death, and their property confiscated_.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your logic, Hindus of the Indian sub-continent must get their 'homeland' too? That means right till Afghanistan, hence the "Akhand Bharat"?
> 
> @Joe Shearer today I had to bring this out. What a sad rebuttal by the member.
> 
> @Nilgiri @utraash @jbgt90 @Rain Man @SarthakGanguly
> 
> @WAJsal @waz this may become a troll fest, so if you feel, please remove the post. However, the member's logic had to be rebutted.



I am going with the principle that there is no point in participating in a conversation unless it seems to be going somewhere. I have no intention of rubbishing that long post by Pakistani Exile. Neither to refute his contentions nor to point out the consequences of what is going on. I have no intention of reminding him of the underside of the Islamicised unrest, of the oppression of women, already started, now in full swing, where women who do not conform to the imposition of the mullahs were attacked with acid, of the increasing narrow-mindedness, where an Ahmedi conference was banned by the Mufti, of the bans on all-girl bands for being un-Islamic, of all these. He claims to be sensitive to the oppression of Kashmiris by the security forces. It seems to be selective sensitivity.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hellfire

Joe Shearer said:


> I am going with the principle that there is no point in participating in a conversation unless it seems to be going somewhere. I have no intention of rubbishing that long post by Pakistani Exile. Neither to refute his contentions nor to point out the consequences of what is going on. I have no intention of reminding him of the underside of the Islamicised unrest, of the oppression of women, already started, now in full swing, where women who do not conform to the imposition of the mullahs were attacked with acid, of the increasing narrow-mindedness, where an Ahmedi conference was banned by the Mufti, of the bans on all-girl bands for being un-Islamic, of all these. He claims to be sensitive to the oppression of Kashmiris by the security forces. It seems to be selective sensitivity.



Understood. Raise this topic and people are left running for answers. Then I feel like throwing Karen Armstrong lock stock and barrel at them, along with John Keay to drive in the Arab "nationalism". Pretty uncomfortable mix, if I get to it. 

Thanks sir.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pakistani E

If my sensitivities are selective, then so are the Indians. The militants I have already condemned, my posts on Hurriyat leaders bigotry towards Ahmadis on the relevant thread was plain for all to see, but Indians like humans everywhere, choose to turn a blind eye to the abuse committed by those they consider their own, since the topic of the thread was that, that is what I discuss. If others want to discuss the abuses committed by militants, they can open a thread there and I can leave ignorant, totally devoid posts of ground realities there too.

All the points of the failure of the insurgency have already been mentioned by me in numerous other threads. I already know they have failed, I do not even support armed rebellion and condemn all abuses and violence. But those who want to pretend to be on a higher pedestal cannot do the same when it is committed by those they see as beloved.

I can do nothing about this, as it is a basic human emotion but the doing of wrong from one side, does not excuse the wrongs of others.


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Pakistani Exile said:


> The so called Islamic invasions of India were anything but Islamic, if they were you wouldn't have mughal rulers marrying local Hindu women while they remain hindu, or fighting amongst themselves with the aid of other Hindu rulers.


Underlined part - Who are you to claim so?
The Mughal rulers marrying Hindu women were converted. There was a disgusting exchange, an almost barter of Hindu Rajput princesses for some sovereignty of the Hindu rulers in Rajputana. The Rajputs sent the most beautiful princess as a wife to the Mughal court (and hundreds of slave women to the harems) in return for their right to rule under the Mughal crown. Also the senior Rajput prince had to be stationed in Agra as the honored 'guest' of the Mughal empire with Mughal guards for his 'protection'. We are not taught this shameful chapter in our history.



Pakistani Exile said:


> All of the above so called Ghazis engaged in looting and acts of violence


So were the original Ghazwas.



Pakistani Exile said:


> If my sensitivities are selective, then so are the Indians.


Partly true. That I agree.

But there are more objective observers on the Indian side as of now. This is due to a liberal strain that still survives in our culture (and fast diminishing due to geopolitical requirements).

But of late, there is a sharp difference that is becoming apparent. This is nothing unusual. Muslims (Pakistanis) are associating themselves with the Islamic point of view. The moderates subscribe to the apologist point of view. The rest are proud of their lineage (real or perceived). The Hindus on the other hand are also now turning to an identity based understanding of history, which remains their right of course. They are also starting to see their past with the lens their ancestors were forced to suffer - the lens of religion.

This is an irreconcilable difference. I don't blame you though.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Pakistani E

SarthakGanguly said:


> Underlined part - Who are you to claim so?
> The Mughal rulers marrying Hindu women were converted. There was a disgusting exchange, an almost barter of Hindu Rajput princesses for some sovereignty of the Hindu rulers in Rajputana. The Rajputs sent the most beautiful princess as a wife to the Mughal court (and hundreds of slave women to the harems) in return for their right to rule under the Mughal crown. Also the senior Rajput prince had to be stationed in Agra as the honored 'guest' of the Mughal empire with Mughal guards for his 'protection'. We are not taught this shameful chapter in our history.
> 
> So were the original Ghazwas.



If others can claim they were invasions that were meant to spread Islam in the Sub continent contrary to the fact that the majority of Muslim converts in the Sub continent were in fact converted by Sufi saints who's dargahs dot areas with large Muslim populations, then surely I have the right to the opinion that these invasions were not Islamic? Surely, if we are saying these invasions were "Islamic" they were meant to spread the faith here? Correct? Or were they merely "Islamic" since the faith of the conquerors happen to be Islamic?

How many Muslims did they leave in these areas? The Ghaznavids came across the areas that my tribe is settled in Pakistan, and they carried out a massacre not far from the main centre of this tribe, yet did we become Muslims because of this ? Not at all, the credit for conversion goes to a Sufi Saint who's name is so honoured that the tribe now claims descent from his, although incorrectly.

A lot of these rulers were just fighting other Muslim rulers for sovereignty, if they were really coming to spread the faith here why did some decide to leave after exacting tribute from their fellow Muslim rulers? And why did others, when they had fulfilled their personal treasury, did not stay to build mosques and bring preachers but merely after filling their coffers they returned to their countries till they ran out of them.

Who did the Mughals defeat to capture Delhi? The wife of Akbar was a Muslim, was she? It was all political, using religion when necessary, if they were as Islamic as people claim they were why then did they first oust another Muslim ruler to make their kingdom? Who ran Babur out of his original home? The Rajputs?



SarthakGanguly said:


> Partly true. That I agree.
> 
> But there are more objective observers on the Indian side as of now. This is due to a liberal strain that still survives in our culture (and fast diminishing due to geopolitical requirements).
> 
> But of late, there is a sharp difference that is becoming apparent. This is nothing unusual. Muslims (Pakistanis) are associating themselves with the Islamic point of view. The moderates subscribe to the apologist point of view. The rest are proud of their lineage (real or perceived). The Hindus on the other hand are also now turning to an identity based understanding of history, which remains their right of course. They are also starting to see their past with the lens their ancestors were forced to suffer - the lens of religion.
> 
> This is an irreconcilable difference. I don't blame you though.



