# Settle Kashmir and Get the Reward!!!



## binzaman

These fascists Hindus are leading the whole region into confrontation. The politics in India is always based upon religion and faith, yet its secular India. I dont know when the general Indian will realize the price they are paying in Siachen and Kashmir? India and Pakistan both fought 4 wars. Never India nor Pakistan can occupy or destroy each other. 
*
Indian Casualties In Kashmir:*
As an estimate 200-500 Army personal killed each year in Kashmir alone.

*Indian Casualties in Siachen:*
According to global security till 1997 more than 2000 indian solders lost their lives in siachen alone.

As an estimate on every fourth day one Pakistani solder and on every other day one Indian solders is losing his life on siachen. 

*Financial Aspects:*
India alone spent 100 Billion Rs. So far, while her half of population living under the poverty line. 

Thats what Kashmir and Siachen costing India and still they want to open more fronts. 

If India settles the issues of Kashmir according to the will of Kashmiri people the future of whole region will be changed. Here I am saying* Kashmir according to Kashmiries will.* And there should not be any doubted on it as we all Indian and pakistanies get indepence on the same formula.

*The benefits:*

&#61664; No more Heavy Defense Budgets
&#61664; Smaller and batter army 
&#61664; More money available to reduce poverty and hunger in both countries
&#61664; Together both the nation can rock the world. 
&#61664; Peace and stability in the Region
&#61664; No more RSS, LeT, Hizbul Mujaheedin, SVP etc
&#61664; No more terror attacks like happened in Mumbai etc

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ahmeddsid

Look Kashmir sure is taking a toll on our national resources, and India and Pakistan are better off resolving it. But Let me tell you that Defence Budget in India wont come down, because India is not threatened by Pakistan Mostly, Its China which India is keen to match, especially after the debacle in 62. Besides that, India has Global Ambitions, for that good defense and offensive military capability is necessary.

One more thing, Do you think that by Solving Kashmir, the Let, RSS etc will go away?? No way, they will create other similar problems and its in their interest that it doesnt get solved. Only we, the Common people can solve this by reforming ourselves before we ask for Change!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zaheerkhan

Just not done... Terrorists are not looking for reasons to spread gloom and death, they are looking for excuses. It would be very stupid to think that terror will end if Kashmir is given away to a third country. As long as the budget is concerned, 

In The budget 2008, there was a massive loan waiver of INR60,000 crore, to all poor farmers who had taken loans. 

The Agricultural and infrastructure development fund was alloted a massive Rs.200,000 crores. Double the total budget allotment for defence.

*3 new IITs (AP, Bihar and Rajasthan)
3 new IIScs (Bhopal and Trivendram)
2 new SPAs (School of Planning n Arch)
16 new central universities
and thousands of new Sarvodaya Primary education schools with free education to all girls.
*

Clearly, the Siachan expenditure is peanuts when compared to the others. We can clearly afford it.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## binzaman

Dear Brothers!

Its your perception that terror will not end in the region after the settlement of Kashmir either as a free nation or emerging into Pakistan.
Ever you think why Mujahideens (for you militants) cross the LOC? for what cause? 
Most of the indian think that they are brain washed poor guys who mostly caught into the jihadies hands. But in actual the ground realities are totally different. As you both seem to be Muslim by name so it is much easier for me to tell you that its belong to Muslim belief that *If one Muslim is in trouble than its duty of another Muslim to help him*. 
According to Human rights Watch So far their are *82,946* innocent muslim died in Kashmir by Indian forces. Thats what create trouble for muslims living in Pakistan. Have you ever heared about any casualties in Pakistani held Kashmir???

"In The budget 2008, there was a massive loan waiver of INR60,000 crore, to all poor farmers who had taken loans. "

But Brother i still read daily suicidal cases of formers committing suicide in groups due to heavy interest on loans etc. Anyhow the poverty and hunger issues are still there. 

India can't become even a regional power when there are bilateral issues there


----------



## ahmeddsid

binzaman said:


> Dear Brothers!
> 
> Its your perception that terror will not end in the region after the settlement of Kashmir either as a free nation or emerging into Pakistan.
> Ever you think why Mujahideens (for you militants) cross the LOC? for what cause?
> Most of the indian think that they are brain washed poor guys who mostly caught into the jihadies hands. But in actual the ground realities are totally different. As you both seem to be Muslim by name so it is much easier for me to tell you that its belong to Muslim belief that *If one Muslim is in trouble than its duty of another Muslim to help him*.
> According to Human rights Watch So far their are *82,946* innocent muslim died in Kashmir by Indian forces. Thats what create trouble for muslims living in Pakistan. Have you ever heared about any casualties in Pakistani held Kashmir???
> 
> "In The budget 2008, there was a massive loan waiver of INR60,000 crore, to all poor farmers who had taken loans. "
> 
> But Brother i still read daily suicidal cases of formers committing suicide in groups due to heavy interest on loans etc. Anyhow the poverty and hunger issues are still there.
> 
> India can't become even a regional power when there are bilateral issues there


Yes When one Muslim is In trouble We all should stick up, But I guess it ended with the Sahabas. Now a days who cares for anyone? Gaza is blown up to pieces, where are the Mujahideens? I dont see them in Israel. Even if they try to do something In Israel they will get blown up first. These Terrorists play with India coz its something of a Game for them and Yes Indians are soft by nature. Look at Afzal Guru, he is not hanged uptil now! Now he Wants Advani to be PM so that he can die! People Like him Thrive on Hindu Fanaticism, and One terror breeds another terrorist. 

What about Balochistan?? Arent they Muslims? Why is your army operating there? Isnt it Muslim blood being spilled? Isnt Human rights being violated there?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## roopesh

binzaman said:


> *If one Muslim is in trouble than its duty of another Muslim to help him*. According to Human rights Watch So far their are *82,946* innocent muslim died in Kashmir by Indian forces. Thats what create trouble for muslims living in Pakistan. Have you ever heared about any casualties in Pakistani held Kashmir??? "In The budget 2008, there was a massive loan waiver of INR60,000 crore, to all poor farmers who had taken loans.



The land kashmir is not the major issue with India Binazaman. See your view and compare with Indian politics. India is a country with Major Hindu population with muslims. Communal violation is very easy thing to do. You know how govt and police struggles in every state when communal violation happen? Its complex man. Ppl are living with maximum co-operation. We cant afford any other national muslim to help our muslims. Bcoz its a balance. if the fight happens ppl should cool down both the religion compramise them and again live here. We cant afford you within. As simple as that. We no need of sympathy here. Pls understand. If u assume ppl have real love on pakistan its not real. They love to be here. If u dont believe see what happens if pakistan declares free citizenship to inidan muslims? U can barely count the ppl in number.

And can u give explanation for terrors activities in pak. Dont say RAW. Muslims are not terrors. But terrors might be a muslim he dont care for another muslim. He kill anyone. So we cant compramise with terrors assuming they will go away after kashmir.


----------



## binzaman

I think we are deviating from the real debate but let me elaborate if i can make you understand

1- For you blouch ppl are running a freedom movement (according to Indian media it look like so) 
But its in the dera bughti area (one small district of Baluchistan )where the bugti tribe resides, also its due to the killing of nawab akbar khan buggti. so if you want to call it a freedom movement then its up to you but the ground realities are totally different from that image which you have in ur mind. 

2- You both are giving me a very pleasant picture of a secular India. But fortunately i didn't forget Gujrat Massacre and the burning of innocent Muslims.
I still can tell you about whats happening in Orrisa 
I can tell you about what happend in 1984 in Punjab.
Also i can tell you who are the most effected communities from POTA Laws....
There are many thing in secular India which neglect the picture you are drawing here for India. But i want to stick with the topic. 

Whats going on in Gaza is another story. and how Egypt is stopping mujahideens at Rafah Crossing is also another story. 

Furthermore, *ISLAM was not ended after Sahaba*. Its we who limit things for our personal pleasures.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## binzaman

I think we are deviating from the real debate but let me elaborate if i can make you understand

1- For you blouch ppl are running a freedom movement (according to Indian media it look like so) 
But its in the dera bughti area (one small district of Baluchistan )where the bugti tribe resides, also its due to the killing of nawab akbar khan buggti. so if you want to call it a freedom movement then its up to you but the ground realities are totally different from that image which you have in ur mind. 

2- You both are giving me a very pleasant picture of a secular India. But fortunately i didn't forget Gujrat Massacre and the burning of innocent Muslims.
I still can tell you about whats happening in Orrisa 
I can tell you about what happend in 1984 in Punjab.
Also i can tell you who are the most effected communities from POTA Laws....
There are many thing in secular India which neglect the picture you are drawing here for India. But i want to stick with the topic. 

Whats going on in Gaza is another story. and how Egypt is stopping mujahideens at Rafah Crossing is also another story. 

Furthermore, *ISLAM was not ended after Sahaba*. Its we who limit things for our personal pleasures.


----------



## Zaheerkhan

binzaman said:


> I think we are deviating from the real debate but let me elaborate if i can make you understand
> 
> 1- For you blouch ppl are running a freedom movement (according to Indian media it look like so)
> But its in the dera bughti area (one small district of Baluchistan )where the bugti tribe resides, also its due to the killing of nawab akbar khan buggti. so if you want to call it a freedom movement then its up to you but the ground realities are totally different from that image which you have in ur mind.
> 
> 2- You both are giving me a very pleasant picture of a secular India. But fortunately i didn't forget Gujrat Massacre and the burning of innocent Muslims.
> I still can tell you about whats happening in Orrisa
> I can tell you about what happend in 1984 in Punjab.
> Also i can tell you who are the most effected communities from POTA Laws....
> There are many thing in secular India which neglect the picture you are drawing here for India. But i want to stick with the topic.
> 
> Whats going on in Gaza is another story. and how Egypt is stopping mujahideens at Rafah Crossing is also another story.
> 
> Furthermore, *ISLAM was not ended after Sahaba*. Its we who limit things for our personal pleasures.




Balochistan and Kashmir is a very similar cases. Military action was initiated by Pakistan and India on Kashmir and Pakistan had later invaded Baloch territory in 1948. There is a regular election held in Kashmir, and the choice of the people is respected. Even the seperateists can boost their credibility by contesting elections,winning and later refusing to co-operate or even recognise New Delhi. But, their fear is that if they lose the elections, where will they hide the face.?? 

Secular India is un-doubtedly dynamic. No country in the world is perfect, we only need to strive to make it better. No-doubt Gujrat was a mistake, but, we have learnt our lessons. There is provisions for every movement and struggle in India. There is room for Radicals, for leftists, for religious, for communists. There is a room for everybody to carry-out representations and propagating their beliefs. But, there is no place for the people who try to enforce their beliefs,with the force of a gun.

The terrorists do-not deserve the comforts and systems of the free-world. They have to be dealt in the most merciless ways possible.They are no-bodies friends.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## rajk20002002

binzaman said:


> These fascists Hindus are leading the whole region into confrontation. The politics in India is always based upon religion and faith, yet its secular India. I dont know when the general Indian will realize the price they are paying in Siachen and Kashmir? India and Pakistan both fought 4 wars. Never India nor Pakistan can occupy or destroy each other.
> *
> Indian Casualties In Kashmir:*
> As an estimate 200-500 Army personal killed each year in Kashmir alone.
> 
> *Indian Casualties in Siachen:*
> According to global security till 1997 more than 2000 indian solders lost their lives in siachen alone.
> 
> As an estimate on every fourth day one Pakistani solder and on every other day one Indian solders is losing his life on siachen.
> 
> *Financial Aspects:*
> India alone spent 100 Billion Rs. So far, while her half of population living under the poverty line.
> 
> Thats what Kashmir and Siachen costing India and still they want to open more fronts.
> 
> If India settles the issues of Kashmir according to the will of Kashmiri people the future of whole region will be changed. Here I am saying* Kashmir according to Kashmiries will.* And there should not be any doubted on it as we all Indian and pakistanies get indepence on the same formula.
> 
> *The benefits:*
> 
> &#61664; No more Heavy Defense Budgets
> &#61664; Smaller and batter army
> &#61664; More money available to reduce poverty and hunger in both countries
> &#61664; Together both the nation can rock the world.
> &#61664; Peace and stability in the Region
> &#61664; No more RSS, LeT, Hizbul Mujaheedin, SVP etc
> &#61664; No more terror attacks like happened in Mumbai etc




How about if if you do the same in Balchustan to begin with and then in Sindh ? Was there a referndum in India when Pakistan was created ? Did British ask all Indians ? Don't live in make shift world. India does not beleive in nation states created based upon religion. Why can't Pakistan give up her agenda of looking at everything through Islam ? Things will be much better if that happens.

RK

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## binzaman

Can we stick to the Kashmir issue or should i place a separate thread on Sindh, Boluchistan, Punjab or NWFP and on sectarian issues????


----------



## binzaman

rajk20002002 said:


> What make you call that sectarian ? Does Islam have sects? Ofcourse you can separate threads but that won't change our logics. We have a fundamental difference in our thinking and that will remain so as far as I can see. Neither of our countries are going to give up their respective positions and hence all this trouble. You think you are 100% right and so do we. You are willing to put everything at stake and so are we..
> 
> RK



So its the end of debate 
But the kashmir issue will remain there, and Pakistan and the people of Pakistan will be there too for their support.


----------



## roopesh

First let me ask one question to pak frens for my better understanding. OK. Kashmir is a land with dispute. Both pakistan and India want that area. 
Pakistan claiming that India is illtreating kashmir ppl there and ppl of kashmir wants to be in pakistan so it should come to pakistan as you care of kashmir muslim. is this correct???
How about Hindu kashmir ppl? Do pakistan interst in their welfare too...Did pakistan protested when they got killed....???

Next will pakistan offer free citizenship/employement etc facilites to kashmir ppl so if kashmir ppl fed up with india can move to pakistan and live there??? This ensures pakistan not looking for land but cares for ppl.

Second why did pakistan gave a big part of kashmir to China...is it to impress them? or is to increase tension in the area by brining them in. Do you support that?

kashmir is very important geological place. Loosing it is against interst of India. We have rivers there so that bilateral relation with pakistan can be maintained. Its closer to russia and by allowing kashmir to pakistan delhi would be in big danger. So no matter what ever ppl tell about kashmir it will be with india. We will try to help kashmir ppl as much we can. May be it will take 1-2 generations for complete peace. but no compramise on this.


----------



## binzaman

"Pakistan claiming that India is illtreating kashmir ppl there and ppl of kashmir wants to be in pakistan so it should come to pakistan as you care of kashmir muslim. is this correct???
How about Hindu kashmir ppl? Do pakistan interst in their welfare too...Did pakistan protested when they got killed....???"

First of all Pakistan is not interested in Kashmiri Land, If you have the chance to read the official statements of Pak govt. then you will get to know that PAKISTAN always said *"Resolve the KASHMIR issue according to the will of People of Kashmir and under the UNO Resolutions"*

Also it was India who took the Kashmir issue to United Nations and Nehro promised there for the solution of Kashmir according to will of People of Kashmir. 

You asked why Pakistan Gave a large part to china? 
Proof required here, as per my knowledge china gave Pakistan a large Part.


----------



## binzaman

_"We know that. But then don't get upset if India gets more and more active in Balochistan and other parts. This is why I say that basic foundations of India-Pakistan relations are based upon complete mistrust. I am sure it will be like this till either of us or both of us get annihilated. Honestly I am not so much worried about this mistrust as this is part of our long history. At best I will worry only how best we can manage and learn to live with this. Unfortunately till now we don't know how to manage this and therefore there is a very high risk that some day we will end up annihilating each other. May be that is what Allah has created us for. Isn't it our duty to fulfil Allah's wish after all.. It won't be the first time that a great battle will take place in this part of world. It happened during Mahabharat period. I am almost certain that this will happen again. In Hindu mythology, what ever is created, has to be destroyed also.

RK"_

*Lets Hope for the best*


----------



## roopesh

binzaman said:


> First of all Pakistan is not interested in Kashmiri Land, Resolve the KASHMIR issue according to the will of People of Kashmir



R u sure ? What is pak interst then..kashmir ppl? Let them announce free citizenship no. Who ever intersted they will come. Other ppl will remain. Problem solved. 



binzaman said:


> You asked why Pakistan Gave a large part to china? Proof required here, as per my knowledge china gave Pakistan a large Part.



I cant answer for this to you dear. Some senior member required to teach this kid. Have u ever seen kashmir MAP?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## binzaman

_"R u sure ? What is pak interst then..kashmir ppl? Let them announce free citizenship no. Who ever intersted they will come. Other ppl will remain. Problem solved."_

I think you overlooked my answer or you are unaware of UNO Resolutions. Let me paste it here. 


*DRAFT RESOLUTION PRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT (CANADA) OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE RAPPORTEUR (BELGIUM) ON 6 FEBRUARY, 1948 (DOCUMENT NO. 667, DATED THE 10TH FEBRUARY, 1948)

THE SECURITY COUNCIL

1. Having considered the claims and allegations of India and Pakistan expresses the conviction that a peaceful settlement of the dispute about the accession of Jammu and Kashmir will best promote the interests of the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir of India, and of Pakistan.
2. Considers that it is urgent and important to stop acts of violence and hostility in Jammu and Kashmir and to decide the question of whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall accede to Pakistan or to India by the democratic method of a plebiscite to be held, as recognized by the parties, under the auspices of the United Nations to ensure complete impartiality.
3. Believes that the joint action of the Governments of India and Pakistan is required to carry out the purposes setforth below:
4. Alternative A
Takes note with satisfaction that both Governments, in seeking a solution by negotiation under the auspices of the Council, have agreed to cooperate with each other and with the Council in developing specific proposals, and, to this end, to apply the following, principles which, in the opinion of the Council, should, among others, constitute the basis of a just settlement;

Alternative B

Appeals, therefore, to both parties, in seeking a solution by negotiation under the auspices of the Council, to cooperate with each other and with the Council in developing specific proposals and, to this end, to apply the following principles which, in the opinion of the Council, should, among others, constitute the basis of a just settlement;
1. Acts of violence and hostility must end.
2. The withdrawal and continued exclusion of all irregular forces and armed individuals who have entered Jammu and Kashmir from outside must be brought about, each party using to that end all the influence at its disposal.
3. Regular armed forces in aid of the establishment and maintenance of order must be made available. In this connection the Governments should seek to ensure cooperation between their military forces to establish order and security until the question of accession shall have been determined by the plebiscite.
4. Regular armed forces must be withdrawn as soon as reestablishment of law and order permits.
5. After acts of violence and hostility have ceased, all citizens of the Jammu and Kashmir State, who had left on account of the recent disturbances, shall be invited and be free to return to their homes and to exercise all their rights without any restrictions on legitimate political activity. There shall be no victimization. All political prisoners should be released.
6. The conditions necessary for a free and fair plebiscite on the question of whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall accede to India or to Pakistan, including an interim administration which will command confidence and respect of the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir must be established.
7. Such conditions include that the plebiscite must be organized, held and supervised under the authority of the Security Council at the earliest possible date.



For Part Pak gave to China, i need you to teach me when we are debating then don't get offensive and come up with proves. Otherwise don't say anything which is baseless.


----------



## Omar1984

roopesh said:


> kashmir is very important geological place. Loosing it is against interst of India. We have rivers there so that bilateral relation with pakistan can be maintained. Its closer to russia and by allowing kashmir to pakistan delhi would be in big danger. So no matter what ever ppl tell about kashmir it will be with india. We will try to help kashmir ppl as much we can. May be it will take 1-2 generations for complete peace. but no compramise on this.



Kashmir shares none of its borders with Russia.

As for the rivers, Pakistan should be worried about the dam India is building on its side of LOC that will steal all of Pakistan's water and Pakistan cant afford a drought, thousands/even millions of innocent Pakistanis will die if there's no crops.

So there's a lot of mistrust here.


----------



## roopesh

binzaman said:


> _ *DRAFT RESOLUTION PRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT (CANADA) OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE RAPPORTEUR (BELGIUM) ON 6 FEBRUARY, 1948 (DOCUMENT NO. 667, DATED THE 10TH FEBRUARY, 1948) ._


_

Thanks man. I didnt aware of this perticular resolution. OK. But who cares for biased UN or USA here. Obama got warning from india about his comments on kashmir. WARNING! 



binzaman said:



[ For Part Pak gave to China, i need you to teach me when we are debating then don't get offensive and come up with proves. Otherwise don't say anything which is baseless.

Click to expand...


Pakistan gifted 4853 sq km of the Kashmiri territory in the Shaksgam Valley to China in 1963, thus disrupting the territorial integrity of the State of J&K. 

Quote: Giving details of his discussions with Musharraf, Vajpayee asked: By whose authority did Pakistan gift a part of Kashmir to China ? However, China has sharply reacted to Vajpayees observation and made it clear that the border agreement with Islamabad was a closed chapter and not open to negotiations..

You can look the JK map google maps...google the subject u get many websites with details._


----------



## binzaman

_"Thanks man. I didnt aware of this perticular resolution. OK. But who cares for biased UN or USA here. Obama got warning from india about his comments on kashmir. WARNING!"_

Bro! it was India and its founder Nehro who took the issue of kashmir to UNO in 1948 and promised there for its peaceful resolutions, due to that mujaheedin finish the war. Now you are saying that UN is biased????
*When Mujaheedin were beating you, you ran towards UN and today you are saying so, isn't it shameful????*


Pakistan administered Kashmir does not include Aksai Chin, the area of the former Princely state of Kashmir and Jammu that is under Chinese control since 1962.The cease-fire line that separates Jammu and Kashmir from the Aksai Chin is known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

*its India who get defeated in 1962 and lost the area of "aksaye Chian"*


----------



## binzaman

For you kind information
Taken from International Boundaries consultants 


India-China (Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh) 

*In the 1962 Sino-Indian War, China seized a Switzerland-sized area, Aksai Chin (Aksayqin),* and overran Arunachal Pradesh (an Indian state the size of Austria). There are also other, smaller pockets of disputed area.[1] The PRC withdrew from virtually all of Arunachal Pradesh to the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which approximates the McMahon Line that is found in a 1914 agreement initialed by British, Tibetan, and Chinese representatives.[2] Chinese and Indian forces clashed in the Sumdorong Chu valley of Arunachal Pradesh in 1986-87. Relations began to thaw in 1988.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Zaheerkhan said:


> Balochistan and Kashmir is a very similar cases. Military action was initiated by Pakistan and India on Kashmir and Pakistan had later invaded Baloch territory in 1948. There is a regular election held in Kashmir, and the choice of the people is respected. Even the seperateists can boost their credibility by contesting elections,winning and later refusing to co-operate or even recognise New Delhi. But, their fear is that if they lose the elections, where will they hide the face.??
> 
> Secular India is un-doubtedly dynamic. No country in the world is perfect, we only need to strive to make it better. No-doubt Gujrat was a mistake, but, we have learnt our lessons. There is provisions for every movement and struggle in India. There is room for Radicals, for leftists, for religious, for communists. There is a room for everybody to carry-out representations and propagating their beliefs. But, there is no place for the people who try to enforce their beliefs,with the force of a gun.
> 
> The terrorists do-not deserve the comforts and systems of the free-world. They have to be dealt in the most merciless ways possible.They are no-bodies friends.



Hog wash - Baluchistan and Kashmir are in no way similar cases.

Baluchistan was never invaded, only the Khan of Kalat's princely state, that is now a part of Baluchistan received a small detachment of troops because of security issues stemming from that area, and eventually the Khan of Kalat legally acceded to Pakistan.

The majority of today's Baluchistan was comprised of other 'autonomous territory', whose rulers acceded to Pakistan, as well as the territory of 'Baluchistan', where Jirga's were held by all the tribes to determine whether or not to join Pakistan - the decision coming out overwhelmingly in Pakistan's favor.

This is where the biggest difference between Baluchistan and Kashmir arises, and why the two are not comparable - Baluchistan became a part of Pakistan through a process outlined under the instrument of partition, where the will of the people and/or the notables of the area was taken into account. This never happened in Kashmir.

In case of a disputed accession, a plebiscite was to be held in the disputed territory to determine the will of the people in what final status they wished for (Pakistan or India). The UNSC resolutions affirmed this point by requiring a referendum to determine final status and India agreed to it as did Pakistan and the rest of the world community.

The right to self-determination to determine final status for the Kashmiris, as part of India or Pakistan, has been accepted by the UN, and was accepted by India and Pakistan, and the Kashmiris should be given that right.

This is not about India being 'dynamic and secular' or whatever, it is about resolving a dispute according to the agreements outlined in the UN, and under the instrument of partition - which is by resorting to the will of the Kashmiris through a plebiscite. If India is so 'dynamic' the Kashmiris will choose her, if not, they will choose Pakistan. The GoI agreed to this when she agreed to all of the UNSC resolutions.

India should live up to her obligations as a member of the UN and her commitments to the Kashmiris and the international community. This is the same UN India went to with the JuD ban, and Pakistan complied with, despite opposition at home. Time for India to show that she is responsible member of the international community and implement her agreements and commitments in the UN.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ahmeddsid

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Hog wash - Baluchistan and Kashmir are in no way similar cases.
> 
> Baluchistan was never invaded, only the Khan of Kalat's princely state, that is now a part of Baluchistan received a small detachment of troops because of security issues stemming from that area, and eventually the Khan of Kalat legally acceded to Pakistan.
> 
> The majority of today's Baluchistan was comprised of other 'autonomous territory', whose rulers acceded to Pakistan, as well as the territory of 'Baluchistan', where Jirga's were held by all the tribes to determine whether or not to join Pakistan - the decision coming out overwhelmingly in Pakistan's favor.
> 
> This is where the biggest difference between Baluchistan and Kashmir arises, and why the two are not comparable - Baluchistan became a part of Pakistan through a process outlined under the instrument of partition, where the will of the people and/or the notables of the area was taken into account. This never happened in Kashmir.
> 
> In case of a disputed accession, a plebiscite was to be held in the disputed territory to determine the will of the people in what final status they wished for (Pakistan or India). The UNSC resolutions affirmed this point by requiring a referendum to determine final status and India agreed to it as did Pakistan and the rest of the world community.
> 
> The right to self-determination to determine final status for the Kashmiris, as part of India or Pakistan, has been accepted by the UN, and was accepted by India and Pakistan, and the Kashmiris should be given that right.
> 
> This is not about India being 'dynamic and secular' or whatever, it is about resolving a dispute according to the agreements outlined in the UN, and under the instrument of partition - which is by resorting to the will of the Kashmiris through a plebiscite. If India is so 'dynamic' the Kashmiris will choose her, if not, they will choose Pakistan. The GoI agreed to this when she agreed to all of the UNSC resolutions.
> 
> India should live up to her obligations as a member of the UN and her commitments to the Kashmiris and the international community. This is the same UN India went to with the JuD ban, and Pakistan complied with, despite opposition at home. Time for India to show that she is responsible member of the international community and implement her agreements and commitments in the UN.


Bro even, Kofi Annan said the UN resolutions are outdated and of has no real value in todays world! There is even a link to it in this forum, posted by someone!


----------



## Flintlock

^Yep:
_
Gilani reverted to the hackneyed rhetoric of demanding that the issue should be resolved on the basis of UN Resolutions, ignoring that the UN secretary-general has termed these resolutions as outdated_
LEADER ARTICLE: Watch Out For Pakistan-Editorial-Opinion-The Times of India

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ahmeddsid

Kashmir is an Integral Part Of India, and No Indian will Let go of it. Trust me, thats the Basic sentiment. And If The flow of terrorists stop then Peace will dawn in the valley and the Army will move out, and I am sure Kashmir will become another Cosmopolitan city, coz the people are very enterprising, I see many great Businessmen from Kashmir in my state.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

ahmeddsid said:


> Bro even, Kofi Annan said the UN resolutions are outdated and of has no real value in todays world! There is even a link to it in this forum, posted by someone!



Unless you can show me where the UN charter says they are 'outdated' or have 'expired' they are not. Kofi Annan's statement does not alter the status of the resolutions, it was his personal opinion. Let me know on what legal basis/UN charter, Annan's statement changes the status of the resolutions.

UNSC resolutions do not have an expiration date, not to mention that under the rules of partition/accession, any disputed accession was to have been decided by a plebiscite.

All of this was agreed to by the GoI and GoP and the international community - you cannot just take an agreement and call it 'outdated' because it doesn't fit your wishes anymore.

The fact remains that the UNSC resolutions offer the ONLY legal, moral and ethical solution to resolving the Kashmri dispute.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

^Well, Kofi Annan's opinion definitely counts for something. Another log in the pyre of kashmiri separatism.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

ahmeddsid said:


> Kashmir is an Integral Part Of India, and No Indian will Let go of it. Trust me, thats the Basic sentiment. And If The flow of terrorists stop then Peace will dawn in the valley and the Army will move out, and I am sure Kashmir will become another Cosmopolitan city, coz the people are very enterprising, I see many great Businessmen from Kashmir in my state.



Its not about what you want - its about implementing your agreements and your governments obligations under the rules of partition and under the charter of the UN, and the UNSC resolutions to resolve a territorial dispute. India took the case to the UN, asked for arbitration, and accepted the decisions made.

The decision is to allow the Kashmiris to determine their final status, and its rather immoral of you to claim to keep a people against their will and refuse to implement an agreement made on settling a territorial dispute - usually people who do this are called thieves and land grabbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> ^Well, Kofi Annan's opinion definitely counts for something. Another log in the pyre of kashmiri separatism.



If it does count for something and affects the UNSC resolutions, then you shoudl be able to illustrate it for me using sources and references to the UN charter, otherwise you are just talking gibberish.

I await your response.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> If it does count for something and affects the UNSC resolutions, then you shoudl be able to illustrate it for me using sources and references to the UN charter, otherwise you are just talking gibberish.
> 
> I await your response.



it might not affect the resolution itself, but it does affect the likelihood of demands being made that it be implemented.

And lets not get self-righteous here. Its not like Pakistan was ever sincere about implementing it.


----------



## ahmeddsid

Cant we all just let Kashmir be as it is, and Help it become the Heaven it was prior to the 80s and then Live in Peace????


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> it might not affect the resolution itself, but it does affect the likelihood of demands being made that it be implemented.



If his statement carries no legal or enforceable value, then it does not affect anything, especially since the man isn't even there now.

All it is is one mans opinion of something - the charter of the UN does not change and the UN resolutions and the obligations of UN members in implementing them do not change.


> And lets not get self-righteous here. Its not like Pakistan was ever sincere about implementing it.



Oh yes we were - the fact is that Pakistan has never deviated form the stance of implementing the UN resolutions - India has, when she decided that she would rather occupy a people and steal land by violating international commitments instead of honoring them.


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> Its not about what you want - *its about implementing your agreements *and your governments obligations under the rules of partition and under the charter of the UN, and the UNSC resolutions to resolve a territorial dispute. India took the case to the UN, asked for arbitration, and accepted the decisions made.



Nope it is about what penalty we have to pay in case we do not honour the agreement.



> The decision is to allow the Kashmiris to determine their final status, and its rather *immoral* of you to claim to keep a people against their will and refuse to implement an agreement made on settling a territorial dispute - usually people who do this are called thieves and land grabbers.



What is immoral is for us and the global powers to decide.. "Immoral" - Is'nt it a relative term to begin with.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

ahmeddsid said:


> Cant we all just let Kashmir be as it is, and Help it become the Heaven it was prior to the 80s and then Live in Peace????



Certainly - how about we start with honoring the international commitments made and hold a fair plebiscite under the auspices of the UN to settle the dispute. 

As the thread starter suggested, 'settle Kashmir and get the reward'.

That is after all something India herself took to the UN and agreed to.

Is honoring commitments made under the UN charter that hard for India to do?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

indiapakistanfriendship said:


> Nope it is about what penalty we have to pay in case we do not honour the agreement.


Should have thought about that before you took the case to the UN, or even earlier when the rules of partition were being framed. Or even better, before becoming a member of the UN.

Commitments are commitments, otherwise land grabbers and thief's is all that comes to mind. 

Read the UN charter, especially the part about the obligations of UNmembers to implement UN resolutions.


> What is immoral is for us and the global powers to decide.. "Immoral" - Is'nt it a relative term to begin with.



Refusing a people the right to determine their own destiny, when that is precisely what the rules of partition indicated, and India agreed to in the UN, is immoral and illegal.

Occupying a people against their will can never be moral.


----------



## Omar1984

ahmeddsid said:


> Cant we all just let Kashmir be as it is, and Help it become the Heaven it was prior to the 80s and then Live in Peace????




Not if India builds dams in Kashmir and steals Pakistan's water.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

*Reaffirming Legitimacy of Self-determination*​
By Dr. Shireen M. Mazari

While debate continues over what should constitute a comprehensive international convention on terrorism, the international community has once again reaffirmed its commitment to the right of self-determination for people remaining under foreign occupation (II:15) through the Almaty Declaration of June 4, 2002. This Declaration was adopted by the Heads of State/Government of Member States of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA). Both Pakistan and India are parties to this Declaration. Not only does the Declaration reaffirm the principle of self-determination, it emphasizes that this principle must be exercised in accordance with the UN Charter and international law. Non-fulfillment of this will pose a threat to regional and international peace.

For Pakistan, the Almaty Declaration once again proves its contention that the international community - including India - has to fulfill its obligations regarding Kashmir in accordance with the UN Resolutions and international law. While self-determination may have become unfashionable, it is a legitimate goal under international law and contrary to what Kofi Annan may claim, in his realpolitik game plan, UN resolutions and international law are not time barred or outdated. Almaty has clearly shown that.

Also, unlike the notion of terrorism, self-determination has been clearly identified within international law and it still remains a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens). This norm (of self-determination) is not only a part of customary international law, but is also enshrined as one of the principles of the UN as laid out in Article 1:2 of its Charter. Self-determination is seen within the context of people fighting against colonialism, foreign occupation and to enforce international commitments made to them by the United Nations. The strength of the self-determination norm is such that international conventions dealing with terrorism have always acknowledged and distinguished between struggles for self-determination and acts of terrorism and the Almaty Declaration is no exception.

The 1973 UN General Assembly Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on International Terrorism also drew the now established distinction between terrorism and struggles for self-determination, and this was further backed up by Article 7 of the General Assemblys 1974 Definition of Aggression, which stated:

Nothing in this definition, and in particular Article 3 (which gives an inventory of the acts that are regarded as aggression) could in any way prejudice the right of self-determination, freedom, and independence, as derived from the Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination; or the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and seek and receive support ....

Kashmir is clearly a case of self-determination against foreign occupation, as defined in the UN resolutions on the issue. India itself recognized that it was an international dispute which required peaceful resolution through UN intervention. That is why India took the Kashmir issue to the UN under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which deals with Pacific Settlement of Disputes - as opposed to Chapter VII which deals with Aggression. In this connection, the April 21, 1948 UN Security Council resolution delineated the UN position on the Kashmir dispute. Inter alia, this resolution stated: ... both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.

It was in the same vein that the UN Security Council recognized the inalienable right of the people of East Timor to self-determination and independence in accordance with the principle of the Charter of the UN ... and eventually the international community lived up to this commitment. Why the same has not been done for Kashmir is an interesting question - but the fact that the East Timorese were Christians fighting a Muslim power while the Kashmiris are primarily Muslims, may well comprise at least part of the answer!

Now the Almaty Declaration has stressed once again the continuing relevance of UN resolutions and international law within the context of struggles for self-determination. Indias signature on this Declaration clearly implies that India has renewed its acceptance of the legitimacy of self-determination that it made in the forties at the UN - within the context of Kashmir, since by any legal criteria the Kashmiri struggle is one of self-determination against foreign occupation.

In fact, the Almaty Declaration has gone one step further to clarify even further the notion of self-determination as being distinct from separatist struggles and acts of terrorism. In this context, the Declaration sees separatism as one of the main threats and challenges to the security and stability, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of states. (II:18) As such all CICA member states are bound not to aid and abet, in any manner whatsoever, such movements. Separatist struggles are clearly those which the international community through the UN has not recognized as struggles against foreign occupation.

The fact that India is a party to this Declaration should imply that India is now renouncing its historical support for separatist movements in the region - be they the LTTE in Sri Lanka or separatist groups in Bangladesh, or the Dalai Lama of Tibet and so on. Presently, the Maoist uprising in Nepal has its leadership based in India and the cross-border terrorism into Nepal has not been dealt with firmly by India in the form of sealing of its border with Nepal!

A very important aspect of the Almaty Declaration in this context is the fact that major powers like China, who are facing separatist movements, now have a clear condemnation of these from the international community. Also, the delinkage between self-determination and separatism should allow these states to become more vocal on the issue of self-determination. For Pakistan this is very important because its most important ally China should now be able to take up the case of the Dalai Lama with India at this level also; and be more forthright on Kashmir without having any parallels drawn in the context of the separatist terrorists of Xinjiang. Interestingly, the US in its long list of terrorist groups has not included the Xinjiang separatists and members of this group who have been arrested by Allied forces in Afghanistan and have not been handed over to the Chinese authorities - one wonders why?