See, I respect you more because you don't beat around the bush and are frank and honest about your opinion, unlike others who want to portray another image but will not accept realities. They want me to condemn their opposing side, if I don't then I am ignorant. Well I condemn both, if the militants are wrong in their actions then so are the Indian soldiers who are carry out violent acts against non combatants.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Pakistani Exile said:


> Come on, Yar you already know my opinion on this. I have already stated numerous times that Pakistan and indeed the majority of Hurriyat leaders lost the good will of the majority of Kashmiris when they chose to deliberately turn this national struggle in to that of a Jihad of a particular sect. Come now, don't put me together with the others just because I refuse to accept Indian acquisition of Jammu and Kashmir. I am just butthurt from the injustices committed during Dogra regime and my hatred for them has just been transferred to the Indian side even though I have no qualms in accepting Indian rule is a thousand times better, nay it would be an insult to even compare the two. My only reasoning and logic is that the Kashmiris have the right to self determination, IF they want it. Just like the Indians had when they agitated against the British, or any other people in the world. My view of Kashmir conflict is not clouded by a mirage of religious fantasies but a more nationalist one. Even though, I try hard not to let a jingoistic narrative take over my feelings.


I know you are different. Which is precisely why I AM replying to you.
Otherwise I reply in one liners and troll religious sentiments. I have little time for that.

You are not entirely right about Hurriyat thing though. Hurriyat is now divided into 4 major factions. 2 of them are openly pro Islamist, 2 are officially neutral. And they have a huge support among the Kashmiri Muslims.

India has made terrible mistakes in not only Kashmir, but all over India. We will reap the rewards in the next 20 years. We have allowed religion a free rein. Our previous Governments controlled the markets, even the Hindu religion, but left the others free. They should have left the market free, while keeping a vigil on religion.

Fact is that in Kashmir there is not a single cinema hall standing, music cds/functions are not available (though black market is popular), religious slurs are common (Hussainiat, Yazidiat, lollays(for Pandits) etc - I never considered these words to be vulgar when I grew up).

So when you say people of Jammu and Kashmiris deserve self determination - I will ask - who are the people of Jammu and Kashmir? The majority of the intolerant valley residents now (55%) of the state or the rest 45% who are as integrated into the mainstream as anyone can be? 

On a personal level, I think there are no solutions. One side will have to be extinguished, till then the bloodshed will continue. Just to mention - 70 people have died in past two months including the police.



Pakistani Exile said:


> I've got an idea, since it is not possible for Indians to go to Azad Kashmir why don't you ask the many Indians in the U.K to approach a Azad Kashmiri and ask them on their love for India or perhaps their vengeful hatred for the oppressive Pakistanis


I am very well aware of the desire of Kashmiris to be ruled by a state as per the tenets of Islam. Though Pakistan is not the ideal, it is a far better alternative than India. I know this, I agree that the average Kashmiri 'Muslim' will find Pakistan far more preferable. I never denied that.



Pakistani Exile said:


> They want me to condemn their opposing side, if I don't then I am ignorant.


It is always best to stick to your ground and be true to yourself. I don't care if there is a God up there, but I will stay true to myself at least.



Pakistani Exile said:


> The wife of Akbar was a Muslim, was she


The previous points are also false. But I can understand that accepting that is difficult, and in fact quite impossible. Any self respecting human being will find justification to explain the lack of conversions in the south and NE, and total conversions in the West.

I will only refute this one above with direct source. For the rest, I don't want to rock the boat. There are books. Read both sides of the narrative. You are smart, you will understand (and probably lose faith in religion  )

Akbar's wife was Muslim. The famous Jodha begum or Heer Kunwari WAS actually converted to Mariam uz Zamani before a traditional nikaah. All three 'main' wives of Akbar were Muslims.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Hellfire

SarthakGanguly said:


> Akbar's wife was Muslim. The famous Jodha begum or Heer Kunwari WAS actually converted to Mariam uz Zamani before a traditional nikaah. All three 'main' wives of Akbar were Muslims.



Naughty!

That is why tagged you!!!
Impressed, very few people know of this fact. Akbar was equally a bigot; but he was smart. He knew he could not keep waging a war, and if he was ever to be an Emperor, he had to be smart and make smart alliances. Yet he had to keep the clergy happy, after all, he was a Muslim and his support base was of orthodox Muslim noblemen, who he could neither afford to offend nor hope to placate without appearing a devout Muslim.

Rest all is hogwash. Jodha-Akbar or the narration by Alex Rutherford in his fictional works .... a nonsense

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## utraash

hellfire said:


> I see you have avoided giving an answer to a direct question. Is it a difficult one? The period is very clear - 1947 till 1989. Can you give a rational reasoning for the same?
> 
> Because, by the analogy as you have given above of the Jews, may I remind you that the Islamic invasions of Indian subcontinent were a tale of millions of Hindus being killed en-masse, rapes and tortures?
> 
> Firishta (1560-1620), the author of _Tarihk-i-Firishta_ and _Gulshan-i-Ibrahim_ declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.
> 
> Dr. Koenraad Elst in his article “Was There an Islamic Genocide of Hindus?” states:
> 
> “_There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like punishing the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty._
> 
> _The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526)._"
> 
> 
> Irfan Husain in his article “Demons from the Past” observes:
> 
> “_While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan…The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed..Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster_.
> 
> "_Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage..._”
> 
> 
> The Afghan ruler Mahmud al-Ghazni invaded India no less than seventeen times between 1001 - 1026 AD. The book ‘Tarikh-i-Yamini’ - written by his secretary documents several episodes of his bloody military campaigns :
> 
> "_The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at the Indian city of Thanesar] that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it…the infidels deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river...but many of them were slain, taken or drowned... Nearly fifty thousand men were killed_."
> 
> 
> In the contemporary record - ' Taj-ul-Ma’asir' by Hassn Nizam-i-Naishapuri, it is stated that when Qutb-ul- Din Aibak (of Turko - Afghan origin and the First Sultan of Delhi 1194-1210 AD) conquered Meerat, he demolished all the Hindu temples of the city and erected mosques on their sites. In the city of Aligarh, he converted Hindu inhabitants to Islam by the sword and beheaded all those who adhered to their own religion.
> 
> The Persian historian Wassaf writes in his book 'Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar' that when the Alaul-Din Khilji (An Afghan of Turkish origin and second ruler of the Khilji Dynasty in India 1295-1316 AD) captured the city of Kambayat at the head of the gulf of Cambay, he killed the adult male Hindu inhabitants for the glory of Islam, set flowing rivers of blood, sent the women of the country with all their gold, silver, and jewels, to his own home, and made about twentv thousand Hindu maidens his private slaves.
> 
> This ruler once asked his spiritual advisor (or ‘Qazi’) as to what was the Islamic law prescribed for the Hindus. The Qazi replied:
> 
> “_Hindus are like the mud; if silver is demanded from them, they must with the greatest humility offer gold. If a Mohammadan desires to spit into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu should open it wide for the purpose. God created the Hindus to be slaves of the Mohammadans. The Prophet hath ordained that, if the Hindus do not accept Islam, they should be imprisoned, tortured, finally put to death, and their property confiscated_.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your logic, Hindus of the Indian sub-continent must get their 'homeland' too? That means right till Afghanistan, hence the "Akhand Bharat"?
> 
> @Joe Shearer today I had to bring this out. What a sad rebuttal by the member.
> 
> @Nilgiri @utraash @jbgt90 @Rain Man @SarthakGanguly
> 
> @WAJsal @waz this may become a troll fest, so if you feel, please remove the post. However, the member's logic had to be rebutted.