In many ways, the Almaty Declaration is a step forward, not only in once again reaffirming the legitimacy of self-determination struggles in international law and within the UN framework, but also in moving the international community closer to a consensus on terrorism. The distinction between self-determination and separatism will also add clarity to international law and to a comprehensive terrorist convention which does not have to shy away from a working definition of the concept. For Asian states the CICA, through the Declaration, has given itself substance for meaningful cooperation in the future. It has shown that Asian states can cooperate on sensitive issues, without external inputs from outside actors. But the test will come when all the signatories to the Almaty Declaration begin to implement it. For us in South Asia, there is a need to push for this implementation more actively and collectively in order to establish regional peace and security.

Pakistan Link - Letter & Opinion


----------



## ahmeddsid

Omar1984 said:


> Not if India builds dams in Kashmir and steals Pakistan's water.


Exactly, It all comes down to Resources! Pakistan is telling it is fighting for the people, but here it goes, right from the horses mouth! Its not people dummy, its WATER!!!!


----------



## Omar1984

ahmeddsid said:


> Exactly, It all comes down to Resources! Pakistan is telling it is fighting for the people, but here it goes, right from the horses mouth! Its not people dummy, its WATER!!!!



Millions of people in Pakistan will die if India steals our waters through the dams theyre building in Indian Occupied Kashmir, and Pakistan always sided with Kashmiris even before India made plans on these dams so it is about the people...you dont see Pakistan making dams to steal water from India's territory.


----------



## ahmeddsid

Omar1984 said:


> Millions of people in Pakistan will die if India steals our waters through the dams theyre building in Indian Occupied Kashmir, and Pakistan always sided with Kashmiris even before India made plans on these dams so it is about the people...you dont see Pakistan making dams to steal water from India's territory.


because u really cant steal much water from India. Look, lets be open, Kashmir is Strategically important in all aspects. India wont Give up, Better to let status quo be maintained. Bleeding India thru separatism wont work, because it is a 2 way road.


----------



## beetel

binzaman said:


> For you kind information
> Taken from International Boundaries consultants
> 
> 
> India-China (Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh)
> 
> *In the 1962 Sino-Indian War, China seized a Switzerland-sized area, Aksai Chin (Aksayqin),* and overran Arunachal Pradesh (an Indian state the size of Austria). There are also other, smaller pockets of disputed area.[1] The PRC withdrew from virtually all of Arunachal Pradesh to the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which approximates the McMahon Line that is found in a 1914 agreement initialed by British, Tibetan, and Chinese representatives.[2] Chinese and Indian forces clashed in the Sumdorong Chu valley of Arunachal Pradesh in 1986-87. Relations began to thaw in 1988.



That is a part of laddakh not kashmir ..Here we are talking about the area of kashmir which has been gifted by pakistan to china 



*Fate of land given to China to be decided: *** PM








5Rediff P4C Classifieds
May 21, 2007 18:44 IST
Azad Kashmir Prime Minister, Attique Ahmad Khan, has said the fate of the 12,000 square miles of northern areas ceded by Pakistan to China in 1965 "is to be decided" as the territory came under the undivided Jammu and Kashmir state.

"Every inch of Gilgit and Baltistan is as important as any other part of the state. The future of 28,000 square miles of Northern Areas (under the control of Pakistan) and 12,000 square miles of areas that are under the control of China is to be decided," he was quoted by 'The Nation' as telling a seminar in Muzaffarabad, the capital of ***, on Sunday.

Khan, son of former *** President Sarda Qayyum Khan, said Northern Areas were integral part of the Jammu and Kashmir state before partition and their interests would not be compromised.

His statement was regarded significant as a Pakistani or *** politician seldom refers to the area ceded to China in 1965 as part of the boundary agreement between two countries.

Khan argued that on the areas ceded to China, the Pakistan-China agreement has said their future depended on the future of Northern Areas.

The agreement stipulated that after the Kashmir issue is settled between India and Pakistan, the "sovereign" authority will re-open negotiations with China as to sign a formal boundary agreement. If the authority concerned is Pakistan, the provisions of the present boundary agreement will be maintained in the formal boundary treaty.

Also it was rare that politicians in Pakistan or *** linked Northern Areas to Jammu and Kashmir.

Under Pakistan's tutelage, the areas incorporating Gilgit and Baltistan were not part of ***. The status of *** and Northern Areas figured differently in Pakistan's Constitution.

Both have different sets of councils.

It was not yet clear whether Khan was preparing the ground for the resolution of the Kashmir issue through the current peace process between India and Pakistan as his father spoke optimistically about the progress in that direction after his return from participation in a conference in New Delhi.

Khan said in his view two kinds of Kashmiri public opinion prevailed, one "pro-Pakistan" and another "for independence." He discreetly avoided mentioning pro-India Kashmiris.

He also said it was very difficult to include Kahmiris in the India-Pak dialogue and urged New Delhi to take practical steps to change the ground situation.

Interestingly, he also reportedly said that Pakistan should have diplomatic ties with Israel, which Islamabad had so far not recognised. If Pakistan could have ties with India it should accept Israel, which has "not harmed" Islamabad.

He also supported the "military democracy" headed by President Pervez Musharraf and linked the future of democracy in Pakistan with the civil-military cooperation to make the country politically stable, the newspaper reported.*
Fate of land given to China to be decided: Azad Kashmir PM


----------



## beetel

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> If his statement carries no legal or enforceable value, then it does not affect anything, especially since the man isn't even there now.
> 
> All it is is one mans opinion of something - the charter of the UN does not change and the UN resolutions and the obligations of UN members in implementing them do not change.
> 
> 
> Oh yes we were - the fact is that *Pakistan has never deviated form the stance of implementing the UN resolutions* - India has, when she decided that she would rather occupy a people and steal land by violating international commitments instead of honoring them.



Are you sure...?We have 1965 war .,kargil ,terrorism where UN said do all this things and if failed come to us..


----------



## ahmeddsid

beetel said:


> Are you sure...?We have 1965 war .,kargil ,terrorism where UN said do all this things and if failed come to us..


UN is a FAILURE! Look how many Resolutions Israels Ignored! Look How USA Invaded Iraq! Where was the UN? UN should be dissolved!


----------



## binzaman

_"That is a part of laddakh not kashmir ..Here we are talking about the area of kashmir which has been gifted by pakistan to china"_

So here you are telling us that Laddakh is not part of Kashmir????


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> Should have thought about that before you took the case to the UN, or even earlier when the rules of partition were being framed. Or even better, before becoming a member of the UN.



I agree but then I am asking you what is the penalty we are supposed to pay for our delayed wisdom.



> Commitments are commitments, otherwise land grabbers and thief's is all that comes to mind.



Does it matter what you think or Pakistan Governemnt thinks?



> Read the UN charter, especially the part about the obligations of UNmembers to implement UN resolutions.



Did I say otherwise, but then it is coming from Pakistan who conveniently recognised Taliban governmnt which incidentally was not recognised by the UN. The point is the penalty you needed to pay was less .



> Refusing a people the right to determine their own destiny,



Who said the geographical land mass called Kashmir was the destiny of Kashmiris themselves.



> when that is precisely what the rules of partition indicated,



Somrthing that was done under the influence and pressure of the British.



> and India agreed to in the UN,



Ok



> is immoral.



Ok hypthetically let me agree to what you say, hey but then we are comfortably skirting under the radar, so what the heck anyways.


----------



## beetel

binzaman said:


> _"That is a part of laddakh not kashmir ..Here we are talking about the area of kashmir which has been gifted by pakistan to china"_
> 
> So here you are telling us that Laddakh is not part of Kashmir????


state has three region kashmir ,jammu and laddakh Yes it is part of state jammu and kashmir
and not part of kashmir

Atleast we fought for integrity of jammu and kashmir and lost some territory*Never compromised with that and gifted it like a piece of cake*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## beetel

ahmeddsid said:


> UN is a FAILURE! Look how many Resolutions Israels Ignored! Look How USA Invaded Iraq! Where was the UN? UN should be dissolved!


UN is a failure when major countries involved in conflict
Have you seen structure of security council...
Its intension is to run the world according to top five..If there any difference of opinion UN will escape through virtual veto


----------



## binzaman

beetel said:


> Atleast we fought for integrity of jammu and kashmir and lost some territory*Never compromised with that and gifted it like a piece of cake*




R not you ashamed that you lost the territory so huge (almost same of Switzerland)???
but
Still you are proud of if? what a shame.....

Also the friendship of China Pakistan is role model for whole world. Its up to our govt. what they decide for our land, if it is strategically good for china than whats prob in it. At least we don't lost any area to enemy in war


----------



## ahmeddsid

binzaman said:


> R not you ashamed that you lost the territory so huge (almost same of Switzerland)???
> but
> Still you are proud of if? what a shame.....


we didnt give away a part of Kashmir to China! So much for the love of Kashmir and its People!!!


----------



## binzaman

*** for all the propagators***

*Sino-Pakistan Frontier Agreement 1963*

The Government of the People&#8217;s Republic of China and the Government of Pakistan;
HAVING agreed, with a view to ensuring the prevailing peace and tranquility on the border, to
formally delimit and demarcate the boundary between China&#8217;s Sinking and the contiguous areas
the defence of which is under the actual control of Pakistan, in a spirit of fairness,
reasonableness, mutual understanding and mutual accommodation, and on the basis of the ten
principles as enunciated in the Bandung conference.
Being convinced that this would not only give full expression to the desire of the people of China
and Pakistan for the development of good neighbourly and friendly relations, but also help
safeguard Asian and world peace.
Have resolved for this purpose to conclude the present agreement and have appointed as their
respective plenipotentiaries the following.
For the Government of the People&#8217;s Republic of China; Chen Yi, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
For the Government of the Pakistan Zulfikar Bhutto, Minister of External Affairs.
Who, having mutually examined their full powers and found them to be in good and due form
have agreed upon following:
Article 1
In view of the fact that the boundary between China&#8217;s Sinkiang and the contiguous areas the
defence of which is under the actual control of Pakistan has never been formally delimited, two
parties agree to delimit it on the basis of the traditional customary boundary line including
features and in a spirit of equality, mutual benefit and friendly cooperation.
Article 2
In accordance with the principle expounded in Article 1 of the present agreement, the two parties
have fixed as follows the alignment of the entire boundary line between China&#8217;s Sinkiang and the
contiguous areas the defence of which is under the actual control of Pakistan.
1) Commencing from its north western extremity at height 5,630 metres (a peak the reference
coordinates of which are approximately longitude 74 degrees 34 minutes east and latitude 37
degrees 3 minutes north), the boundary line runs generally eastward and then South-eastward
strictly along the main watershed between the tributaries of the Tashkurgan river of the Tarim
river system on the one hand on the tributes of the Hunza river of the Indus river system on the
other hand, passing through the Kilik Daban (Dawan), the Mintake Daban (pass), the Kharchanai
Daban (named on the Chinese map only), the Mutsgila Daban (named on the Chinese map only)
and the Parpik Pass (named on the Pakistan map only) and reaches the Khunjerab (Yutr Daban
(Pass).
2) After passing through the Kunjerab (Yutr) Daban (pass) the boundary line runs generally
southward along the above-mentioned main watershed upto a mountain-top south of the Daban
(pass), where it leaves the main watershed to follow the crest of a spur lying generally in a southeasterly
direction, which is the watershed between the Akjilga river ( a nameless corresponding
river on the Pakistan map) on the one hand, and the Taghumbash (Oprang) river and the Koliman
Su (Orang Jilga) on the other hand. According to the map of the Chinese side, the boundary line,
after leaving the south-eastern extremity of the spur, runs along a small section of the middle line
of the bed of the Koliman Su to reach its confluence with the Elechin river. According to the map
of the Pakistan side, the boundary line, after leaving the south-eastern extremity of this spur,
reaches the sharp bend of the Shaksgam of Muztagh river.
3) From the aforesaid point, the boundary lines runs up the Kelechin river (Shaksgam or Muztagh
river) along the middle line of its bed its confluence (reference coordinates approximately
longitude 76 degrees 2 minutes east and latitude 36 degrees 26 minutes north) with the
Shorbulak Daria (Shimshal river or Braldu river).
4) From the confluence of the aforesaid two rivers, the boundary line, according to the map of the
Chinese side, ascends the crest of a spur and runs along it to join the Karakoram range main
watershed at a mountain-top (reference coordinates approximately longitude 75 degrees 54
minutes east and latitude 36 degrees 15 minutes north) which on this map is shown as belonging
to the Shorgulak mountain. According to the map of the Pakistan side, the boundary line from the
confluence of the above mentioned two river ascends the crest of a corresponding spur and runs
along it, passing through height 6.520 meters (21,390 feet) till it joins the Karakoram range main
watershed at a peak (reference coordinates approximately longitude 75 degrees 57 minutes east
and latitude 36 degrees 3 minutes north).
5) Thence, the boundary line, running generally south-ward and then eastward strictly follows the
Karakoram range main watershed which separates the Tarim river
drainage system from the Indus river drainage system, passing through the east Mustagh pass
(Muztagh pass), the top of the Chogri peak (K-2) the top of the broad peak, the top of the
Gasherbrum mountain (8,068), the Indirakoli pass (names of the Chinese maps only) and the top
of the Teramn Kankri peak, and reaches its south-eastern extremity at the Karakoram pass. Then
alignment of the entire boundary line as described in section one of this article, has been drawn
on the one million scale map of the Pakistan side in English which are signed and attached to the
present agreement. In view of the fact that the maps of the two sides are not fully identical in their
representation of topographical features the two parties have agreed that the actual features on
the ground shall prevail, so far as the location and alignment of the boundary described in section
one is concerned, and that they will be determined as far as possible by bgint survey on the
ground.
Article 3
The two parties have agreed that:
i) Wherever the boundary follows a river, the middle line of the river bed shall be the boundary
line; and that
ii) Wherever the boundary passes through a deban (pass) the water-parting line thereof shall be
the boundary line.
Article 4
One the two parties have agreed to set up, as soon as possible, a joint boundary demarcation
commission. Each side will appoint a chairman, one or more members and a certain number of
advisers and technical staff. The joint boundary demarcation commission is charged with the
responsibility in accordance with the provisions of the present agreement, to hold concrete
discussions on and carry out the following tasks jointly.
1) To conduct necessary surveys of the boundary area on the ground, as stated in Article 2 of the
present agreement so as to set up boundary markers at places considered to be appropriate by
the two parties and to delineate the boundary line of the jointly prepared accurate maps.
To draft a protocol setting forth in detail the alignment of the entire boundary line and the location
of all the boundary markers and prepare and get printed detailed maps, to be attached to the
protocol, with the boundary line and the location of the boundary markers shown on them.
2) The aforesaid protocol, upon being signed by representatives of the governments of the two
countries, shall become an annex to the present agreement, and the detailed maps shall replace
the maps attached to the present agreement.
3) Upon the conclusion of the above-mentioned protocol, the tasks of the joint boundary
demarcation commission shall be terminated.
Article 5
The two parties have agreed that any dispute concerning the boundary which may arise after the
delimitation of boundary line actually existing between the two countries shall be settled
peacefully by the two parties through friendly consultations.
Article 6
The two parties have agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan
and India, the sovereign authority concerned will reopen negotiations with the Government of the
People&#8217;s Republic of China on the boundary as described in Article. Two of the present
agreement, so as to sign a formal boundary treaty to replace the present agreement, provided
that in the event of the sovereign authority being Pakistan, the provisions of the present
agreement and of the aforesaid protocol shall be maintained in the formal boundary treaty to be
signed between the People&#8217;s Republic of China and Pakistan.
Article 7
The present agreement shall come into force on the data of its signature.
Done in duplicate in Peking on the second day of March 1963, in the Chinese and English
languages, both side being equally authentic.


----------



## Flintlock

The Kashmir land grant was done solely to win favour from China. 

Some may think of it as simply bribery, others as pragmatic diplomacy, still others as a backhanded attempt to involve China in the dispute.

One wonders why such pragmatic diplomacy cannot be initiated with India as well - but then the answer is obvious, isn't it?


----------



## binzaman

Flintlock said:


> The Kashmir land grant was done solely to win favour from China.
> 
> Some may think of it as simply bribery, others as pragmatic diplomacy, still others as a backhanded attempt to involve China in the dispute.
> 
> One wonders why such pragmatic diplomacy cannot be initiated with India as well - but then the answer is obvious, isn't it?



I have pasted the whole treaty for you read it. China released some Land to Pakistan and so do the Pakistan.
So you are just speaking the propaganda of your media here.


----------



## beetel

binzaman said:


> I have pasted the whole treaty for you read it. China released some Land to Pakistan and so do the Pakistan.
> So you are just speaking the propaganda of your media here.


Please quote where it says that china released land to pakistan dont twist the facts


----------



## binzaman

beetel said:


> Please quote where it says that china released land to pakistan dont twist the facts



i think you havn't read the whole thread. anyhow let me tell you again .............Where did i said that this agreement mentioned the area i posted this in responce of some guys saying that Pakistan gifted it..it was a border treaty which was usefull for both parties......... Hope this time your tinny mind may catch what i am saying


*In 1962 China Captured aksay-e-Chain, the land nearly the size of Switzerland. Indian army ran away like rats, then in 1963 Pakistan and China formed a treaty due to which Pakistan get 750 square miles of territory which china captured from india. *

Now checkout how your media is brain washing you. India lost the land in war, Pakistan gets the Land with Love  

*So neither it was a gift nor we lostd it in war. Infact it was a gift for Pakistan from China *


----------



## beetel

* in 1963 Pakistan and China formed a treaty due to which Pakistan get 750 square miles of territory which china captured from india. *

And your heart became so big that you gave 12000 sq km of kashmir area without asking permission from kashmiries..So much for love of kashmir one should appreciate..


----------



## binzaman

beetel said:


> * in 1963 Pakistan and China formed a treaty due to which Pakistan get 750 square miles of territory which china captured from india. *
> 
> And your heart became so big that you gave 12000 sq km of kashmir area without asking permission from kashmiries..So much for love of kashmir one should appreciate..



ufffffffffffffffffffffffffffff i don't want to use harsh words............ read my previous reply again. 
if you still unable to understand then i will teach you in ur mother tongue.


----------



## beetel

binzaman said:


> ufffffffffffffffffffffffffffff i don't want to use harsh words............ read my previous reply again.
> if you still unable to understand then i will teach you in ur mother tongue.


I have read that post..that one is nothing but playing with the words ..Do you think they will draft "We want to give this much land to china"

For your knowledge that treaty is to award land for china so that it can easily access Tibet nothing else


----------



## binzaman

beetel said:


> I have read that post..that one is nothing but playing with the words ..Do you think they will draft "We want to give this much land to china"
> 
> For your knowledge that treaty is to award land for china so that it can easily access Tibet nothing else



You are irritating me now

English: *In 1963 Pakistan and China formed a treaty due to which Pakistan get 750 square miles of territory which china captured from india.
*
Captured from india means indian ran from that land and china got that land and then 750 Square miles of that land came to Pakistan. 



Hindi:* 1963 &#2350;&#2375;&#2306; &#2346;&#2366;&#2325;&#2367;&#2360;&#2381;&#2340;&#2366;&#2344; &#2324;&#2352; &#2330;&#2368;&#2344; &#2360;&#2306;&#2343;&#2367; &#2348;&#2344;&#2366;&#2351;&#2368; &#2327;&#2351;&#2368; &#2341;&#2368;, &#2332;&#2367;&#2360;&#2325;&#2375; &#2325;&#2366;&#2352;&#2339; 750 &#2346;&#2366;&#2325;&#2367;&#2360;&#2381;&#2340;&#2366;&#2344; &#2350;&#2367;&#2354;&#2340;&#2366; &#2361;&#2376;, &#2332;&#2379; &#2357;&#2352;&#2381;&#2327;&#2366;&#2325;&#2366;&#2352; &#2350;&#2368;&#2354; &#2325;&#2381;&#2359;&#2375;&#2340;&#2381;&#2352; &#2349;&#2366;&#2352;&#2340; &#2360;&#2375; &#2330;&#2368;&#2344; &#2346;&#2352; &#2325;&#2348;&#2381;&#2332;&#2366; &#2325;&#2352; &#2354;&#2367;&#2351;&#2366; &#2404;
*


&#2346;&#2325;&#2337;. &#2349;&#2366;&#2352;&#2340; &#2360;&#2375; &#2349;&#2366;&#2352;&#2340;&#2368;&#2351; &#2309;&#2352;&#2381;&#2341; &#2360;&#2375; &#2310;&#2312; &#2324;&#2352; &#2330;&#2368;&#2344; &#2325;&#2379; &#2350;&#2367;&#2354;&#2366; &#2325;&#2367; &#2349;&#2370;&#2350;&#2367; &#2324;&#2352; &#2347;&#2367;&#2352; &#2313;&#2360; &#2349;&#2370;&#2350;&#2367; 750 &#2357;&#2352;&#2381;&#2327;&#2366;&#2325;&#2366;&#2352; &#2350;&#2368;&#2354; &#2325;&#2368; &#2313;&#2360; &#2349;&#2370;&#2350;&#2367; &#2360;&#2375; &#2346;&#2366;&#2325;&#2367;&#2360;&#2381;&#2340;&#2366;&#2344; &#2350;&#2375;&#2306; &#2310;&#2351;&#2366; &#2404;


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

beetel said:


> Are you sure...?We have 1965 war .,kargil ,terrorism where UN said do all this things and if failed come to us..



I am sure - Al those things happened AFTER India chose to walk away from the UNS resolutions. The 65 war was a direct result of India's decision to not implement the UN resolutions. Check out the UN resolutions sticky thread in the Strategic affairs section. There are quotes from Nehru in the fifties where he is clearly indicating that India will not honor the UN resolutions, but instructing his government officials to 'maintain pretenses' for the international community.

The resort to 'non-peaceful' measures was the result of India walking away from the internationally and bilaterally accepted solution advocated in the UNSC resolutions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

beetel said:


> That is a part of laddakh not kashmir ..Here we are talking about the area of kashmir which has been gifted by pakistan to china
> 
> 
> *Fate of land given to China to be decided: *** PM*


First, the land was barren and unpopulated,

Second, the land is not gifted, it is leased to China, and the Sino-Pak agreement on that land given to China clearly indicates that China will have to determine the final status of that land through negotiations with whoever has Kashmir settled in their favor. So it is not by any means a 'give away'.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

ahmeddsid said:


> UN is a FAILURE! Look how many Resolutions Israels Ignored! Look How USA Invaded Iraq! Where was the UN? UN should be dissolved!



The leave the organization - until you do not, you are obligated by the UN charter to implement her resolutions.

The Israelis have ignored UNSC resolutions, and they have been condemned for it and should be condemned for it. They have big brother US backing them up, otherwise they too should have been forced by the international community to withdraw to the 1967 borders.

Unfortunately India has taken the same route as Israel, and chosen to deliberately and blatantly violate her obligations as a UN member, obligations and commitments she agreed to. In both cases it is a sign of an extremely irresponsible nation.

How is Pakistan, or any country, supposed to honor any agreement India makes, when, according to IPF's logic, India should unilaterally reject any agreement or binding contract at any time if she thinks the deal is no longer in her favor. Thugs and criminals operate like that, not responsible nations.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Black Stone said:


> I want to get some clarification, hopefully from a Pakistani. My question is the land ceded to China...was that a "gift" or Pakistan returned it to the Chinese because that part was historically Chinese territory? or another reason.
> 
> The reason I ask this is because I was told two versions. One was "gift" the other was "return".


 The answer can be had from the treaty. China woudl have to open negotiations on the final status of that land after the Kashmir dispute was resolved.



> Article 6
> The two parties have agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan
> and India, the sovereign authority concerned will reopen negotiations with the Government of the
> Peoples Republic of China on the boundary as described in Article. Two of the present
> agreement, so as to sign a formal boundary treaty to replace the present agreement, provided
> that in the event of the sovereign authority being Pakistan, the provisions of the present
> agreement and of the aforesaid protocol shall be maintained in the formal boundary treaty to be
> signed between the Peoples Republic of China and Pakistan.


----------



## dabong1

Whats makes me laugh is the pakistanis thinking that by closing the training camps and closing down the kashmir freedom fighters offices,that india was going to come to some sort of compromise on kashmir.
Pakistan thought the UN route would sort the issue out but decades went by and the indians kept stalling or making excuses.
The freedom struggle started and india wanted the pakistanis to stop "cross border terrorism" and only then could india talk about kashmir.
We pakistanis need to understand that the indians will not give 1 inch of kashmir or reach some sort of equal fair deal.
I think we either accept defeat on the issue and get on with life or we arm and support the freedom fighters.
*It must be pure genuis on pakistans side to have got a bus out of the "kashmir peace process" while the indians have had the whole freedom movement infrastructure put on hold or partially dismantled.*


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

indiapakistanfriendship said:


> I agree but then I am asking you what is the penalty we are supposed to pay for our delayed wisdom.
> 
> Does it matter what you think or Pakistan Governemnt thinks?


Agreements and commitments stand for something - your logic at this point is that India should unilaterally reject any agreement or commitment at any time if it thinks that doing so is in its favor. Why should any country trust India's word or her commitments to honor her agreements then, since you will back out and run whenever you feel like it?

This is not what the GoP or I think, it is an established principle of doing business and dealing with each other, people, businesses or nations. Entities must honor their agreements or the law of the jungle takes hold.


> Did I say otherwise, but then it is coming from Pakistan who conveniently recognised Taliban governmnt which incidentally was not recognised by the UN. The point is the penalty you needed to pay was less .


Where in the UN charter are restrictions placed on which governments should be recognized? 


> Who said the geographical land mass called Kashmir was the destiny of Kashmiris themselves.


Any territory is the destiny of the people who inhabit it, otherwise the struggle against the British in the subcontinent was pointless as well.


> Somrthing that was done under the influence and pressure of the British.


No - it was a completely moral and valid decision to allow the people of any disputed state to choose their final status. The choice of the people is after all what led to the struggle for independence from the British - to argue against that very principle in the case of the Kashmiris would have been hypocritical, and India and Pakistan agreed to it. 

If you think it was under duress, then take it to the ICJ and prove your case and nullify the agreement on partition, until then it stands.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dabong1

The only way forward in kashmir is the freedom struggle........a kashmiri version of Hezbollah-Hamas is what is needed.
A true jihad in kashmir will pull people away from the pakistan "taliban" and into the ranks of a kashmir Hezbollah.
If we are going to negotiate anything on kashmir it has to be at the point of a sword.

Have any of the compromises pakistan made during musharaff rule strengthened our postion in kashmir or yeilded any postive results in regard to setting kashmir free?
We set about stopping kashmiri freedom fighters from crosssing the LoC while the indians went full thrust ahead with building new bunkers,fences ect along the LoC.

We can quote all UN resolutions we want but the only way we are going to get kashmir is by supporting the freedon movement.
If we are not going to follow the path of jihad in kashmir then why cant we just accept that we have lost kashmir and get on with merging AJK into the federation.


----------



## Vinod2070

> Have any of the compromises pakistan made during musharaff rule strengthened our postion in kashmir or yeilded any postive results in regard to setting kashmir free?
> We set about stopping kashmiri freedom fighters from crosssing the LoC while the indians went full thrust ahead with building new bunkers,fences ect along the LoC.



Did the terror for the previous decades bring any positive result?

Don't you think any such move will not result in retribution and may be the declaration of Pakistan as a state supporter of terror with disastrous consequences?

Do you even care about that!


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> Did the terror for the previous decades bring any positive result?
> 
> Don't you think any such move will not result in retribution and may be the declaration of Pakistan as a state supporter of terror with disastrous consequences?
> 
> Do you even care about that!



Not that I am advocating it, but that would depend upon which groups Pakistan was supporting. Some Kashmiri groups were declared terrorist organizations because of high profile attacks on Western civilians. There are other Kashmiri groups fighting occupation that have not been declared terrorist organizations because they have not targeted civilians.

I would not advocate active support, but at the same time I would not dismantle any of the groups that have not been black listed like the JuD and LeT have.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rajk20002002

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Not that I am advocating it, but that would depend upon which groups Pakistan was supporting. Some Kashmiri groups were declared terrorist organizations because of high profile attacks on Western civilians. There are other Kashmiri groups fighting occupation that have not been declared terrorist organizations because they have not targeted civilians.
> 
> I would not advocate active support, but at the same time I would not dismantle any of the groups that have not been black listed like the JuD and LeT have.



Human brain is very fertile. Mind of a mob works very differently than the minds of individuals. My personal conviction is that ,leave aside any miracle, Pakistan and India will keep fighting for generations to come. Neither country is going to give up her stated position. If at all there is a solution, only one I can think of;

Make borders irrelevent so that people can travel, trade and do any lawful activity on either side. I am extremely doubtful that by force or through Jihad, Pakistan can capture Kashmir. However, there are vested interests and solving this issue does is not in their interest. Keeping Kashmir on boil is a big time industry now and many people are living on this. Think of them if Kashmir issue is solved.. They will be all displaced...LOL

RK


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

rajk20002002 said:


> Human brain is very fertile. Mind of a mob works very differently than the minds of individuals. My personal conviction is that ,leave aside any miracle, Pakistan and India will keep fighting for generations to come. Neither country is going to give up her stated position. If at all there is a solution, only one I can think of;
> 
> Make borders irrelevent so that people can travel, trade and do any lawful activity on either side. I am extremely doubtful that by force or through Jihad, Pakistan can capture Kashmir. However, there are vested interests and solving this issue does is not in their interest. Keeping Kashmir on boil is a big time industry now and many people are living on this. Think of them if Kashmir issue is solved.. They will be all displaced...LOL
> 
> RK


I do not think Pakistan ever expected the insurgency to 'win Kashmir'. The whole point of the insurgency was to have a bargaining chip to get India to the negotiations table, since she chose to unilaterally walk away from her obligations under the UN and refused to settle the dispute.

In fact, my opinion is that India's lack of cooperation and wild demands from Pakistan, some of which have little to do with the Mumbai attacks, are designed to get Pakistan to act against the entire Kashmiri movement, instead of just the LeT and JuD.

Think about it, Pakistan has raided and shut down the camps and assets of bth organizations, and arrested the senior leadership, along with dozens of other members, including almost all of the LeT/JuD suspects in the Mumbai attacks, yet India says that Pakistan is not doing enough against the 'infrastructure of terrorists'.

So what infrastructure is India talking about, when the infrastructure of the JuD/LeT has been seized? It is of course the rest of the Freedom fighters, whose who haven't been labeled 'terrorist' by the UN, that India wants taken down.

The solution is easy, it was agreed to by both sides, it is to allow the people of Kashmir to choose in a plebiscite their destiny. All it requires from India is respect for her obligations and international commitments. Is she a mature and responsible nation, or just another thug drunk on power, and bent upon usurping whatever she can by hook or crook. So far the evidence points to the latter.


----------



## roopesh

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> So what infrastructure is India talking about, when the infrastructure of the JuD/LeT has been seized? It is of course the rest of the Freedom fighters, whose who haven't been labeled 'terrorist' by the UN, that India wants taken down..



Indian target "audience" in this case is ppl fight against indian govt who get trained on pakistan soil. If LET may be pakistani or not is not important and GOP cant do anything. But If he gets tranined about terror activities inside pakistan its not good and GOP should take action. Thats all India demanding.

And about freedom fighters who are they? Why they are crossing borders everyday? Are they kashmiris? Dont give reason that they are coming to protect muslims? So much going on gaza not even single person firing against them. 



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The solution is easy, it was agreed to by both sides, it is to allow the people of Kashmir to choose in a plebiscite their destiny.



What do you mean by people of kashmir? Thousands of hindu families vacated kashmir. Today we can count kashmir pandits in theat region. The real kashmir ppl wont live there. If pakistan wants the ppl let them announce citizenship. We welcome that. But not even a inch of kashmir land goes to otherside. All pakistan fav ppl are more than wecome to relocate.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

roopesh said:


> And about freedom fighters who are they? Why they are crossing borders everyday? Are they kashmiris? Dont give reason that they are coming to protect muslims? So much going on gaza not even single person firing against them.


They are Kashmiris and those who support the Kashmiris right to self determination, as guaranteed to them by the UNSC resolutions and agreed to by India.



> What do you mean by people of kashmir? Thousands of hindu families vacated kashmir. Today we can count kashmir pandits in theat region. The real kashmir ppl wont live there. If pakistan wants the ppl let them announce citizenship. We welcome that. But not even a inch of kashmir land goes to otherside. All pakistan fav ppl are more than wecome to relocate.



Certainly repatriate them back to Kahsmir, or with the assistance of the UN take the referendum ballots to the families in India and have them fill them out. Census numbers on how many Hindu pandits lived in teh valley and how many left the valley exist. Let me know if you think that makes a difference with respect to the overall population, which remains heavily Muslim.

Your nation, as already pointed out, has made an international commitment under both the instrument of partition and the UNSC resolutions. Those commitments require a plebiscite. As a member of the UN you have to implement your commitments, otherwise India is just a thief and thug nation.


----------



## rajk20002002

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I do not think Pakistan ever expected the insurgency to 'win Kashmir'. The whole point of the insurgency was to have a bargaining chip to get India to the negotiations table, since she chose to unilaterally walk away from her obligations under the UN and refused to settle the dispute.
> 
> In fact, my opinion is that India's lack of cooperation and wild demands from Pakistan, some of which have little to do with the Mumbai attacks, are designed to get Pakistan to act against the entire Kashmiri movement, instead of just the LeT and JuD.
> 
> Think about it, Pakistan has raided and shut down the camps and assets of bth organizations, and arrested the senior leadership, along with dozens of other members, including almost all of the LeT/JuD suspects in the Mumbai attacks, yet India says that Pakistan is not doing enough against the 'infrastructure of terrorists'.
> 
> So what infrastructure is India talking about, when the infrastructure of the JuD/LeT has been seized? It is of course the rest of the Freedom fighters, whose who haven't been labeled 'terrorist' by the UN, that India wants taken down.
> 
> The solution is easy, it was agreed to by both sides, it is to allow the people of Kashmir to choose in a plebiscite their destiny. All it requires from India is respect for her obligations and international commitments. Is she a mature and responsible nation, or just another thug drunk on power, and bent upon usurping whatever she can by hook or crook. So far the evidence points to the latter.



I quite agree with you. Truth mai be somewhere in between. We may not be as correct as we are made to think and vice verse. I know for sure that governments can not control everything anywhere. At best they can monitor. Right in the centre of India, where there is no international border, there are decoits of Chambal. They have been operating there for 100s of years. There are bollywood movies on many of them. In fact many of them play very active roles in Indian politics. Whole issue is of perception and mental resolve. Till there are people on either side who feel in a particular way, there is very little governments can do. I can understand Pakistani emotions on Kashmir. Only way of solving any conflict is give and take so that people don't feel let down on either side. If people on either side feel let down, any agreement will become nul and void. This is why I say that we have to come with a solution which is acceptable to all sides. India will never leave Kashmir, irrespective of any logic from other side and vice verse. This where the leadership come into picture, Between them they have to agree, what they can sell to trheir respective sides. Once they agree, they have to bring their people on board. Once people buy the logic, only then one can say that there is durable solution. 

RK


----------



## rahgup

My solution:


----------



## roopesh

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> They are Kashmiris and those who support the Kashmiris right to self determination, as guaranteed to them by the UNSC resolutions and agreed to by India..



I will end by debate(after this post) on this for two reasons..One is ur super mod ...(dont mess around guy) and second kashmir is ever hot...

Why pakistan allowing these ppl to cross border at first place? U mean pakistan support these ppl to cross border and fight against indian troop? 




AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Your nation, as already pointed out, has made an international commitment under both the instrument of partition and the UNSC resolutions. Those commitments require a plebiscite. As a member of the UN you have to implement your commitments, otherwise India is just a thief and thug nation.



First comes national interst sir. UN is not something going justice to every country. See whats happening in Gaza. Today the &**(&*( UN president issued one statement and kept quite. All other muslim leaders are sitting happily at home. Iran ship has been stopped to provide basic things for victims..UN not even bothers to send the NGO group with all first aids. Did u watch those videos and photos...my god...i never wish even to visit that place...UN is just one fu^%ing place.


----------



## TOPGUN

rahgup said:


> My solution:



Ain't happening your solution which this map is drawn all so wrong lol  hence funny to see most of the kashmir u still taking to India WONT HAPPEN !!