I have shared all this many a times on various threads here, any debate on humanity vs brute Islamic rule, unfortunately most driven through their deep rooted supremacist & bigoted approach always chose the latter....
Hard realities of real world.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## notnownotever

<img src="https://defence.pk/threads/india-asks-pakistan-to-end-illegal-occupation-of-kashmir.73800/">


----------



## SSGcommandoPAK

Off topic but found this report by Indian media on torture done by the Pakistan army on people of Azad kashmir ! Indian media is so dumb showing footage of Karachi operation


----------



## asim kashmiri

We indian militarily occupied kashmiri's love pakistan


pakistan zindaabad

*Waseem has pellet injury in head, but attends to brother Aqib who is hit in eye*
A day later, Waseem reached the SMHS Hospital where he had heard that his brother Aqib was admitted. “I could not stop myself. What would my father have done here?” Waseem, who had received preliminary treatment at Pattan hospital, said.


ZEHRU NISSA 
Srinagar, Publish Date: Aug 30 2016 12:30AM | Updated Date: Aug 30 2016 12:30AM




GK Photo
In Ward No 7 of general specialty SMHS hospital here, pellet-hit Waseem rushes to attend to his younger brother Aqib the moment he makes any movement. “Don’t move too much, I told you,” he almost scolds Aqib, who is hit by pellets in eye, and helps him rest his head on the bed again.

The two brothers were among scores injured at Hanjiwara Pattan on Saturday when forces resorted to pellet firing. While Aqib, 15, was ‘salvaged’ from the huge crowd by his father who then took him to Sub District Hospital Pattan, Waseem—elder to him by three years—could not be immediately located.
“When some unknown men took me out of the crowd and my father saw me, I told him I saw Waseem falling with pellets too,” Aqib told Greater Kashmir, recalling the pellet firing by forces that day. “He kept looking for him, shouting out his name.”
However, Waseem could not be found.
A day later, Waseem reached the SMHS Hospital where he had heard that his brother Aqib was admitted. “I could not stop myself. What would my father have done here?” Waseem, who had received preliminary treatment at Pattan hospital, said.
His neck and skull bear multiple pellet holes.
“Papa asked him to go back home because he is injured, but he insisted on staying here,” Aqib said.
The two brothers say they were hurt just ‘outside our home’ when some men shouted slogans and a crowd assembled.
Waseem is anguished about the recovery of his brother whose left eyelid has turned blue and whose face bears red marks of pellet injuries.
Waseem gets jittery as a doctor examines his brother’s injured eye. As the doctor pulls Aqib’s eye lid up and flashes a torch on his bloody eye, a whitish hazy pupil is revealed.
The doctor waves his hand, fingers in various directions near his eye and keeps asking: “Can you see this.” No answer comes from Aqib.
Then he nods his head, when the torchlight is beamed at his eye in its outer corner.
Doctor ends the examination. Waseem runs after the doctor.
“Will his eye be alright,” he asks.
“We will try our best,” the doctor answers. This is an answer they give to the query of every worried relative.
Waseem goes back to Aqib and asks him to rest. “He said you will be alright,” he tries, smiling.
Aqib, doctors say, will require a number of surgeries to correct the visual impairment caused by pellets. “There are many pellets impacted in his eye. How much he will be able to see with the damaged eye cannot be said right now,” they said.
Despite talks of phasing out pellet guns and assurances by Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh, pellet injuries have continued to escalate in Kashmir.
In the past four days, since Singh announced that ‘an alternative’ to pellet guns was being explored, 40 people with pellet injuries in eyes have been admitted at SMHS Hospital.
Most of the injured, doctors say, suffer retinal damage and vitreous hemorrhage that impairs their vision.
Over 560 people with eye injuries have been admitted at SMHS Hospital in the past 52 days.


More in this Category





*Kashmir: Curfew lifted from Pulwama; situation improving, say police*
Curfew was lifted on August 30 from the restive Pulwama town following gradual improvement in the situation across Kashmir, leaving the city’s M R Gunj and Nowhatta police stations as the only areas of the Valley under curbs, even as normal life remained affected for 53rd day due to separatists-sponsored strike call.


*Kashmiri-Americans protest in Chicago to raise alarm on rights violations in Kashmir*
*Clashes erupt in Kaloosa in Bandipora*
*Day 53: Protests in Hathlangoo in Sopore*
*Day 53: Shutdown continues in Kashmir*
*PSA slapped on four more youths in central Kashmir*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aamirzs

We need some boots in Kashmir its about time, disguise as civilians ... we can not play goody goody all the time its our land.


----------



## 911

aamirzs said:


> We need some boots in Kashmir its about time, disguise as civilians ... we can not play goody goody all the time its our land.


Another Kargil?


----------



## Royal Blue007

aamirzs said:


> We need some boots in Kashmir its about time, disguise as civilians ... we can not play goody goody all the time its our land.


Do it and we will make sure that you would not have feet to wear boots


----------



## -xXx-

aamirzs said:


> We need some boots in Kashmir its about time, disguise as civilians ... we can not play goody goody all the time its our land.



Will you take the bodies back this time?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aamirzs

911 said:


> Another Kargil?


Which you lost ... inside knowledge! Plus what we killed in numbers check you papers ... trucks full!



Royal Blue007 said:


> Do it and we will make sure that you would not have feet to wear boots


Like your army run when they see us! First hand knowledge ... only Sikh stand and fight.



-xXx- said:


> Will you take the bodies back this time?


Lol right!


----------



## 911

aamirzs said:


> Which you lost


How?


aamirzs said:


> inside knowledge!


Oh.


aamirzs said:


> Plus what we killed in numbers check you papers


You invaded, you killed, you got killed, and retreated. So what was your purpose? Killing?