----------



## roopesh

rahgup said:


> My solution:



sir ur super! pls post your address along with the map. many ppl are waiting for ur grand DARSHANAM (to meet with u)...what a solution you found..ppl were just waiting for this map ever since 1947!!! 
Yeah this map will do


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I do not think Pakistan ever expected the insurgency to 'win Kashmir'. *The whole point of the insurgency was to have a bargaining chip to get India to the negotiations table*, since she chose to unilaterally walk away from her obligations under the UN and refused to settle the dispute.



General Zia was certainly not thinking only of that when he launched his beloved "Operation Topac".

The purpose was to wrest Kashmir always and later on it was used as a means to bleed India through the "thousand cut policy".

Operation Topac



> *Operation Topac*
> 
> A presentation by General Zia in April 1988 in a ISI (Inter Service Intelligence Services, Pakistan's military intelligence agency)
> Gentlemen, I have spoken on this subject at length before, therefore, I will knock out the details. As you know due to our pre-occupation in Afghanistan, in the service of Islam, I have not been able to put these plans before you earlier. Let there be no mistake, however, that our aim remains quite clear and firm-the liberation of Kashmir Valley - our Muslim Kashmiri brethren in the valley cannot be allowed to stay on with India for any length of time now. In the past we had opted for hamhanded military options and, therefare, failed. So, as I have mentioned before, we now keep our military option for the last moment as a coup de grace, if and when necessary. Our Kashmiri brethren in the valley, though with us in their hearts and minds are simple-minded folk and do not easily take to the type of warfare to which, say a Punjabi or an Afghan takes to naturally, against foreign domination. The Kashmiris however have a few qualities which we can exploit. First, his shrewdness and intelligence; second, his power to preservere under pressure; and the third, if I may say so, he is a master of political intrigue. If we provide him means through which he can best utilize these qualities- he will deliver the goods. Sheer brute force is in any case not needed in every type of warfare, especially so in the situation obtaining in the Kashmir valley, as I have explained earlier.
> 
> Here we must adopt those methods of combat which Kashmiri mind can grasp and cope with in other words, a coordinated use of moral and physical means other than military operations, which will destroy the will of the enemy, damage his political capacity and expose him to the world as an oppressor. This aim, Gentlemen, shall be achieved in the initial phases.
> 
> In the first phase, which may, if necessary last, a couple of years we will assist our Kashmiri brethren in getting hold of the power apparatus of the State by political subversion and intrigue. I would like to mention here that as no Government can survive in Occupied Kashmir unless it has tacit approval of Delhi, it would be unrealistic to believe that the MUF or any such organization can seize power through democratic or other means. In view of this, power must "apparently" remain with those whom New Delhi favors. We must therefore ensure that certain "favored politicians" from the ruling elite be selected who would colloborate with us in subverting all effective organs of the State. In brief, our plan for Kashmir, which will be code named as "Op Topac" will be as follows:
> Phase 1
> A low-level insurgency against the regime, so that it is under siege, but does not collapse as we would not yet want certral rule imposed by Delhi.
> 
> We plant our chosen men in all the key positions, they will subvert the police force, financial institutions, the communication net work and other important organizations.
> 
> We whip up anti-India feelings amongst the students and peasants, preferably on some religious issues, so that we can enlist their active support for rioting and anti-Government demonstrations.
> 
> Organize and train subversive elements and armed groups with capabilities, initially to deal with paramilitary forces located in the valley.
> 
> Adopt and develop means to cut off lines of communications between Jammu and Kashmir and within Kashmir and Ladakh by stealth, without recourse to force. The road over Zojila upto Kargil and the road over Khardungla should receive special attention.
> 
> In collaboration with Sikh extremists create chaos and terror in Jammu and divert attention from the valley at a critical juncture and discredit the regime even in the Hindu mind.
> 
> Establish virtual control in those parts of Kashmir Valley where the Indian army is not located or deployed. The Southern Kashmir Valley may be one such region.
> Phase 2
> Exert maximum pressure on Siachen, Kargil and Rajuri-Punch sectors to force the Indian army to deploy reserve formations outside the main Kashmir Valley.
> 
> Attack and destroy base depots and HQ located at Srinagar, Pattan, Kupwara, Baramulla and Chowkiwala by covert action at a given time.
> 
> Some Afghan Mujahideen by then settled in Azad Kashmir, will then infiltrate in the pockets with a view to extending areas of our influence. This aspect will require detailed and ingenious planning. The fiasco of Op Gibralter (1965) holds many lessons for us here.
> 
> Finally a Special Force under seleaed retired officers belonging to Azad Kashmir, with the hard core consisting of Afghans, will be ready to attack and destroy airfields, radio stations, block Banihal Tunnel and Kargil-Leh Highway.
> 
> At a certain stage of the operations Punjab and adjacent areas of Jammu and Kashmir will be put under maximum pressure internally by our offensive posture.
> Phase 3
> Detailed plans for the liberation of Kashmir Valley and establishment of an independent Islamic State in the third phase will follow.
> 
> We do not have much time. Maximum pressure must be exerted before the general elections in India and before the Indian Army reserves which are still bogged down in Sri Lanka become available. By the Grace of God, we have managed to accumulate large stocks of modern arms and ammunition from the US consignments intended for Afghan Mujahideen. This will help our Kashmiri brethren achieve their goals. Even if we create a kind of "Azad Kashmir" in some remote parts of Occupied Kashmir as a beginning, the next step may not be as difficult as it appears today. On the other hand, it should also be noted that a part of Indian Army, particularly the Infantry, will be well trained by now for such a situation due to their experience in North Eastern Region and more recently in Sri Lanka. But the situation in Kashmir will be somewhat different; more like the "Infetada" of Palestinians in towns, and on the pattern of Mujahideen in the countryside to attack hard targets. A period of chaos in the State is essential in the circumstances.
> 
> And what about our Chinese friends ? They can do no more than ensure that Indian forces deploys against them are not moved out; but this may be required only at the last or the third stage of our operations. Of course, if we are in a serious trouble, the Chinese and our other powerful friends shall come to our rescue one way or the other. They will ensure that if we do not win - we don't lose.
> 
> Finally, I wish to caution you once more that it will be disastrous to believe that we can take on India in a straight contest. We must therefore, be careful and maintain a low military profile so that the Indians do not find an excuse to preempt us, by attacking at a time and at a point of their own choosing at least before Phase I and 2 of the Operation are over. We must pause and assess the course of operations after each phase, as our strategy and plans may require drastic changes in certain circumstances. I need not emphasize any further that a deliberate and objective assessment of the situation must be ensured at each stage, otherwise a stalemate will follow with no good for Pakistan.
> 
> Pakistan Paindabad.


----------



## rahgup

TOPGUN said:


> Ain't happening your solution which this map is drawn all so wrong lol  hence funny to see most of the kashmir u still talking to India WONT HAPPEN !!



You are entitled to your views, but this map is drawn on some basis. See 50% of Jammu & Kashmir is Ladakh which is 90% Buddhist, so no way they will ever join free kashmir/pakistan. Jammu region is all where Hindus are in a majority. So if you hold a referendum which you keep harping upon, I can guarantee you that Jammu and Ladakh will remain with India. That leaves the muslim majority area of kashmir and northern regions, its debatable whether they want to join Pakistan or be independent but in my experience talking to a few kashmiris most want to be azad and not join Pakistan. 

A Kashmiri's point of view:
The Kashmir Blog: Independence: A viable option


----------



## UnitedPak

rahgup said:


> My solution:



Either the whole region goes independent, or none of it.

What makes you think Muslim people of Baltistan, Kargil and Ladakh have any wish to join India?

There is simply no point making assumptions. Regional Plebiscites, or even District wise Plebiscites need to be held.

That is the only fair solution.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## UnitedPak

rahgup said:


> You are entitled to your views, but this map is drawn on some basis. See 50% of Jammu & Kashmir is Ladakh which is 90% Buddhist, so no way they will ever join free kashmir/pakistan. Jammu region is all where Hindus are in a majority. So if you hold a referendum which you keep harping upon, I can guarantee you that Jammu and Ladakh will remain with India. That leaves the muslim majority area of kashmir and northern regions, its debatable whether they want to join Pakistan or be independent but in my experience talking to a few kashmiris most want to be azad and not join Pakistan.
> 
> A Kashmiri's point of view:
> The Kashmir Blog: Independence: A viable option



You are wrong here:

Kargil district used to be part of Baltistan. Both regions are Muslim majority. Ladakh is said to be 50% Muslim.

But like I said, there is no point arguing about this. The only way of making sure is to hold the referendum.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod, what is the original source for that?


----------



## Vinod2070

^^ The link is there above the article this time. For a change.


----------



## rahgup

UnitedPak said:


> Either the whole region goes independent, or none of it.
> 
> What makes you think Muslim people of Baltistan, Kargil and Ladakh have any wish to join India?
> 
> There is simply no point making assumptions. Regional Plebiscites, or even District wise Plebiscites need to be held.
> 
> That is the only fair solution.



Exactly my point, a regional plebiscite needs to be done which will result in my map. You can go further and conduct even sub-division wise pleblicite. Maybe then Baltistan and Kargil will go to Independent Kashmir/Pakistan. Ladakh will always vote with India. Anyways what I fail to understand is your point _'Either the whole region goes independent, or none of it.'_ Kindly enlighten us on this statement...


----------



## UnitedPak

rahgup said:


> Exactly my point, a regional plebiscite needs to be done which will result in my map. You can go further and conduct even sub-division wise pleblicite. Maybe then Baltistan and Kargil will go to Independent Kashmir/Pakistan. Ladakh will always vote with India. Anyways what I fail to understand is your point _'Either the whole region goes independent, or none of it.'_ Kindly enlighten us on this statement...



Well its a good thing we agree on the UN plebiscite. That would be the democratic way.

The whole point of the plebiscite would be not to assume what people want, and end up treating them unfairly. So I wont contribute to the assumptions of who Ladakhis would vote for. Let the votes do the talking.

Regarding my comment: It is not economically feasible for only Kashmir valley to gain independence. If that state wants independence, they need all the regions to gain independence together so a strong country can be formed. 
A tiny area like Kashmir valley cant be made into a nation while landlocked by 4 nuclear powers. Its unlikely to happen because of religious tensions between the people.

The other reason would be the lesson we supposedly learnt from history. When Pakistan and India gained independence, they hated the guts of each other. We cant add another nation to this childish game, especially not one that is so vulnerable as Kashmir.

Besides, the UN only gave them two options of India or Pakistan.

However if there is a popular demand by the whole province to want independence, then it would be foolish to hold on to them since this is a matter still unresolved from the colonial era.


----------



## rahgup

One question to all my Pakistani brothers: there are 150 million muslims in India out of which only 6-7 million are in Kashmir. We consider all 150 million to be our brothers. So how come you care about only this small portion. If pakistan was built for all the muslims of British raj you have failed in your purpose. Pakistan's case is built on a self serving land grabbing attitude. Even if kashmir was independent I'm sure you would attack and conquer it. I also must say that not treating other religions with respect is the cause for trouble. Only Turkey is one country where all religions are treated with respect. Why should a Hindu/Christian in Pakistan be subject to sharia law?


----------



## TOPGUN

rahgup said:


> One question to all my Pakistani brothers: there are 150 million muslims in India out of which only 6-7 million are in Kashmir. We consider all 150 million to be our brothers. So how come you care about only this small portion. If pakistan was built for all the muslims of British raj you have failed in your purpose. Pakistan's case is built on a self serving land grabbing attitude. Even if kashmir was independent I'm sure you would attack and conquer it. I also must say that not treating other religions with respect is the cause for trouble. Only Turkey is one country where all religions are treated with respect. Why should a Hindu/Christian in Pakistan be subject to sharia law?



First of my friend regardless of religon u are all are welcome here ok first things if kashmir was independent Pak will attack it and conquer it lol u are in lalaland my friend so call bro! if anything is your so call mother land India who is killing people there everyday and trying to gain land and not allowing people there to breathe never less live ! again it takes two hands clap iam sure Pak has its on interest in region hence u state Pak has prob's in within the country with hindus,christian or u forgot let me add parsi and sikh's as well they are all happy and love there country Pakistan unlike stories i hear about muslims in India so plzz u are passing the line stay in it & we all can have a peaceful time here think before u speak ! stop this damn rubish!! wana show hate go somewhere else


----------



## rahgup

UnitedPak said:


> Well its a good thing we agree on the UN plebiscite. That would be the democratic way.
> 
> The whole point of the plebiscite would be not to assume what people want, and end up treating them unfairly. So I wont contribute to the assumptions of who Ladakhis would vote for. Let the votes do the talking.
> 
> Regarding my comment: It is not economically feasible for only Kashmir valley to gain independence. If that state wants independence, they need all the regions to gain independence together so a strong country can be formed.
> A tiny area like Kashmir valley cant be made into a nation while landlocked by 4 nuclear powers. Its unlikely to happen because of religious tensions between the people.
> 
> The other reason would be the lesson we supposedly learnt from history. When Pakistan and India gained independence, they hated the guts of each other. We cant add another nation to this childish game, especially not one that is so vulnerable as Kashmir.
> 
> Besides, the UN only gave them two options of India or Pakistan.
> 
> However if there is a popular demand by the whole province to want independence, then it would be foolish to hold on to them since this is a matter still unresolved from the colonial era.



I thought the point of this thread was to think of solutions not repeat the statements that our politicians give. What is this BS about Kashmir valley being too small. There are dozens of countries smaller than it. 
Also what you are saying is that either whole of it becomes independent or we maintain the status quo? See practically neither is Pakistan going to give any area under its control to India and vice-versa. They may just consider giving it Independence as this way the other country doesn't gain.


----------



## rahgup

TOPGUN said:


> First of my friend regardless of religon u are all are welcome here ok first things if kashmir was independent Pak will attack it and conquer it lol u are in lalaland my friend so call bro! if anything is your so call mother land India who is killing people there everyday and trying to gain land and not allowing people there to breathe never less live ! again it takes two hands clap iam sure Pak has its on interest in region hence u state Pak has prob's in within the country with hindus,christian or u forgot let me add parsi and sikh's as well they are all happy and love there country Pakistan unlike stories i hear about muslims in India so plzz u are passing the line stay in it & we all can have a peaceful time here think before u speak ! stop this damn rubish!! wana show hate go somewhere else



I'm just trying to find a solution! I think if you read all my posts above it, i'm more open minded than most. Sorry for hurting your feelings. What i'm trying to understand is why should countries be identified by religion? And you answered it yourself, hindus in pakistan love their country, can't you accept that muslims in india may love their country? If you live in the USA, don't you love the USA. I feel Kashmir valley should be independent, because they want to be, thats all. Pakistanis should not pretend that they speak for all muslims of the subcontinent!


----------



## UnitedPak

rahgup said:


> I thought the point of this thread was to think of solutions not repeat the statements that our politicians give. What is this BS about Kashmir valley being too small. There are dozens of countries smaller than it.
> Also what you are saying is that either whole of it becomes independent or we maintain the status quo? See practically neither is Pakistan going to give any area under its control to India and vice-versa. They may just consider giving it Independence as this way the other country doesn't gain.



This is not about which countries gain. This is about the will of the people of Kashmir.
I do realise that the Kashmir plebiscite would be very uncertain for India because of the majority Muslim population, but this is the democratic way of life. And since we Pakistanis love everything democracy, we wouldn't settle for anything less than democracy when dealing with the worlds biggest democracy.

After all we are the worlds 5th biggest democracy and we have a reputation to uphold.

I would suggest you look up Pakistans democratic record in a little case called Junagadh. This case involved a Muslim ruler with a Hindu majority state. The ruler voted to accede to Pakistan, India caused trouble, and a plebiscite happened in this case because Pakistan could not bear the thought of the Hindu people of Junagadh losing their right to self determination.

There you have it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rajk20002002

UnitedPak said:


> This is not about which countries gain. This is about the will of the people of Kashmir.
> I do realise that the Kashmir plebiscite would be very uncertain for India because of the majority Muslim population, but this is the democratic way of life. And since we Pakistanis love everything democracy, we wouldn't settle for anything less than democracy when dealing with the worlds biggest democracy.
> 
> After all we are the worlds 5th biggest democracy and we have a reputation to uphold.
> 
> I would suggest you look up Pakistans democratic record in a little case called Junagadh. This case involved a Muslim ruler with a Hindu majority state. The ruler voted to accede to Pakistan, India caused trouble, and a plebiscite happened in this case because Pakistan could not bear the thought of the Hindu people of Junagadh losing their right to self determination.
> 
> There you have it.



Let me ask you few counter questions;

1. Was there any plebiscite in India when Pakistan was created ?
2. If muslims could rule majority Hindu nation for 100s of years, why can't it be other way?
3. As per one of pakistani site (http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/muhajirs.html) majority of muslims came to India in search of jobs. As per this site very few are the local converts. If that is the case, why shouldn't these people put claims in their own original countries ?

We can go on putting claims and counter claims. Its not going to help till we come out with a solution which is acceptable to all sides and is implementable.

RK


----------



## rahgup

UnitedPak said:


> This is not about which countries gain. This is about the will of the people of Kashmir.
> I do realise that the Kashmir plebiscite would be very uncertain for India because of the majority Muslim population, but this is the democratic way of life. And since we Pakistanis love everything democracy, we wouldn't settle for anything less than democracy when dealing with the worlds biggest democracy.
> 
> After all we are the worlds 5th biggest democracy and we have a reputation to uphold.
> 
> I would suggest you look up Pakistans democratic record in a little case called Junagadh. This case involved a Muslim ruler with a Hindu majority state. The ruler voted to accede to Pakistan, India caused trouble, and a plebiscite happened in this case because Pakistan could not bear the thought of the Hindu people of Junagadh losing their right to self determination.
> 
> There you have it.



Interesting example of Junagadh. Thanks for the information, I didn't know a referendum was held there. But one key point to note: the referendum was held under Indian control. I'm not sure if Pakistan controlled the area the referendum would have taken place. We have already agreed that a region/district wise referendum should be held. The point is can this be a reality? How can you ensure that this referendum ever takes place. 

The point of Pakistan being a democracy makes me smile, you've been democratic for 2 years in the past decade. If Pakistani's themselves cannot choose their government and let your army conduct a coup every few years, its difficult to believe your sincerity. Democracy has to be protected by citizens blood.