----------



## mike2000 is back

AsianUnion said:


> *Indian Army has 700,000 Security men for the brutal Occupation of Jammu & Kashmir while, on the contrary Pakistan gets its major volunteer recruitment from Azad Kashmiris in Pakistan Army*
> 
> What a paradox in the history of Kashmir which is under occupation by Indian Forces and the Azad (Independent) Kashmir on Pakistani side, which gets its major recruitment of joining Pakistan Army so voluntarily. So much so Pakistan has a separate Azad Kashmir Regiment (AK Regiment).
> 
> The *Azad Kashmir Regiment* is one of the six infantry regiments of the Pakistan Army.
> 
> The Azad Kashmir Regular Forces, established in 1947, were armed and supported by the Pakistani government. The regiment has the distinction of not having been raised by any government order, but "raised itself" , Initially towards the end of September 1947, local ex-servicemen and civilian volunteers started forming up in the shape of revolutionary groups of freedom-fighters in varying strength, mostly in platoon/company size groups under command of local leaders who had raised them in their respective areas of domicile. They were initially armed with heterogeneous weapons of sorts as mentioned earlier. They started operations against the Indian State Army in various parts of Poonch on 1st October, 1947, and soon spread their operations in other parts of Jammu and Kashmir State.
> 
> After a ceasefire was declared in Kashmir on request of India, these elements joined together to form the Azad Kashmir Regular Forces (AKRF). The AKRF had its own intake and training structure separate from the Pakistan Army. The AKRF was the military element of the Azad Kashmir Government. Uniforms and rank structures were the same as in the Pakistan Army. At that time, all the battalions of the AKRF were part of the 12th Infantry Division of the Pakistan Army, permanently stationed in Azad Kashmir. In wartime operations, the AKRF was part of the Order of Battle of the Pakistan Army, in which it was involved in 1965 Operation Gibraltar.
> 
> The Pakistan Army later honoured the AKRF by absorbing it into its own ranks and by giving it the status of a Regular Line Infantry Regiment. The AKRF thus became the Azad Kashmir Regiment on 20 September 1972. In recent times battalions of the Azad Kashmir Regiment have been stationed all over Pakistan, and have served in places such as Somalia, as part of the United Nations contingent in that country.
> 
> -----
> 
> *Indian Army & BSF:*
> 
> India has to keep 700,000 troops in Jammu & Kashmir to subjugate the people who want the right of self determination, costing billions. To suppress Kashmiris down, the Indian state has put thousands of boots on the ground. According to popular estimates, 7 lakh to 10 lakh security force personnel patrol the Jammu and Kashmir region. These troops are scattered across the whole state of Jammu and Kashmir, the entire Valley is around 135 kilometres long and 32 kilometres wide. Yet such violence inflicted on locals is spreading among security forces, with commanding officers struggling to contain it.
> 
> The brutalising of Kashmir’s people is also reflected in a brutalisation of the security forces, a particularly disquieting development in a conflict where men in arms now largely represent the Indian state. No elected representative of the ruling PDP-BJP coalition dares return to those in Kashmir who elected them. General Hooda says the stone-throwers no longer appear to fear the Indian security forces, even frontally attacking Indian army garrisons.
> 
> Apart from the relentless stone-throwing, the young men hurl racist abuse against Indian (”teri kali soorat”, your black face, smelly Hindu and Hindu “Bihari” are common) and otherwise provoke riot-control units to battle. “Our boys are hated, they get little rest and they are all armed; you can guess what will happen if command and control breaks down,” an Indian CRPF officer said.
> 
> In the past, that Indian command and control has frequently broken down, not just in the face of provocation but in the form of atrocities inflicted by security forces on Jammu and Kashmirs, protected by Indian law and aware that Delhi discourages punitive action against the wrong doers of 700,000 Indian soldiers. Managing the endless cycle of violence has for too long been a substitute for policy, but it has now reached an inflection point.
> 
> ---
> 
> While in Pakistani Azad Kashmir flourishing so high in Mirpur, Muzaffarabad, for so many years and not a single kind of protest which says that there is human right violation. The infrastructure is just not there in India, India don’t even allow foreign journalist, media, press, to travel throughout Kashmir, world human rights institutions are not allowed to come there, so there is no comparison. In Pakistani side of Kashmir, everyone can move easily, World Human Rights organisations, Journalists visit as if on travel and guided tour to any remote place of Azad Kashmir. During Politics elections, a lot of election drama is created, even in that all the Kashmirs live in peace and tranquility.
> 
> Above all, to keep a people subjugated is a repudiation of India’s founding ideals: Justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. India is facing growing hatred in world, India is fast in a downward spiral, India is facing isolation and disassociation from world, who either outrightly refuses or remains silent Indian Prime Minister Modi's rants on AK and Balochistan.
> 
> *It is largely seen as India's attempt to hide, divert the violent extremist activities and humanity crimes in Kashmir from the big eye of the world countries.
> 
> ------------------------
> 
> 'The Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU AND KASHMIR A REAPPRAISAL' *
> 
> The formal overt Indian intervention in the internal affairs of the State of Jammu and Kashmir began on about 9.00 a.m. on 27 October 1947, when Indian troops started landing at Srinagar airfield. India has officially dated the commencement of its claim that the State was part of Indian sovereign territory to a few hours earlier, at some point in the afternoon or evening of 26 October. From their arrival on 27 October 1947 to the present day, Indian troops have continued to occupy a large proportion of the State of Jammu and Kashmir despite the increasingly manifest opposition of a majority of the population to their presence. To critics of Indias position and actions in the State of Jammu and Kashmir the Government of New Delhi has consistently declared that the State of Jammu and Kashmir lies entirely within the sphere of internal Indian policy. Do the facts support the Indian contention in this respect?
> 
> The State of Jammu and Kashmir was a Princely State within the British Indian Empire. By the rules of the British transfer of power in Indian subcontinent in 1947 the Ruler of the State, Maharajah Sir Hari Singh, with the departure of the British and the lapsing of Paramountcy (as the relationship between State and British Crown was termed), could opt to join either India or Pakistan or, by doing nothing, become from 15 August 1947 the Ruler of an independent polity. The choice was the Rulers and his alone: there was no provision for popular consultation in the Indian Princely States during the final days of the British Raj. On 15th August 1947, by default, the State of Jammu and Kashmir became independent.
> 
> India maintains that this period of independence, the existence of which it has never challenged effectively, came to an end on 26/27 October as the result of two pairs of closely related transactions, which we must now examine. They are:
> 
> (a) an Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India which the Maharajah is alleged to have signed on 26 October 1947, and;
> 
> (b) the acceptance of this Instrument by the Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten, on 27 October 1947; plus
> 
> (c) a letter from the Maharajah to Lord Mountbatten, dated 26 October 1947, in which Indian military aid is sought in return for accession to India (on terms stated in an allegedly enclosed Instrument) and the appointment of Sheikh Abdullah to head an Interim Government of the State; and
> 
> (d) a letter from Lord Mountbatten to the Maharajah, dated 27 October 1947, acknowledging the above and noting that, once the affairs of the State have been settled and law and order is restored, the question of the States accession should be settled by a reference to the people.
> 
> In both pairs of documents it will be noted that the date of the communication from the Maharajah, be it the alleged Instrument of Accession or the letter to Lord Mountbatten, is given as 26 October 1947, that is to say before the Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the States affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947. It has been said that Lord Mountbatten insisted on the Maharajahs signature as a precondition for his approval of Indian intervention in the affairs of what would otherwise be an independent State.
> 
> The date, 26 October 1947, has hitherto been accepted as true by virtually all observers, be they sympathetic or hostile to the Indian case. It is to be found in an official communication by Lord Mountbatten, as Governor General of Pakistan, on 1 November 1947; and it is repeated in the White paper on Jammu and Kashmir which the Government of India laid before the Indian Parliament in March 1948. Pakistani diplomats have never challenged it. Recent research, however, has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the date is false. This fact emerges from the archives, and it is also quite clear from such sources as the memoirs of the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir at the time, Mehr Chand Mahajan, and the recently published correspondence of Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister. Circumstantial accounts of the events of 26 October 1947, notably that of V.P Menon (in his The Integration of the Indian States, London 1965), who said he was actually present when the Maharajah signed, are simply not true.
> 
> It is now absolutely clear that the two documents (a) the Instrument of Accession, and (c) the letter to Lord Mountbatten, could not possibly have been signed by the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. His Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight, and where their presence was noted by many observers. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the traveling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October, and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Ministers negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day.
> 
> The key point, of course, a has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that these documents could only have been signed after the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. When the Indian troops arrived at Srinagar air field, that State was still independent. Any agreements favourable to India signed after such intervention cannot escape the charge of having been produced under duress. It was, one presumes, to escape just such a charge that the false date 26 October 1947 was assigned to these two documents. The deliberately distorted account of that very senior Indian official, V.P. Menon, to which reference has already been made, was no doubt executed for the same end. Falsification of such a fundamental element as date of signature, however, once established, can only cast grave doubt over the validity of the document as a whole .
> 
> An examination of the transactions behind these four documents in the light of the new evidence produces a number of other serious doubts. It is clear, for example, that in the case of (c) and (d), the exchange of letters between the Maharajah and Lord Mountbatten, Lord Mountbattens reply must antedate the letter to which it is an answer unless, as seems more than probable, both were drafted by the Government of India before being taken up to Jammu on 27 October 1947 (by V.P. Menon and Jammu and Kashmir Prime Minister M.C. Mahajan, whose movements, incidentally, are correctly reported in the London Times of 28 October 1947) after the arrival of the Indian troops at Srinagar airfield. The case is very strong, therefore, that document (c), the Maharajahs letter to Lord Mountbatten, was dictated to the Maharajah.
> 
> Documents (c) and (d) were published by the Government of India on 28 October 1947. The far more important document (a), the alleged Instrument of Accession, was not published until many years later, if at all. It was not communicated to Pakistan at the outset of the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, nor was it presented in facsimile to the United Nations in early 1948 as part of the initial Indian reference to the Security Council. The 1948 White Paper in which the Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharajah: instead, it reproduces an unsigned from of Accession such as, it is imposed, the Maharajah might have signed. To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharajah ever did sign an Instrument of Accession. There are, indeed, grounds for suspecting that he did no such thing. The Instrument of Accession referred to in document (c); a letter which as we have seen was probably drafted by Indian officials prior to being shown to the Maharajah, may never have existed, and can hardly have existed when the letter was being prepared.
> 
> Even if there had been an Instrument of Accession, then if it followed the form indicated in the unsigned example of such an Instrument published in the Indian 1948 White Paper it would have been extremely restrictive in the rights conferred upon the Government of India. All that were in fact transferred from the State to the Government of India by such an Instrument were the powers over Defence, Foreign Relations and certain aspects of Communications. Virtually all else was left with the State Government. Thanks to Article 370 of the Indian Constitution of January 1950 (which, unlike much else relating to the former Princely States, has survived to some significant degree in current Indian constitution theory, if not in practice), the State of Jammu and Kashmir was accorded a degree of autonomy which does not sit at all comfortably with the current authoritarian Indian administration of those parts of the State which it holds.
> 
> Not only would such an Instrument have been restrictive, but also by virtue of the provisions, of (d), Lord Mountbattens letter to the Maharajah dated 27 October 1947, it would have been conditional. Lord Mountbatten, as Governor-General of India, made it clear that the State of Jammu and Kashmir would only be incorporated permanently within the Indian fold after approval as a result of some form of reference to the people, a procedure which soon (with United Nations participation) became defined as a fair and free plebiscite . India has never permitted such a reference to the people to be made.
> 
> Why would the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir not have signed an Instrument of Accession? The answer lies in the complex course of events of August, September and October 1947 emerged. The Maharajah, confronted with growing internal disorder (including a full scale rebellion in the Poonch region of the State), sought Indian military help without, it at all possible, surrendering his own independence. The Government of India delayed assisting him in the hope that in despair he would accede to India before any Indian actions had to be taken. In the event, India had to move first. Having secured what he wanted, Indian military assistance, the Maharajah would naturally have wished to avoid paying the price of the surrender of his independence by signing any instrument which he could possibly avoid signing. From the Afternoon of 27 October 1947 onwards a smoke screen conceals both the details and the immediate outcome of this struggle of wills between the Government of India and the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir. To judge from the 1948 White Paper an Instrument of accession may not have been signed by March 1948, by which time the Indian case for sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir was already being argued before the United Nations.
> 
> The patently false dates of documents (a) and (c) alter fundamentally the nature of the overt Indian intervention in Jammu and Kashmir on 27 October 1947. India was not defending its own but intervening in a foreign State. There can be no reasonable doubt that had Pakistan been aware of this falsification of the record it would have argued very differently in international for from the outset of the dispute; and had the United Nations understood the true chronology it would have listened with for less sympathy to arguments presented to it by successive Indian representatives. Given the facts as they are now known, it may well be that an impartial international tribunal would decided that India had no right at all to be in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
> 
> 
> The Indian Claim to Jammu and Kashmir - Conditional Accession, Plebiscites and the Reference to the United Nations:
> 
> While the date, and perhaps even the fact, of the accession to India of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in late October 1947 can be questioned, there is no dispute that at that time any such accession was presented to the world large as conditional and provisional. In his letter to the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir, bearing the date 27 October 1947, the Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, declared that:
> 
> "Consistently with that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance to the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Governments wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders the question of the States accession should be settled by a reference to the people."
> 
> The substance of this was communicated by Jawaharlal Nehru to Liaquat Ali Khan in a telegram of 28 October 1947 in which Nehru indicated that this was a policy with which he agreed. The point is clear enough. A reference to the people would be entirely futile unless it contained the potential of reversing the process of accession. If the people opted for Pakistan, or indeed, for continued independence, then any documents relating to accession which the Maharajah may have signed would be null and void. Such documents would perforce be provisional, in that they could confer rights only until the reference to the people took place; and they were conditional in that they could not continue in force indefinitely unless ratified by popular vote. This point is as valid today as it was in late October 1947.
> 