Do read this kashmiri blog:
http://kashmir-truth-be-told.blogspot.com/2008/08/independence-viable-option.html


----------



## rahgup

UnitedPak said:


> I would suggest you look up Pakistans democratic record in a little case called Junagadh. This case involved a Muslim ruler with a Hindu majority state. The ruler voted to accede to Pakistan, India caused trouble, and a plebiscite happened in this case because Pakistan could not bear the thought of the Hindu people of Junagadh losing their right to self determination.
> 
> There you have it.



Some more facts:
NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Indian Integration of Junagadh


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

rajk20002002 said:


> Let me ask you few counter questions;
> 
> 1. Was there any plebiscite in India when Pakistan was created ?
> 2. If muslims could rule majority Hindu nation for 100s of years, why can't it be other way?
> 3. As per one of pakistani site (http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/muhajirs.html) majority of muslims came to India in search of jobs. As per this site very few are the local converts. If that is the case, why shouldn't these people put claims in their own original countries ?
> 
> We can go on putting claims and counter claims. Its not going to help till we come out with a solution which is acceptable to all sides and is implementable.
> 
> RK



1. Yes - it was through the elections the Muslims league and like minded parties won. Baluchistan and FATA had Jirga's determine their final status, and NWFP had a full fledged referendum.

2. Its not about Muslims ruling Hindus or Hindus ruling Muslims, its about the various peoples of a territory united by the occupying British, to determine their destiny and decide how they want to live it. No one split up India, India and Pakistan were both created out of multiple Kingdoms, princely states and peoples occupied by the British, some of whom decided to join India, and others Pakistan, with Kashmir still unresolved.

3. No clue about that site and this 'Muslims came to India as immigrants'. You should ask the Muslims in India that question. They are India's responsibility. We are concerned about the Kashmiris, who I believe have inhabited the region for a long time.

A district-wise referendum is implementable in my opinion, that way Hindu/Buddhist majority areas do not have to go with Pakistan, if they choose.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

rahgup said:


> The point is can this be a reality? How can you ensure that this referendum ever takes place.



The referendum should take place with both sides agreeing in the UNSC to abide by the results of a UN held and monitored referendum in Kashmir, and withdraw troops from geographically contiguous districts that choose the other nation, immediately after the results are validated by the UN and international community.

This would ensure that neither country has to worry about prematurely withdrawing troops and allowing the other to take control of the territory militarily. Withdrawals would only occur in areas that go to the other side.

The international media, as well as media from both nations should be allowed full presence - blanket the territory with cameras, journalists and monitors from the EU, US, Asia, LA, UN to ensure no skulduggery is contemplated and the process is transparent.

The referendum can be held, what is needed is the will to do it.


----------



## UnitedPak

*The United Nations, India And Kashmir*



> By Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai
> 
> 08 January, 2008
> Countercurrents.org
> 
> If promises are made to be broken, then Kashmir may be summoned to prove the treacherous proposition. Broken promises haunt Kashmir's history, and explain its tragedy.
> 
> *The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) passed a resolution on January 5, 1949 wherein it was agreed that &#8220;the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.&#8221; The resolution was negotiated with both India and Pakistan and accepted by all five members of the Commission, Argentina, Belgium, Columbia, Czechoslovakia and the United States. Professor Joseph Korbel, father of Dr. Madeleine Albright was the Chairman of the Commission at the time.*
> 
> Sir Benegal Rama Rau, the Indian delegate spoke during the 399th meeting of the Security Council on January 13, 1949, &#8220;On behalf of my Government, I can give the assurance that it will not only cooperate to the utmost with the Commission itself towards a settlement in Kashmir, but also with the United Nations in securing peace everywhere, because it believes that this organization offers the only hope for peace for future generations, on a secure basis.&#8221;
> 
> Sir Rau further said at the Security Council on March 1, 1951, &#8220;The people of Kashmir are not mere chattels to be disposed of according to a rigid formula; their future must be decided on their own interest and in accordance with their own desires.&#8221;
> 
> Mr. Setalwad, another Indian delegate spoke during the 572nd meeting of the Security Council on January 31, 1952, &#8220;I was the first to declare that the people of Jammu and Kashmir should freely decide their own future.&#8221;
> 
> India, however, was soon undeceived of its delusions over Kashmir's political yearning. Recognizing that its people would never freely vote accession to India, it contrived excuse after excuse to frustrate a plebiscite.
> 
> With the lapse of British paramountcy on August 14, 1947, broken promises over Kashmir came not like single spies but in battalions, to borrow from Hamlet. Princely states enjoyed three options: accession to India, accession to Pakistan, or independence. *But the choice, according to India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and tacitly endorsed by the British, was to be made by popular referendum in cases where the creed of the ruler varied from the religion of the majority.* *That fundamental democratic principle had been sternly applied by Nehru with military means in Hyderabad and Junagadh where the rulers were Muslim but their inhabitants largely Hindu.* Kashmir presented a converse case: the Maharaja was Hindu but the majority subscribed to Islam.
> *
> On November 2, 1947, Prime Minister Nehru reiterated, &#8220;We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given and the Maharaja supported it, not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it."*
> 
> In recent past, Dr. Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India and General Pervez Musharraf, the President of Pakistan agreed at the United Nations on September 24, 2004 &#8220;to explore all the possible options to settle the issue of Kashmir.&#8221; Then exactly one year later, Prime Minister said at the United Nations on September 16, 2005, &#8220;What I do believe, I have also said that borders cannot be redrawn but we must work together to make borders irrelevant.&#8221; One fails to understand how can you explore all possible options when the only option available is to make borders irrelevant (status quo).
> 
> On September 5, 2005, Dr. Manmohan Singh promised Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Chairman, All Parties Hurriyet Conference that India will have zero tolerance on the human rights violations in Kashmir. Then he responded while replying to a question during a press conference in New York that &#8220;The fact that there is so much of violence (in Kashmir), the fact that cross border infiltration continues, the terrorists are active, does impose some burden on the ordinary citizens.&#8221;
> 
> The train of broken promises over Kashmir might be forgiven if the consequences were innocuous or inconsequential. But I submit the opposite is the case. India exerts an iron-fisted rule over Kashmir. With approximately 700,000 military and paramilitary troops in the territory, gruesome human rights violations are perpetrated with. Torture, rape, plunder, abduction, arson, custodial disappearances, arbitrary detentions, and ruthless suppression of peaceful political dissent have become commonplaces.
> 
> Let us hope that the last promise over Kashmir has been broken.



The United Nations, India And Kashmir By Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## binzaman

*Would like to share a poem in context of indain brutalities in occupied Kashmir*


*Zulm phir zulm hai, bart-ta hai to mitt jata hai
Khun phir khun hai, tapkay ga to jum jaiga *
Cruelty is after all cruelty ----when it inflates, it dissipates,
Blood is after all blood ----- when it drips, it coagulates


*Khak-i-Sehra pay jamay yaa kaf-e-qatil pay jamay
Firq-e-insaaf pay yaa pai-e-silasal pay jamay
Taigh-i-baydad pay, yaa lash-e-bismil pay jamay
Khun phir khun hai, tapkay ga to jum jaiga 
* It may congeal on the desert's chest, or on the murderer's sleeve,
on the faulty scales of justice, or on the links of chains,
on the oppressive sword, or on the slaugheterd corpse,
Blood is after all blood ----- when it drips, it coagulates


*Lakh Bethay koi chup chup key Kami(n) Gaho(n) mei(n)
Khun khud deta hai jalado(n) key maskan ka suragh
Sazishe(n) lakh urati rahei(n) zulmat ka niqaab
Ley key har boond nikati hai hatha
* One may hide in whichever shelter one likes,
blood itself reveals the executioner's hide-out.
Conspiracies may cast around the veil of darkness;
yet, every drop of blood carries its own burning torch.

*Tum ne jis khun ko maktal mei(n) dabana chaha
Aaj wo kucha-o-bazaar mei(n) Aa nikla hai
Kahi(n) Shola, kahi(n) narah, kahi(n) pathar ban ke
Khun chalta hai to rukta nahi(n) Sangeeno se
Sar Uthta hai to dubta nahi(n) Aaeeno(n) se 
* The blood which you tried to suppress in the abattoir,
today has rushed out in the streets and squares ----
as a flame, or battle-cry, or as a stone,
Once blood starts flowing, the bayonets can not restrain it.
Once blood lifts its head, the ordinances can not constrain it.


*Zulm ki baat hi kya, zulm ki Aukaat hi kya
Zulm bass zulm hai Aaghaaz se Anjaam talak
Khun phir khun hai, Soa Shakal Badal Sahta hai
Aisi Shakle(n) kah mitao to mitaye na banay
Aisey Sholey keh Bhujao to bhujao na banay
Aisey Narey keh dabao to dabaye na banay
* What is to be said about cruelty! What is cruelty's nature?
Cruelty is always cruelty--- from its beginning to its end.
Blood is after all blood, it can take so many forms,
forms which cannot be destroyed,
flames which cannot be extinguished,
cries which cannot be silenced.


*Sahir Ludhianvi (1921-80)*


----------



## beetel

I am in favour of refferandum..But Independent kashmir should be a option ..I am not for district wise plebsite as it will create border problems..
At most it can be a region wise plebicite ..
If plebcite is the only solution then India will go for this independent option as it will create a buffer zone..And it is more democratic..

And now comes the problem
what will be the most likely outcome..
let us assume religion plays a part here and kashmiries on Indian side and pakistan side will go for either independence or for pakistan..Here It can be said that majority in jammu and laddakh will go for India or independence(unlikely)

Here The point is if independent kashmir come to existence how much land it will absorb from two countries in current situation..?Are these two countries ready to compromise on these issue?
Finally kashmiriyath can vote for a seperate nation but can it sustain that nation???


----------



## dabong1

beetel said:


> I am in favour of refferandum..But Independent kashmir should be a option ..I am not for district wise plebsite as it will create border problems..
> At most it can be a region wise plebicite ..
> If plebcite is the only solution then India will go for this independent option as it will create a buffer zone..And it is more democratic..
> 
> And now comes the problem
> what will be the most likely outcome..
> let us assume religion plays a part here and kashmiries on Indian side and pakistan side will go for either independence or for pakistan..Here It can be said that majority in jammu and laddakh will go for India or independence(unlikely)
> 
> Here The point is if independent kashmir come to existence how much land it will absorb from two countries in current situation..?Are these two countries ready to compromise on these issue?
> Finally kashmiriyath can vote for a seperate nation but can it sustain that nation???



My god and indian that budged on the issue of kashmir.....hallelujah.

I floated a couple of ideas before that need a bit of workin on but could be achieved.

1.The president of kashmir is rotated every year between the indian and pakistan president.

2.All three flags flown on public buildings.

3.Kashmir to have no military-foreign postions......the kashmiri wishes are represented through the indian-pak embassies.

4.elected memebers of the kashmir parliment are represented in the pak-india parliments.

5.Pakistan pays for the resettling of hindu kashmiri refugees and india pays for the resettling of muslim kashmiri refugees.

6.People with pakistani-indian passports keep the same documentation but are issued a kashmir citizen card.

7.Merge the two police forces.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Salahadin

haha let me end it here Give Kashmir to Pakistan live happy and drink alot of coca cola


----------



## roopesh

Salahadin said:


> haha let me end it here Give Kashmir to Pakistan live happy and drink alot of coca cola



why will india give kashmir to pak? india can control main agriculture of pak from kashmir
see my another post...pak is buying wheat from india...


----------



## beetel

dabong1 said:


> My god and indian that budged on the issue of kashmir.....hallelujah.
> 
> I floated a couple of ideas before that need a bit of workin on but could be achieved.
> 
> 1.The president of kashmir is rotated every year between the indian and pakistan president.
> 
> 2.All three flags flown on public buildings.
> 
> 3.Kashmir to have no military-foreign postions......the kashmiri wishes are represented through the indian-pak embassies.
> 
> 4.elected memebers of the kashmir parliment are represented in the pak-india parliments.
> 
> 5.Pakistan pays for the resettling of hindu kashmiri refugees and india pays for the resettling of muslim kashmiri refugees.
> 
> 6.People with pakistani-indian passports keep the same documentation but are issued a kashmir citizen card.
> 
> 7.Merge the two police forces.



You are pretty optimistic freind..But your above idea is theorytical and practically impossible especially between our countries..As there are a number of sections and number of views..
We are fools if we wont look for after effects of this..
What is its effect on Indian psyche and society..?secularism will loose a limb..
What will be its effect on pakistani society specially in North west frontier...
What purpose will it serve..?
It will make problem complicated than present..


----------



## dabong1

beetel said:


> You are pretty optimistic freind..But your above idea is theorytical and practically impossible especially between our countries..As there are a number of sections and number of views....



If i go of your logic "its theorytical and practically impossible" to turn the LoC into the border or let india annex kashmir from the pakistani perspective.




beetel said:


> We are fools if we wont look for after effects of this..
> What is its effect on Indian psyche and society..?secularism will loose a limb....



We are also fools if we dont look at the effets of the kashmir dipute in the future between pak-india.
I have said that the kashmiris on the indian side of kashmir keep there indan passports and participate in the the indian election...how will this effect your secularism?
The kashmiris on the pakistani side of kashmir participate in the pakistani election.The peole of kasmir also have kashmir specfic elections where non military-foreign issues are debated.




beetel said:


> What will be its effect on pakistani society specially in North west frontier.....



If the kashmir issue is fudged in such a way that the indians think they have won,the pakistanis think they have won and the kashmiris think they have won it will only have a postive effect for all.
I could ask you the question what efect would it have indian society especially in the Hindu right wing states......with the kashmir issue solved would these parties have the excuse of anti muslim-pakistani rallying call .




beetel said:


> What purpose will it serve..?
> It will make problem complicated than present..



Nothing more then indian excuses to get nothing done on kashmir.....if its not one thing its another.

You have to understand that each time pakistan try to move on the issue the indians somehow derail or start asking for preconditions to be forfilled.

I know the indians are never going to to come to a fair compromise on kashmir and the only forward is jihad.
Pakistan needs to train and arm a kashmiri hezbollah that can take the fight to the indians.
This would also be a solution for pakistan fighting in the NWFP , fighters can be drained away from mehsud and co end send into kashmir......This will sort two of pakistans headaches out as it stops fighters from crossing into afghanistan and stops attacks on pak military, instead these guys are sent to kashmir to fight the indian army. 

Its been under a decade pakistan has been trying to come to sort of peacfull settlement with india but nothing.......you wanted the stopping of "cross border movement" which pakistan did but with no major reward.
We need to fight for kashmir as the dialogue has bought nothing but a bus.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## beetel

dabong1 said:


> If i go of your logic "its theorytical and practically impossible" to turn the LoC into the border or let india annex kashmir from the pakistani perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are also fools if we dont look at the effets of the kashmir dipute in the future between pak-india.
> I have said that the kashmiris on the indian side of kashmir keep there indan passports and participate in the the indian election...how will this effect your secularism?
> The kashmiris on the pakistani side of kashmir participate in the pakistani election.The peole of kasmir also have kashmir specfic elections where non military-foreign issues are debated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the kashmir issue is fudged in such a way that the indians think they have won,the pakistanis think they have won and the kashmiris think they have won it will only have a postive effect for all.
> I could ask you the question what efect would it have indian society especially in the Hindu right wing states......with the kashmir issue solved would these parties have the excuse of anti muslim-pakistani rallying call .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing more then indian excuses to get nothing done on kashmir.....if its not one thing its another.
> 
> You have to understand that each time pakistan try to move on the issue the indians somehow derail or start asking for preconditions to be forfilled.
> 
> I know the indians are never going to to come to a fair compromise on kashmir and the only forward is jihad.
> Pakistan needs to train and arm a kashmiri hezbollah that can take the fight to the indians.
> This would also be solution for pakistan fighting in the NWFP where fighters are drained away from mehsud and co end send into kashmir......This will sort two of pakistans headaches out as it stops fighters from crossing into afghanistan and stops attacks on pak military instead these guys are sent to kashmir to fight the indian army.
> 
> Its been under a decade pakistan has been trying to come to sort of peacfull settlement with india but nothing.......you wanted the stopping of "cross border movement" which pakistan did but with no major reward.
> We need to fight for kashmir as the dialogue has bought nothing but a bus.



this comp erased everything..
any way first of all make yourself clear what will be your aproach and then it will be a fruitful disscussion..
After studying history of our ancestors I came to a conclusion that peace is nothing but a brief period between two wars ..Whatever the forms of these wars but are still relevant today and for future also..So we are ready for both freind and foe out of pakistan
But I feel that coming time will be that period of peace..I hope I am right..otherwise there is a proverb "blood never sleeps"..You shed it ones it will take some more and process continues..


----------



## dabong1

beetel said:


> this comp erased everything..
> any way first of all make yourself clear what will be your aproach and then it will be a fruitful disscussion..



I think the best thing to do first is to see where we stand on the kashmir issue.
Where do you stand on the kashmir issue.....should pak-india make the LoC the border....should there be a UN referendum in kashmir ect.
Where do you stand?


----------



## beetel

dabong1 said:


> I think the best thing to do first is to see where we stand on the kashmir issue.
> Where do you stand on the kashmir issue.....should pak-india make the LoC the border....should there be a UN referendum in kashmir ect.
> Where do you stand?


My personal opinion is If there are people who want to be part of pakistan ,are allowed their way ..And people who are proud in their country colour should be retained as Indians..and vice versa..
Now problem is of settlement of these kashmiries..It may be so 
done that India should hand over one or two districts which supports life more and geographycally well suited for life..In return India should get same quantity of land which have no population from other part of kashmir ..In other words LOC can be changed in to border with some give and take...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

beetel said:


> My personal opinion is If there are people who want to be part of pakistan ,are allowed their way ..And people who are proud in their country colour should be retained as Indians..and vice versa..
> Now problem is of settlement of these kashmiries..It may be so
> done that India should hand over one or two districts which supports life more and geographycally well suited for life..In return India should get same quantity of land which have no population from other part of kashmir ..In other words LOC can be changed in to border with some give and take...



So this is just about more land for India? You couldn't have shown your disdain for the democratic process and the promises to the Kashmiri people any better than you just did.

Their should be a plebiscite held in all of Kashmir, and the people should vote for which country they want to join. *But knowing that the people of Pakistani Kashmir wouldn't vote for India, would you still demand their land?*

There is something really unsettling about your views. 

Kashmir belongs to Kashmiris and no one else. Remember this the next time you mock Kashmiris right to their own lands.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## beetel

*


UnitedPak said:



So this is just about more land for India? You couldn't have shown your disdain for the democratic process and the promises to the Kashmiri people any better than you just did.

Click to expand...