> Indian apologists have since endeavored to argue that the plebiscite proposal was personal to Mountbatten (which we can see it was not) and that it was in a real sense ex-gratia and in no way binding on subsequent Indian administrations. The fact of the matter, however, was that the plebiscite policy had been established long before the Kashmir crisis erupted in October 1947. It was an inherent part of the process by which the British Indian Empire was partitioned between the two successor Dominions of India and Pakistan. Plebiscites (or referenda-the terms tended to be used at this time as if they meant the same thing) had been held on the eve of the Transfer of Power in August 1947 in two areas. In the North West Frontier Province, which possessed a Congress Government despite a virtually total Muslim population, and in Sylhet, a Muslim majority district of the non-Muslim majority Province of Assam, there had been plebiscites where the people were given the choice of joining India or Pakistan. In both cases the vote was in favour of Pakistan. The Sylhet Plebiscite is of particular significance in that it gave a Muslim majority district of a State with an overall non-Muslim majority the opportunity to join its Muslim majority neighbour, Bengal.
> 
> The value of the plebiscitary process continued to be appreciated in India after the British Indian Empire had come to an end. In September 1947 the Government of India advocated, as a matter of policy, the holding of a plebiscite in the Princely State of Junagadh. Junagadh was in many respects the mirror image of Kashmir. Here a Muslim Ruler, the Nawab, had formally acceded to Pakistan on 15 August 1947 despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of his subjects were Hindus. The Government of India were united in opposing this action. However, as Jawaharlal Nehru put it on 30 September 1947 :
> 
> "We are entirely opposed to war and wish to avoid it. We want an amicable settlement of this issue and we propose therefore, that wherever there is a dispute in regard to any territory, the matter should be decided by a referendum or plebiscite of the people concerned. We shall accept the result of this referendum whatever it may be as it is our desire that a decision should be made in accordance with the wishes of the people concerned. We invite the Pakistan Government, therefore, to submit the Junagadh issue to a referendum of the people under impartial auspices."
> 
> In Indian eyes, in other words, Junagadhs accession to Pakistan, if it had any validity at all could only be provisional and conditional upon the outcome of a plebiscite of referendum. India, moreover, considered that the need for such a reference to the people was specifically determined by the fact that a majority of the States population followed a different religion to that of the Ruler. A plebiscite in Junagadh was duly held in February 1948, when the vote was for union with India. In Indian official thinking, it is clear, there was no question of a plebiscite in any State where both Ruler and people were non-Muslims.
> 
> Thus when the Kashmir crisis broke out in October 1947 the plebiscite was already established as the official Indian solution to this order of problem. On 25 October 1947, before the Kashmir crisis had fully developed and before Indian claims based on the Maharajahs accession to India had been voiced, Nehru in a telegram to Attlee, the British Prime Minister, declared that:
> 
> "I should like to make it clear that [the] question of aiding Kashmir..is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view, which we have repeatedly made public, is that [the] question of accession in any disputed territory must be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people, and we adhere to this view."
> 
> On 28 October 1947 the Governor General of Pakistan M.A. Jinnah, also agreed that the answer to Kashmir lay in a plebiscite, thus confirming the official Pakistan policy on this subject. From this moment the basic disagreement between the two Dominions, at least on paper, lay in the modalities for holding a plebiscite and what was understood by impartial auspices.
> 
> The concept of impartial supervision of the determination of sovereignty had been present from the outset of the run up to the partition of the Punjab and Bengal in early June 1947. A number of possibilities had been considered at this period, including the request for the services of the United Nations (which had then been rejected on technical grounds arising in the main from the short span of time allowed for the partition process to be implemented). In connection with the Junagadh question, on 30 September 1947 Nehru made it clear that if the United Nations were to be involved (as a result, perhaps, of a reference to that body by Pakistan), and the United Nations issued directions, India would naturally abide by those directions.
> 
> Between 28 October and 22 December 1947 there took place a series of Indo-Pakistan discussions over the Kashmir question, some with the leaders of the two sides meeting face to face, some through subordinate officials and some through British intermediaries acting either officially or unofficially. While frequently acrimonious, the general tenor of the negotiations was that some kind of plebiscite should be held in Jammu and Kashmir. At a meeting on 8 November 1947 between two very senior officials, V.P Menon for India and Chaudhri Muhammad Ali for Pakistan, a detailed scheme for holding a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir was worked out, with the apparent blessing of the Indian Deputy Prime Minister, Vallabhbhai Patel, in which the following principle was laid down : that neither Government [of India or Pakistan] would accept the accession of a State whose rule was of a different religion to the majority of his subjects without resorting to a plebiscite.
> 
> The 8 November scheme aborted; but the underlying principles remained on the agenda. There were two major questions. First : how and in what way should the State be restored to a condition of tranquility such as would permit the holding of any kind of free and fair plebiscite. Second: who should supervise the plebiscite when it finally came to he held. On both question, after exploring a number of devices including the employment of British officers to hold the ring while the votes were being cast, the consensus in the Governments of both India and Pakistan by 22 December 1947 was that the services of the United Nations, either through the Secretary General or the Security Council, offered the best prospect for success, though Nehru continued to express in public his reservations about foreign intervention.
> 
> At this point Lord Mountbatten, the Governor General of India, explained to Liaquat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, that the best way to get Nehru to decide finally in favour of reference to the United Nations was to permit India to take the first step, even if in the process Pakistan would have to submit to some measure of Indian indictment to which Pakistan would have every opportunity to make rebuttal at the United Nations. Liaquat Ali Khan, so the records make clear, accepted this proposal. On this basis, on 1 January 1948, India brought Security Council of the United Nations.
> 
> The Presentation of the Indian case, the Pakistani reply, and the series of debates which followed over the years, have all tended to obscure the original terms of that Indian reference. This was made under Article 35 of the Charter of the United Nations in which the mediation of the Security Council was expressly sough in a matter which otherwise threatened to disturb the course of international relations. The issue was an Indian request for United Nations mediation in a dispute which had transcended the diplomatic resources of the two parties directly involved, India and Pakistan, and not, as it is frequently represented, an Indian demand for United Nations condemnation of Pakistans aggression. This point, despite much Indian and Pakistan rhetoric, can be determined easily enough by relating the contents of the reference to the specifications of Article 35 of the United Nations Charter. The United Nations was asked to devise a formula whereby peace could be restored in the State of Jammu and Kashmir so that a fair and free plebiscite could be held to determine that States future. The matter of the Maharajah of Kashmirs accession to India was not in this context of the slightest relevance.
> 
> The Security Council of the United Nations responded to this request by devising a number of schemes for the restoration of law and order and the holding a plebiscite. These were duly set out in United Nations Resolutions which, though never implemented, still remain the collective expression of the voice of the international community as to how the Kashmir question ought to be settled. The conditions set out by the Security Council of the United Nations have not been met in any way by the subsequent internal political processes (including a variety of elections) in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and in any of its constituent parts.
> 
> The situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir remains unresolved, and it remains a matter of international interest. Given the background to and terms of the original Indian reference to the Security Council it cannot possibly be said that, today, Jammu and Kashmir (or those parts of it currently under Indian occupation) is a matter of purely internal Indian concern. The United Nations retains that status in this matter, which it was granted.


700,000?? Must be a typo.


----------



## IndoUS

mike2000 is back said:


> 700,000?? Must be a typo.


It's not 700,0000 it's actually 7000000000000.......


----------



## Shah_G

Royal Blue007 said:


> Do it and we will make sure that you would not have feet to wear boots


Do you even know that Kashmir is Pakistan army killing ground plus Azad Kashmiris are enough to handle Bharti fauj.


----------



## JOEY TRIBIANI

NKVD said:


> Kashmiris You mean Wahabi Mullah Section
> 
> I am Kashmiri Citizen Too And we don't Give dam I quoted you because your imposing Idea of one section on other Sect


Well unfortunately my friend those wahabi mullah are the vast majority and they want freedom .



-xXx- said:


> Will you take the bodies back this time?


We do . just make sure you have enough coffin in entire india to burry your fellow pee drinker .


----------



## AsianLion

Despite 700,000 Indian army in Occupation of Jammu & Kashmir valley, India is day by day bleeding, India is loosing Kashmir, its a lost cause for India.....

So now 7000,000 - 18 = ??? left to be removed from the illegal occupation of Jammu and Kashmir valley, still long way ahead for independence from India.


----------



## Abdullah S.

navtrek said:


> *Health:*
> 
> Government is setting up to AIIMS in Jammu and Kashmir (up from 1 earlier) Centre agrees to two ‘AIIMS facilities’ in Jammu, Kashmir
> 
> There are already hospitals like the ones below both of which are super speciality hospitals. There are already SMGS, GMC in Jammu and SKIMS in Srinagar and more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Energy:*
> Jammu and Kashmir has a lot of hydel projects under construction and there is plan for worlds largest Solar power project in Ladakh
> 
> Houses the world largest solar project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDUCATION
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An IIT and IIM are also in the pipeline.
> 
> IIT Jammu to start this year with 90 students - Times of India
> Centre asks J&K govt to identify land for IIM
> 
> Jammu University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason for all this is Pakistan sponsored terrorism in the name of religion.


British Empire built more infrastructure in India but you still wanted independence. So do Kashmiries.


----------



## A-Team

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> Azad Kashmir is lot better than IOK.....no brainer to find that out......Curfew, pellet guns and daily protests against forces are common thing in IOK (Indian Occupied Kashmir)....thats why it is said...OCCUPIED....for a reason...



And you know all this from PTV?

I have seen both Indian based Kashmiris and Pakistan based Kashmiris, and both sides are sick and tired of being used as scapegoats by both India and Pakistan, all they want is to be left alone and make their own decisions.


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

A-Team said:


> And you know all this from PTV?
> 
> I have seen both Indian based Kashmiris and Pakistan based Kashmiris, and both sides are sick and tired of being used as scapegoats by both India and Pakistan, all they want is to be left alone and make their own decisions.



WOW.....U seems to know more about us than even ourselves...

Let me quote Pakistani Kashmiri members over here...... @django @EAK *Zibago*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Sandman

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> WOW.....U seems to know more about us than even ourselves...
> 
> Let me quote Pakistani Kashmiri members over here...... @django @EAK *Zibago*


PTV ko amreeki sundi se fursat ho to kch report krein  don't know which ptv he watches

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

The Sandman said:


> PTV ko amreeki sundi se fursat ho to kch report krein  don't know which ptv he watches



AMREEKI SUNDI ??? who?


----------



## The Sandman

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> AMREEKI SUNDI ??? who?


@Zibago will explain you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A-Team

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> WOW.....U seems to know more about us than even ourselves...
> 
> Let me quote Pakistani Kashmiri members over here...... @django @EAK *Zibago*



That is one big sample  two dudes on pdf 

Anyways stop beating a dead horse, India if remains in current state of power won't ever leave it and nothing you can do about it.

It is the same thing that Afghans must understand about the Durand Line.

We as a region gotta move on.


----------



## N.Siddiqui

700,000 troops in a relatively small area is the largest concentration of troops per square miles in the world, and one of the reason for Kashmir people to feel like caged in and living in a prison with troops breathing down the neck.

India is not realizing the common human psyche, if they move the troops to the barracks and minimize the police roamimg around and posted everywhere, Kashmiris will heave a sigh of relief and actually the hatred will lessen and the protests and stone pelting will die down a great deal.

But India with its delusional thoughts are not doing this...can't help it.


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

A-Team said:


> That is one big sample  two dudes on pdf
> 
> Anyways stop beating a dead horse, India if remains in current state of power won't ever leave it and nothing you can do about it.
> 
> It is the same thing that Afghans must understand about the Durand Line.
> 
> We as a region gotta move on.



You'll never understand...Sorry....Kashmiris stand with Pakistan.....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## A-Team

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> You'll never understand...Sorry....Kashmiris stand with Pakistan.....



Fair enough

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sine Nomine

A-Team said:


> It is the same thing that Afghans must understand about the Durand Line.


lala how is durand line related to kashmir?


----------



## A-Team

قناص said:


> lala how is durand line related to kashmir?



It is related in a sense, that ground realities have changed historical claims.

If we are still stuck to historical claims then we cant move ahead.


----------



## Alpha Fighter

I don't how FOOL Pak has become 7 lac , don't how they got huge figures , India deploy all army in Kashmir and rest info china border and PAK will be defence less...

Do any one has source of this & Lac figure?


----------



## Sine Nomine

A-Team said:


> It is related in a sense, that ground realities have changed historical claims.
> 
> If we are still stuck to historical claims then we cant move ahead.


Both countries have preached that matter into General public to such an extent that both Governments don't even dare today to move an inch back.
Off-topic:I was looking for Afghan Army insignias for different formations and units but couldn't found any thing,I will be thankful if you would put forward an article on All Afghan units after 1920 to 1978,there names and insignias,mainly of larger formations.


----------



## Khan_21

A-Team said:


> And you know all this from PTV?
> 
> I have seen both Indian based Kashmiris and Pakistan based Kashmiris, and both sides are sick and tired of being used as scapegoats by both India and Pakistan, all they want is to be left alone and make their own decisions.