*


UnitedPak said:


> You are not enough matured ..Or dont want to mature.
> We have a proverb in hindi "ulta chor kothwaal ko daante"
> Have yo read my post carefully please tell me where I said more land to India..?
> *
> Their should be a plebiscite held in all of Kashmir, and the people should vote for which country they want to join. But knowing that the people of Pakistani Kashmir wouldn't vote for India, would you still demand their land?*
> 
> 
> This is another heap of bullshit.There will be no loss of territorry for them on the oppositte they will get very good land against those unhibited land .Did they voted for china??
> 
> Fate of land given to China to be decided: *** PM[/B]
> 
> *There is something really unsettling about your views.
> 
> Kashmir belongs to Kashmiris and no one else. Remember this the next time you mock Kashmiris right to their own lands.*
> 
> If you have any genuine concern for those kashmiries you shouldnt have had any objection in what I expressed earlier...Oh I forgot dear You have a big concern over land also ..
> Now it became very complicated..
> what else .I am afraid our peace process cant come more farther than this.
> p.s:I hate hypocrites


----------



## dabong1

beetel said:


> My personal opinion is If there are people who want to be part of pakistan ,are allowed their way ..And people who are proud in their country colour should be retained as Indians..and vice versa..
> Now problem is of settlement of these kashmiries..It may be so
> done that India should hand over one or two districts which supports life more and geographycally well suited for life..In return India should get same quantity of land which have no population from other part of kashmir ..In other words LOC can be changed in to border with some give and take...



What about if india keeps jammu-ladkha and pakstan keeeps NA.....we merge the valley with AJK and have joint pak-indian administration over the area.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beetel

dabong1 said:


> What about if india keeps jammu-ladkha and pakstan keeeps NA.....we merge the valley with AJK and have joint pak-indian administration over the area.



I appreciate your genuine concern for kashmiries...
IndiaS only concern is if the area demilitarised it can be a breeding ground for terrorist to attack india..Now dont tell me once kashmir dispute settled terrorist wont have any reason to attack India..
Whatever may be the outcome each and every step which will be taken should bring peace and prosperity to long suffered kashmiri people..They are really peace starved people...
Dispute is in its last leg..


----------



## civfanatic

roopesh said:


> First let me ask one question to pak frens for my better understanding. OK. Kashmir is a land with dispute. Both pakistan and India want that area.
> Pakistan claiming that India is illtreating kashmir ppl there and ppl of kashmir wants to be in pakistan so it should come to pakistan as you care of kashmir muslim. is this correct???
> How about Hindu kashmir ppl? Do pakistan interst in their welfare too...Did pakistan protested when they got killed....???
> 
> Next will pakistan offer free citizenship/employement etc facilites to kashmir ppl so if kashmir ppl fed up with india can move to pakistan and live there??? This ensures pakistan not looking for land but cares for ppl.
> 
> Second why did pakistan gave a big part of kashmir to China...is it to impress them? or is to increase tension in the area by brining them in. Do you support that?
> 
> kashmir is very important geological place. Loosing it is against interst of India. We have rivers there so that bilateral relation with pakistan can be maintained. Its closer to russia and by allowing kashmir to pakistan delhi would be in big danger. So no matter what ever ppl tell about kashmir it will be with india. We will try to help kashmir ppl as much we can. May be it will take 1-2 generations for complete peace. but no compramise on this.



Why would Kashmiris leave there land because a wanabe superpower is obstinate and has employed every deceitful trick and limitless violence to perpetuate its illegitimate occupation of our land. We will never leave Kashmir, we will fight for our land, we will die for it but we will never leave it. we will never allow you to declare victory.
We kashmiris have made hundred thousand sacrifices in past twenty years for our freedom and in future you will find us ever ready for more .When we say we want Pakistan we say that we want every bit of kashmir to be pakistan .We want every river, every village ,every mountain to be pakistan . 
The sad truth for you is is that New Delhi's moral isolation from the Kashmiri people is total and irreversible. Its moral isolation on Kashmir is nearly total, and unlikely to be overcome by military means or political manipulation. New Delhi commands not a shred of legitimacy among Kashmiri Muslims. India's standing in Kashmir appears untenable. Stop being delusional and face reality .we would never leave Kashmir for Pakistan but will make Kashmir Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## tambaramblog

binzaman said:


> Dear Brothers!
> 
> Its your perception that terror will not end in the region after the settlement of Kashmir either as a free nation or emerging into Pakistan.
> Ever you think why Mujahideens (for you militants) cross the LOC? for what cause?
> Most of the indian think that they are brain washed poor guys who mostly caught into the jihadies hands. But in actual the ground realities are totally different. As you both seem to be Muslim by name so it is much easier for me to tell you that its belong to Muslim belief that *If one Muslim is in trouble than its duty of another Muslim to help him*.
> According to Human rights Watch So far their are *82,946* innocent muslim died in Kashmir by Indian forces. Thats what create trouble for muslims living in Pakistan. Have you ever heared about any casualties in Pakistani held Kashmir???
> 
> "In The budget 2008, there was a massive loan waiver of INR60,000 crore, to all poor farmers who had taken loans. "
> 
> But Brother i still read daily suicidal cases of formers committing suicide in groups due to heavy interest on loans etc. Anyhow the poverty and hunger issues are still there.
> 
> India can't become even a regional power when there are bilateral issues there



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

If one Muslim is in trouble than its duty of another Muslim to help him

Incredible quote isn't it. I have heard it from my muslim friend. But, here in southern India the interpretation is quite different. They help the fellow muslims by donating some part of they money, or help facilitate HAJJ Pilgrimage, or help for medical treatment, etc. 

Why wasn't no body helping Afghanistan when United States attacked it way back in 2001? Why no body is questioning United States when its drones are bombing your country. Innocent muslims were in trouble in these places as well. Are they(mujahideens) scared of United states.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

tambaramblog said:


> ----------------
> 
> Why wasn't no body helping Afghanistan when United States attacked it way back in 2001?


Is the US fighting an insurgency in Switzerland?



> Why no body is questioning United States when its drones are bombing your country.


Check out the Drone attack threads to see these 'no body's' questioning.

If you are going to resurrect dead threads, at least stay on-topic.


----------



## dabong1

tambaramblog said:


> If one Muslim is in trouble than its duty of another Muslim to help him



Unless his an idiot.




tambaramblog said:


> Why wasn't no body helping Afghanistan when United States attacked it way back in 2001? Why no body is questioning United States when its drones are bombing your country. Innocent muslims were in trouble in these places as well. Are they(mujahideens) scared of United states.



I dont agree with the war in afghanistan but the US has every right to attack any country that has attacked it.
The way the war has been fought is wrong and the US should never have invaded instead it should done targeted killings-bombings-special ops.......the taliban could have handed OBL over to the saudis.......they where told by every muslim scholar not to blow the buddha statues......ect but they never listened.
Saying that the taliban dont need the muslim ummahs help...its only the americans which the taliban will defeat.


----------



## mehwish92

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Unless you can show me where the UN charter says they are 'outdated' or have 'expired' they are not. Kofi Annan's statement does not alter the status of the resolutions, it was his personal opinion. Let me know on what legal basis/UN charter, Annan's statement changes the status of the resolutions.
> 
> UNSC resolutions do not have an expiration date, not to mention that under the rules of partition/accession, any disputed accession was to have been decided by a plebiscite.
> 
> All of this was agreed to by the GoI and GoP and the international community - you cannot just take an agreement and call it 'outdated' because it doesn't fit your wishes anymore.
> 
> The fact remains that the UNSC resolutions offer the ONLY legal, moral and ethical solution to resolving the Kashmri dispute.



The UN Resolution required Pakistan to vacate Kashmir, something they did not do. As a result of this plebiscite was not held in 1948.

Then, In the 1960s, after Pakistan gifted part of Kashmiri territory to China, and the first democratic elections were held in Indian Kashmir (according to Indian constitution, if elections are held in a state, the state is a part of that country). Moreover Pakistan had begun to change the demographics of Azad Kashmir by settling in lare numbers of Punjabis (just as they have been doing in Balochistan). It was after this that India said that plebiscite is no longer feasible and no longer necessary.

Had Pakistan vacated Kashmir when the UN told it to, and had it not gifted part of Kashmir to China, things would have been different.


I'd also like to remind my fellow Pakistanis that it wasn't only Maharaja of Kashmir who acceded to India. Sheikh Abdullah, who was the most popular politician of Kashmir (even majority of Kashmiri Muslims supported him him) had publicly favoured accession to India. He had suggested the Maharaja to choose India. 

And I'd also like to remind Pakistanis that when Pakistani army/tribesmen invaded Kashmir, it was the local Kashmiris who initially fought back. 

If only Pakistan had let the political movement in Kashmir take its own natural course...


----------



## Hellfire

civfanatic said:


> The sad truth for you is is that New Delhi's moral isolation from the Kashmiri people is total and irreversible. Its moral isolation on Kashmir is nearly total, and unlikely to be overcome by military means or political manipulation. New Delhi commands not a shred of legitimacy among Kashmiri Muslims. India's standing in Kashmir appears untenable. Stop being delusional and face reality .we would never leave Kashmir for Pakistan but will make Kashmir Pakistan



Actually the sad truth is that your contention may not hold much longer as more and more Kashmiri youths venture into mainland India and outside India.
The mere fact that Article 370 exists is the biggest stumbling block in any normalisation of situation. The disillusionment is amongst the youth (and not in the elderly) due to comparatively better education today than previously, higher individual aspirations and the desire to attain objectives set (in pure accordance with Maslow) as also at the same time lack of economic progress and development in Kashmir.
The failure of Indian polity to understand the need for economic development (due to influence of certain Kashmiri politicians whose career is based solely on projecting an image of Kashmiri Champion) has led to the mess that we see there today.
Economic development (and Article 370 is the biggest hurdle in that) will go a long way in mitigating any anti-Indian feelings there.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

mehwish92 said:


> The UN Resolution required Pakistan to vacate Kashmir, something they did not do. As a result of this plebiscite was not held in 1948.


Incorrect - please see this thread: http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/7904-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.html

The Pakistani withdrawal was contingent upon successful negotiations between Pakistan, India and the UN rapporteur, negotiations that India and Nehru essentially sank. 



> Then, In the 1960s, after Pakistan gifted part of Kashmiri territory to China, and the first democratic elections were held in Indian Kashmir (according to Indian constitution, if elections are held in a state, the state is a part of that country).


No territory was 'gifted' - the transfer of the administration of the Trans Karakoram tract, at the time uninhabited and barren, does not change the fact that it remains disputed territory.

Pakistan's agreement with China in fact clearly indicates that India and China will have to enter into negotiations over the territory and demarcation of the boundary along the territory, if kashmir is settled in India's favor.

What the Indian constitution says is irrelevant in the context of an international dispute - you cannot for example say that if X number of Indians settle in California, it is an Indian State. The 'Indian constitution says so' argument holds no weight internationally.


> Moreover Pakistan had begun to change the demographics of Azad Kashmir by settling in lare numbers of Punjabis (just as they have been doing in Balochistan). It was after this that India said that plebiscite is no longer feasible and no longer necessary.



Stats from a neutral source indicating the impact on demographics please.


> Had Pakistan vacated Kashmir when the UN told it to, and had it not gifted part of Kashmir to China, things would have been different.


Please see responses above.


> I'd also like to remind my fellow Pakistanis that it wasn't only Maharaja of Kashmir who acceded to India. Sheikh Abdullah, who was the most popular politician of Kashmir (even majority of Kashmiri Muslims supported him him) had publicly favoured accession to India. He had suggested the Maharaja to choose India.


Does not matter what an individual favored, it is the plebiscite in which the opinion of all the people of Kashmir was to be weighed, as validated by the UNSC resolutions, that counts.


> And I'd also like to remind Pakistanis that when Pakistani army/tribesmen invaded Kashmir, it was the local Kashmiris who initially fought back.



Untrue - it was the Maharajah's troops that fought back - in fact, before the tribes invaded, there was a local Kashmiri uprising, centered around the Poonch district against the dictator Maharajah, that resulted in the Maharajah sending in troops to crush it with rather brutal tactics that caused the exodus of thousands of Kashmiris into Pakistan, acting as a catalysts for the Tribal invasion.



> If only Pakistan had let the political movement in Kashmir take its own natural course...


If only India had not reneged on its commitment and the rules of partition and allowed the Kashmiris to exercise self-determination to choose which nation they wished to be part of.


----------



## blackbriar

First the whole arguement abt kashmir between india and pakistan cannot intersect because they are completely opposite and facts are lost in history.
well lets logically go thru the situation.
1. india says pakistan sent mujahideens in 1948 to invade J&K to occupy a free state at the time.the J&K ruler asked indias help, india in turn asked him to accede to india.the ruler agreed.india sent in forces and later ceasefire as mandated by UN was declared at the present LOC.
2.Pakistan says india invaded a muslim majority land and tried occupying it.pakistan sent mujahideen to stop the indian forces.UN mandated ceasefire declared at LOC.

none if this can be substantiated now cus for every proof pakistan gives there is a counter proof provided by the indians.

3.so now we go to the UN resolution.the UN resolution asks for a plebiscite of J&K ppl according to whose wish would it go to pakistan or india.*But here the UN resolutin also says that the indian and pakistan forces should retreat completely out of kashmir before the plebiscite takes place.neither the indian nor the pakistani forces retreated.if the first part of the resolution is not completed we cannot move to the second part.hence no plebiscite.*
4.now the situation is pakistan wants a plebiscite done in J&K.India does not.this is because the J&K of 1947 is no more the J&K today.pakistans part of J&K has been broken in to northern areas azad kashmir and a part given to china. a part of indian j&k is with china, the rest is as it was in1947.
5.then pakistan also says that ppl shuld have the right of self determination.although it may sound aesthetically correct, it is flawed.suppose if we follow this policy then for that matter ppl of balochistan also want freedom and selfdetermonation.the pakistanis may reply that its a very small part.well the indians would then reply its also a very small part of ppl in kashmir who want self determination.the pakistanis would reply then have a plebiscite,the indians would again point to the 3rd and 4th point.also the indians would also go ahead and ask the pakistanis to have a plebiscite in balochistan.
6.also if the demand of a few ppl for self determination is acceded to a country if it is pakistan or india or china or whatever it may b,would never remain unified.tomorrow haryana may say it wants independence,or sindh may say it wants independence,pakistan or india would never remain what our founding fathers gave us.
7.finallly i understand pakistan's water resources come from indian j&k,but so does indias.pakistan has decided to continue a war of attrition to get j&k,but an economically and more populated india is going to outlast and exhaust pakistan in this race.j&k is a part of india for the ppl of india,yeh pathar pe likha hua sach hai.it can not be erased.we will keep fighting the mujahideen till eternity send men money weapons from all over this contry but never give in to the terrorists.
also cus of this hostility from pakistan, india also creates trouble in balochistan.also this hostility provides food for the hawks to build more dams and but more weapons just to spite the pakistanis.its just a way to rub it in that if u want to fight a war of attrition, well we are going to fight u keep making it exhaustive and uneconomical for u.the pakistanis are falling in this trap,buying more weapons spending more on the mujahdeen and slowly creeping to the edge of the cliff.
solution:the only solution is making LOC international boundary and argue all water wars in a international court of law.
india was not built on religious ground so we do not take the arguemnt that j&k is muslim dominated.so what if its muslim dominated,india is our identity,not religion.


----------



## Skeptic

> These fascists&#8217; Hindus are leading the whole region into confrontation.


Wow how is that for an opening line to a thread aiming to find a solution and peace while addressing to a nation with about 78&#37; Hindus.



> The politics in India is always based upon religion and faith


Well two sweeping generalizations and claiming to seek a solution. aint happening this way my friend.


----------



## dabong1

blackbriar said:


> 3.so now we go to the UN resolution.the UN resolution asks for a plebiscite of J&K ppl according to whose wish would it go to pakistan or india.*But here the UN resolutin also says that the indian and pakistan forces should retreat completely out of kashmir before the plebiscite takes place.neither the indian nor the pakistani forces retreated.if the first part of the resolution is not completed we cannot move to the second part.hence no plebiscite.*



So you would have no problem with the UN sending forces to the LOC and watching over a gradual withdrawl process of armed forces from both sides.....pakistan would support this proposal and maybe both ambassadors to the UN could put this propsal forward.



blackbriar said:


> 4.now the situation is pakistan wants a plebiscite done in J&K.India does not.this is because the J&K of 1947 is no more the J&K today.pakistans part of J&K has been broken in to northern areas azad kashmir and a part given to china. a part of indian j&k is with china, the rest is as it was in1947.



Pakistan is willing for the people of NA and AJK to to take part in a UN vote.....am sure we can get the chinese to let the people living on snow peaked mountain tops take part in the election also......are you willing to have election in your bit under the UN?




blackbriar said:


> 5.then pakistan also says that ppl shuld have the right of self determination.although it may sound aesthetically correct, it is flawed.suppose if we follow this policy then for that matter ppl of balochistan also want freedom and selfdetermonation.the pakistanis may reply that its a very small part.well the indians would then reply its also a very small part of ppl in kashmir who want self determination.the pakistanis would reply then have a plebiscite,the indians would again point to the 3rd and 4th point.also the indians would also go ahead and ask the pakistanis to have a plebiscite in balochistan.
> 6.also if the demand of a few ppl for self determination is acceded to a country if it is pakistan or india or china or whatever it may b,would never remain unified.tomorrow haryana may say it wants independence,or sindh may say it wants independence,pakistan or india would never remain what our founding fathers gave us.



So seem to forget that theres are UN resolutions and the promises of nehru to the people of kashmir and there are no UN resolutions concerning balochistan.....if you want to go down that path then why cant the peoples of Punjab,Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Andhra Pradesh, Tripura ect also have the same non UN benfit that balochistan gets.
Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory and not recognised as an Indian integral part, according to the International community.....the same does not apply when it comes Balochistan,Punjab,Arunachal Pradesh, Assam.



blackbriar said:


> 7.finallly i understand pakistan's water resources come from indian j&k,but so does indias.pakistan has decided to continue a war of attrition to get j&k,but an economically and more populated india is going to outlast and exhaust pakistan in this race.j&k is a part of india for the ppl of india,yeh pathar pe likha hua sach hai.it can not be erased.we will keep fighting the mujahideen till eternity send men money weapons from all over this contry but never give in to the terrorists.
> also cus of this hostility from pakistan, india also creates trouble in balochistan.also this hostility provides food for the hawks to build more dams and but more weapons just to spite the pakistanis.its just a way to rub it in that if u want to fight a war of attrition, well we are going to fight u keep making it exhaustive and uneconomical for u.the pakistanis are falling in this trap,buying more weapons spending more on the mujahdeen and slowly creeping to the edge of the cliff.
> solution:the only solution is making LOC international boundary and argue all water wars in a international court of law.
> india was not built on religious ground so we do not take the arguemnt that j&k is muslim dominated.so what if its muslim dominated,india is our identity,not religion.