Have you ever seen Indian flags raised in our part of Kashmir? No. I can show you hundreds of Pakistani flags and rallys in our favour on their side. Our part of Kashmir is one of the most peaceful places in the country. It also is one of the most visited by tourists. We just invited UN to visit both kashmirs and india denied that. Makes you wonder what its trying to hide?. We dont have AK-47 wielding militants or bomb blasts in our part of kashmir like they have it.



A-Team said:


> That is one big sample  two dudes on pdf
> 
> Anyways stop beating a dead horse, India if remains in current state of power won't ever leave it and nothing you can do about it.
> 
> It is the same thing that Afghans must understand about the Durand Line.
> 
> We as a region gotta move on.



We have Kashmir and Gilgit baltistan which India desperately wants. Can it retake it? No. Any war between the two will end in a stalemate.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## EAK

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> WOW.....U seems to know more about us than even ourselves...
> 
> Let me quote Pakistani Kashmiri members over here...... @django @EAK *Zibago*



Leave it brother... andhay k samnay sooraj b kala hee hota hy.. let them live in their fantasy land... Just one thing for his sake ..if he wish i can upload medals of my grand father which he was honored with in wars against india .. We are Pakistani to the core which gets strong & strong by every coming second.. Yes we should pry for our brothers across the LOC .. May God help them for freedom...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## django

PaklovesTurkiye said:


> WOW.....U seems to know more about us than even ourselves...
> 
> Let me quote Pakistani Kashmiri members over here...... @django @EAK *Zibago*


He is way wrong.Kudos

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

EAK said:


> May God help them for freedom...



Ameen....


----------



## AsianLion

If one Indian BSF Baramulla can take millions of Kashmir Freedom Fighters, why India needs 700,000 Indian soldiers, gets these rapist, 700,000 "kicked out" of under occupation of Jammu & Kashmir!


----------



## Sergi

It's still 7 lakh I thought it would be 10 lakh by now. Repeated 7 lakh BS  u admire the consistency


----------



## AsianLion

*Time to re-up the Kashmir narrative*

*Inamullah Marwat*

*





*
The recent ruthless killing of Burhan Wani, a separatist leader in Indian held Kashmir, has unleashed an indigenous uprising in Kashmir, led by Kashmiri youth. India’s attempt to gag Kashmiris’ slogans for independence through pellets instead of talks with Kashmiris’ leadership has brought Kashmir into the limelight in a more emphatic manner, and has uncovered the real face of India under the veneer of biggest democracy. In the face of the current uprising in Kashmir, like past, the arch rivals in subcontinent, Pakistan and India, have started hurling allegations at each other for what has been going on in Indian held Kashmir. India claims that Kashmir is its integral part and Pakistan has been backing the uprising in Kashmir through proxy groups, which have been declared internationally terrorist organizations, without going for a soul searching with respect to its so far controlling of Kashmir through hawkish means. Pakistan, on the other hand, like past, tries to convince the world that Kashmir is a disputed territory and world should heed into the promise made to Kashmiris of conducting plebiscite in Kashmir by India in the face of gross human rights violations taking place in Kashmir.

Each time, if there is a discord over an issue, instead of listening to each other and failing to isolate each other diplomatically because of geopolitical significance, both neighbors start meaningless war mongering. While being nuclear states, they cannot wage war which is crystal clear to both, so they have now started to weaken each other through non-military means like India’s refusal of attending The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and threatening to revoke Indus Water treaty. In this regard, India is leading. The current spat is though déjà vu, but Pakistan needs to capitalize on it through revamping its narrative vis-à-vis Kashmir so that it can sell the narrative to the world at large and can help Kashmiris in real terms to get them their right of self-determination. The revamped narrative does not need to be dictated by media buzzing or jingoism being resonated in civilian and military corridors at present rather the narrative needs to be formulated in the universities by conducting conferences on its various facets before the informed lot in academia.

In this regard, credit goes to Department of Political Science in University of the Punjab which organized a national conference entitled “Indian atrocities in Kashmir: Global and Regional implications” last week. In the conference, all those in academia, who had researched Kashmir issue from different angles, read their papers before the students and teachers of various universities, and suggested various solutions through which Pakistan and India can sort out Kashmir issue. They highlighted regional and political implications of Kashmir conflict and Indian atrocities from various aspects in Kashmir. They also highlighted legal and political means through which Pakistan can advocate for Kashmir internationally. The conference had the likes of Professor Dr. Zafar Nawaz Jaspal, Director School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, Dr. Rasul Bukhsh Rais, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore, Professor Dr. A.Z.Halali, Chairman Department of Political Science, University of Peshawar, Khyber Pakhthunkhwa, Professor Dr. Umbreen Javaid, Chairperson Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab, Lahore and Dr. Hasan Askari Rizvi, Professor Emeritus, University of the Punjab, Lahore. Besides, there were many others from different universities who contributed to the conference through their researched papers and insightful lectures. 

What was fascinating about the conference was that Kashmir issue was being highlighted through an inclusive picture. There were some panelists from army who tried to paint the issue with jingoism, but then there were some sessions in the conference where all the flawed policies on the part of Pakistan were discussed quite critically and ways were suggested to Pakistan for how to deal with the issue at hand. The conference had some participants from Indian held Kashmir, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Balthistan, which also constitutes Kashmir, and thus a holistic image was constructed in almost everybody’s mind about what was happening in Kashmir. The whole discourse dispensed at the conference was rational and was devoid of rhetoric and jingoism which is normally evident in the dissemination of information with respect to the issue in media. Moreover, students’ participation in the conference from almost all over Pakistan, as the university is home to students from every nook and corner of Pakistan, with their thought provoking questions added a new flair to conference and made it quite enriching experience for all attendees.

The conference would have been all encompassing, had those at Kashmir Committee led by Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman attended it. According to the conference organizers, personal secretary to the JUI-F was constantly contacted in this regard; however, all their requests were slapped with indifference which shows the utter nonchalance of the part of the part of those at the helm towards the issue at large and public exclusively.

In the face of growing belligerence on the part of India, thanks to Modi’s pandering to Hindutva, changing geo-political context in which India is the new darling of the West being adored to counter China and Pakistan being labeled as terrorism sponsoring state by world at large and India in particular, Pakistan needs to revamp its narrative over Kashmir that takes into consideration all those points that deals with how it needs to put its house in order first and then make a set of those points that it can pitch in its case against India at global level; case in point is getting rid of proxy groups in Kashmir so that the struggle there remains indigenous and invoking principles of human rights violations in United Nations human rights charter by outreaching to liberals globally. The step taken by University of the Punjab is a step in the right direction and other universities should copy the suit.The best places to revamp Kashmir narrative are universities.


----------



## AsianLion

Sooner or later kashmir is going to get independence, and keep bleeding India day in day out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------