We have been fighting you guys from day one and have heard the same lame prophecies for years that pakistan would be finished and india will be some graet power.....please give it a rest.


----------



## Skeptic

dabong1 said:


> So you would have no problem with the UN sending forces to the LOC and watching over a gradual withdrawl process of armed forces from both sides.....pakistan would support this proposal and maybe both ambassadors to the UN could put this propsal forward.
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan is willing for the people of NA and AJK to to take part in a UN vote.....am sure we can get the chinese to let the people living on snow peaked mountain tops take part in the election also......are you willing to have election in your bit under the UN?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So seem to forget that theres are UN resolutions and the promises of nehru to the people of kashmir and there are no UN resolutions concerning balochistan.....if you want to go down that path then why cant the peoples of Punjab,Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Andhra Pradesh, Tripura ect also have the same non UN benfit that balochistan gets.
> Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory and not recognised as an Indian integral part, according to the International community.....the same does not apply when it comes Balochistan,Punjab,Arunachal Pradesh, Assam.
> 
> 
> 
> We have been fighting you guys from day one and have heard the same lame prophecies for years that pakistan would be finished and india will be some graet power.....please give it a rest.



Sir, the crux of entire argument is India is not willing to conduct the UN vote. We wanted that in Nehru's time now we don't. No-one cane force us and the UN resolution is not binding. Taking a pragmatic view, we are in possession of larger part of land and any solution which possibly can have a negative impact of the position is unacceptable to us. We do not want to raise the issue - Pakistan does, so it will take this initiative (dropping plebiscite as an option) to even bring the issue to negotiation table.

If Pakistan wants a resolution of this issue, certain concessions will be required.


----------



## UnitedPak

Skeptic said:


> Sir, the crux of entire argument is India is not willing to conduct the UN vote. We wanted that in Nehru's time now we don't. No-one cane force us and the UN resolution is not binding. Taking a pragmatic view, we are in possession of larger part of land and any solution which possibly can have a negative impact of the position is unacceptable to us. We do not want to raise the issue - Pakistan does, so it will take this initiative (dropping plebiscite as an option) to even bring the issue to negotiation table.
> 
> If Pakistan wants a resolution of this issue, certain concessions will be required.



You proved a very good point by disregarding Kashmiri wishes altogether and stating the matter as it is. India simply wants to hold the land.
And as a matter of fact Pakistan holds the strategic parts which are linked to Afghanistan and Central Asia.

Pakistans stake in this conflict is the Kashmiri people. The UN vote is a Kashmiri right. The same right every other region of the British Indian Empire was granted. Your opinion that India no longer wants a vote is irrelevant, hypocritical, selfish, very undemocratic and certainly wont help India in the UNSC.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## muse

September 8, 2009
World Briefing | Asia
*Kashmir: Residents Burn Army Trucks *
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Residents of Sumbha, in Indian-controlled Kashmir, set fire to two army trucks on Monday after one crushed a 7-year-old Muslim girl to death, the police said. The soldiers abandoned the trucks and fled.


----------



## Peshwa

^^^^ What does this have to do with the Topic at hand???


----------



## Jatt Boy

yea we burn bus/truck whatever if such unfortunate thing happens, not on religion basis. Its common in India, mob do justice before police arrives.


----------



## Skeptic

UnitedPak said:


> You proved a very good point by disregarding Kashmiri wishes altogether and stating the matter as it is. India simply wants to hold the land.


Are you really that naive to think that international disputes are resolved on emotional and sentimental grounds??? Or is this just a facade of ignorance to push forward agenda.

Is Pakistan not willing to expand its territorial possession in Kashmir under the mask of public opinion.


> And as a matter of fact Pakistan holds the strategic parts which are linked to Afghanistan and Central Asia


Good and we are satisfied with status quo. 



> Pakistans stake in this conflict is the Kashmiri people. The UN vote is a Kashmiri right.


No it is not. Entire UN resolution was based on the voluntary participation of India and Pakistan, India has opted out. We no longer follow the policies Nehru did. It was 1947 and its 2009.



> The same right every other region of the British Indian Empire was granted.


Really, how many states / regions conducted a UN vote to decide annexation? From every region the maharajas / ruling class signed a document, so did Kashmir. You can keep on disputing with claims of duress / pressure but that will not change the scenario.



> Your opinion that India no longer wants a vote is irrelevant, hypocritical, selfish, very undemocratic and certainly wont help India in the UNSC.


UNSC is a different ballgame, open a thread for same for another debate. Kashmir is not the price India is willing to pay for a UNSC seat. 

Once and for all, Does the UN plebiscite offer an option of independence? What if Kashmiris want complete independence from India and Pakistan. No Sir, UNSC does not allow that option, so basically Pakistan is playing the game with loaded dices, pretending that UN resolution offers 3 option when it does only two.


----------



## dabong1

Skeptic said:


> Sir, the crux of entire argument is India is not willing to conduct the UN vote. We wanted that in Nehru's time now we don't. No-one cane force us and the UN resolution is not binding. Taking a pragmatic view, we are in possession of larger part of land and any solution which possibly can have a negative impact of the position is unacceptable to us. We do not want to raise the issue - Pakistan does, so it will take this initiative (dropping plebiscite as an option) to even bring the issue to negotiation table.
> 
> If Pakistan wants a resolution of this issue, certain concessions will be required.



That good.....well you also understand then pakistan will carry on helping the freedom fighters in kashmir.......you cant stop us and so cant the the UN.

---------- Post added at 07:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:23 PM ----------




Peshwa said:


> Read my previous post.....



Read mine also


----------



## Skeptic

dabong1 said:


> That good.....well you also understand then pakistan will carry on helping the freedom fighters in kashmir.......you cant stop us and so cant the the UN.



Are you serious. While discussions with Musharraf, the scenario was same as I mentioned. No Plebiscite and a solution outside that. If not for internal troubles within Pakistan, who know we might have had some sort of solution as well. Pakistan atleast reduced the support and we were on negotiation table.

How do you propose UN Plebiscite as a solution, when it does not offer independence as an option, while most Pakistanis promote it in that manner.

Any solution to Kashmir will be outside this UN vote and only through bilateral / trilateral talks.
Wake up, out of your self hypnotized state.No one is scared of continuing Pakistani support to militancy. Voices from within Pakistan have already started protesting the self destructing course of supporting this terrorism conducted in veil of freedom struggle.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dabong1

blackbriar said:


> well the removal of the forces from both sides should have been done when the resolution was passed..the application of the resolution does not lie when the pakistanis mood changes.they dint agree to remove there forces in 1948...and chose a war of attrition.now when the war of attrition and all other methods employed have failed, they agree suddenly to agree to the resolution to the letter.it does not work with the mood swings of the pakistani leadership.



The same way your mood cnages when it comes to the UN in kashmir is the same way our mood changes.
Why waste time and pretend your some sort of a peacemaker or compromise finder when all your doing is coming out with excuse after excuse.......admit it theres no way you will win a vote in kashmir and that why you want any method but a democratic one.



blackbriar said:


> also as u say that NA, AJK and the part with china would be ready to vote(including aksai chin annexed in1962),but the whole point of the arguement rests on the fact that the demography,map of J&K should not have changed since 1948.well the answer is in the question.isnt it...and yeah we come back again to the first point.the first part of the resolution was not completed..cant proceed to the 2nd part.



Another flimsy fact......the demography has not changed on the pakistani side.......you forget it was the indians trying to force non muslims into moving into the valley to cahnge the demograpics but it failed.
Another fact you seemed to have have picked up from dodgy indian sources.



blackbriar said:


> the arguement again rests on the UN resolution which was never followed.and ur asking of a plebiscite in other indian states and pakistani states,well that is exactly what i say.self determination call from some ppl in a state cannot be acceded to by india or pakistan,to keep the integrity of our respective countries.and the same applies to balochistan and J&K.ppl may ask for self-determination,that does not mean we are going to give it to them.and as u say j&k is disputed,well its disputed cus pakistan keeps sending terrorists across the border.once pakistan stops the dispute is over.



I hope you read the bit where i say there is no UN resolution on balochistan,punjab,assam ect.......there is one on kashmir and that why there are UN observers on the LOC.




blackbriar said:


> and i never said pakistan would be over,its a self destructive strategy pakistan is following.as i said a bigger country with bigger financial,human,and material resources is going to outlast the other.we r ready to wait till eternity.the LOC area keeps burning while we continue building our economy in the hinterland.i agree there are terror attacks in the hinterland,but they are like pin pricks in such a huge country.and as the hinterland keeps devoloping at 9% growth,the amount of resources available to fight the war at the LOC also keeps increasing.so yeah pakistan can keep continuing the same predictable methods of proxy war.it works fine with us.



Yeah were really on the path of self destruction.......you have been saying that from day one and we have only got stronger.
You forget that we can expand the war to india from kashmir if we want ay time and hook up with all the other freedom movement in india.......Live in your own little fantasy that your some sort of power that the world respect.......you have a couple of pennies and think your millionares.


----------



## dabong1

Skeptic said:


> Are you serious. While discussions with Musharraf, the scenario was same as I mentioned. No Plebiscite and a solution outside that. If not for internal troubles within Pakistan, who know we might have had some sort of solution as well. Pakistan atleast reduced the support and we were on negotiation table.



We have turned the tap off not dismantled it.......if a fair non UN soultion can be reached then good.



Skeptic said:


> How do you propose UN Plebiscite as a solution, when it does not offer independence as a solution, while most Pakistanis promote it in that manner.



The UN Plebiscite is there to carry out the wishes of the people...whatever they want.



Skeptic said:


> Any solution to Kashmir will be outside this UN vote and only through bilateral / trilateral talks.



If bilateral / trilateral talks dont work then its the sword of the UN will be hanging over you.



Skeptic said:


> Wake up, out of your self hypnotized state.No one is scared of


continuing Pakistani support to militancy. Voices from within Pakistan have already started protesting the self destructing course of supporting this terrorism conducted in veil of freedom struggle.[/QUOTE]

I cant wait for the indian to start coming out with ridiculous demands if the bilateral / trilateral talks start making headway.......then all the pakistani-kashmiris will see that the armed struggle is the only way.


----------



## Peshwa

dabong1 said:


> We have turned the tap off not dismantled it.......if a fair non UN soultion can be reached then good.
> 
> 
> 
> *The UN Plebiscite is there to carry out the wishes of the people...whatever they want.*
> 
> 
> 
> If bilateral / trilateral talks dont work then its the sword of the UN will be hanging over you.
> 
> continuing Pakistani support to militancy. Voices from within Pakistan have already started protesting the self destructing course of supporting this terrorism conducted in veil of freedom struggle.





Dabong....Why do choose to ignore the UN Refugees Link that I posted to read about what's happening in the "Azad Kashmir"??

And you actually have the audacity to say that "The UN Plebiscite is there to carry out the wishes of the people...whatever they want".....
Get off your high horse mate......Pakistani's are no protectors of the moral rights of the Kashmiris.....

"As detailed by Human Rights Watch (HRW) in a 2006 report on the region, individuals and political parties who do not support Kashmir's accession to Pakistan are barred from participating in the political process, standing for election, taking a job with any government institution, or accessing educational institutions."

UNHCR | Refworld | Freedom in the World 2008 - Kashmir [Pakistan]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Skeptic

dabong1 said:


> We have turned the tap off not dismantled it.......if a fair non UN soultion can be reached then good.


Whatever the solution, it will need to be outside the UN resolution. After going through several wars, I don't see the trust level Allowing it.





> The UN Plebiscite is there to carry out the wishes of the people...whatever they want.


No it is not. Please go through your stuff again. If you find the part mentioning independence of Kashmir, I will owe you an apology.



> If bilateral / trilateral talks dont work then its the sword of the UN will be hanging over you.


No sword is hanging anywhere. It is a non-binding arrangement to be executed by consent of India and Pakistan. The ways of troop withdrawal that appear fair to you, do not look the same from this side of border and vice-versa.




> I cant wait for the indian to start coming out with ridiculous demands if the bilateral / trilateral talks start making headway.......then all the pakistani-kashmiris will see that the armed struggle is the only way.


We have seen the armed struggle and the kind of results achieved through it. It leads to death and misery nothing else. We have been seeing it since 1989, not much has been achieved.


----------



## Skeptic

Peshwa said:


> Dabong....Why do choose to ignore the UN Refugees Link that I posted to read about what's happening in the "Azad Kashmir"??


Azad kashmir is beyond the scope of discussion for him. Probably never bothered to check - too busy googling for anti India articles.



> And you actually have the audacity to say that "The UN Plebiscite is there to carry out the wishes of the people...whatever they want".....
> Get off your high horse mate......Pakistani's are no protectors of the moral rights of the Kashmiris.....



Just goes to show the level of propaganda and misinformation in Pakistan. this is how youth is misguided by painting false images. 



> "As detailed by Human Rights Watch (HRW) in a 2006 report on the region, individuals and political parties who do not support Kashmir's accession to Pakistan are barred from participating in the political process, standing for election, taking a job with any government institution, or accessing educational institutions."
> 
> UNHCR | Refworld | Freedom in the World 2008 - Kashmir [Pakistan]



India controls HRW as well I guess. Further the UN referendum so frequently quoted by some members does not provide an option for independence / freedom of Kashmir. It is just to decide annexation of Kashmir to either India or Pakistan.


----------



## advaita

UnitedPak said:


> You proved a very good point by disregarding Kashmiri wishes altogether and stating the matter as it is. India simply wants to hold the land.



Yup we want to hold the land, the people, the culture, the neighbourhood, and not just of kashmir but of every part of India.

We Indians dont keep changing our country, neighbour, religion, faith and culture every year/decade/century/millenia.

We keep developing whatever god gave us and keep improving upon it.



UnitedPak said:


> And as a matter of fact Pakistan holds the strategic parts which are linked to Afghanistan and Central Asia.



Yup strategy is what it is all about in Pakistan. And Indians recognise this and will not keep challenging this strategy.



UnitedPak said:


> Pakistans stake in this conflict is the Kashmiri people.



Ok i guess you guys care for the kashmiris just the way you cared for the Afghans when you toasted them in your hunt for the strategic depth (whatever that meant)



UnitedPak said:


> The UN vote is a Kashmiri right.



Well you guys jumped the gun so many times that it is obvious you had no faith in your claim. And Indians agree.



UnitedPak said:


> The same right every other region of the British Indian Empire was granted.



No other region was ever granted this right. Even UN resolution was only one of the options that got lost because of the incessant jumping the gun.



UnitedPak said:


> Your opinion that India no longer wants a vote is irrelevant, hypocritical, selfish, very undemocratic



if Indian opinion is irrelevant then i guess there is no need to talk over this issue in any forum.
if Indian opinion is hypocritical and selfish then we are ready to bear the consequences.
if Indian opinion is undemocratic then Pakistan would not be the country we will turn to to learn what is democratic.



UnitedPak said:


> and certainly wont help India in the UNSC.



Even if it is so, why does it bother you so much.
We will get what we deserve. We will work to get what we want to deserve.


----------



## UnitedPak

advaita said:


> Yup we want to hold the land, the people, the culture, the neighbourhood, and not just of kashmir but of every part of India.



"We" clearly doesn't include Kashmiris or Indian govt wouldn't need 700k troops to hold the land, the people...etc.



> We Indians dont keep changing our country, neighbour, religion, faith and culture every year/decade/century/millenia.



Right right. Because your religion/country is a trillion years old and all the past Muslim and British empires that ruled the subcontinent were just a bad dream?



> We keep developing whatever god gave us and keep improving upon it.



Humans generally tend to do that.




> Ok i guess you guys care for the kashmiris just the way you cared for the Afghans when you toasted them in your hunt for the strategic depth (whatever that meant)



We sheltered millions of them, and still do. 



> Well you guys jumped the gun so many times that it is obvious you had no faith in your claim. And Indians agree.
> 
> 
> 
> No other region was ever granted this right. Even UN resolution was only one of the options that got lost because of the incessant jumping the gun.



Quote: Princely states enjoyed three options: accession to India, accession to Pakistan, or independence. *But the choice, according to India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and tacitly endorsed by the British, was to be made by popular referendum in cases where the creed of the ruler varied from the religion of the majority.* *That fundamental democratic principle had been sternly applied by Nehru with military means in Hyderabad and Junagadh* where the rulers were Muslim but their inhabitants largely Hindu. Kashmir presented a converse case: the Maharaja was Hindu but the majority subscribed to Islam.

On November 2, 1947, Prime Minister Nehru reiterated, &#8220;We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given and the Maharaja supported it, not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. *We will not and cannot back out of it.*"


----------



## advaita

&#8220;If Hyderabad does not see the writing on the wall, it goes the way Junagadh has gone. Pakistan attempted to set off Kashmir against Junagadh. When we raised the question of settlement in a democratic way, they (Pakistan) at once told us that they would consider it if we applied that policy to Kashmir. Our reply was that we would agree to Kashmir if they agreed to Hyderabad "
- Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel

Hope this clears up who jumped the gun and where.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## blackbriar

UnitedPak said:


> "We" clearly doesn't include Kashmiris or Indian govt wouldn't need 700k troops to hold the land, the people...etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Right right. Because your religion/country is a trillion years old and all the past Muslim and British empires that ruled the subcontinent were just a bad dream?
> 
> 
> B]"


see this is again what ur government tells u...700k troops were there till 2004, now there are no more 60000 troops(rashtriya rifles) controlling terrosrism.it was in the hey days of terrorism when the indian state flooded kashmir with troops.now the counter insurgency tactics have become so refined and the rashtriya rifles have become so good at counter-insurgency that no need for so many troops.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/rashtriya-rifles.htm

the british were invaders on the indian subcontinent.the mughals and muslim rulers were indians..we are proud of that part of our history.all the muslim rulers of the sub continent with all the hindu leaders have made what we re today.they are in our consiousness.akbar was born in a rajput home.netaji subhash chandra bose before attacking the britsh with the INA paid homage to bahadur shah zafar mouselum in burma before stepping on indian soil vowing to stop at the red fort.u ppl call tipu sultan ur own...hehehe tipu sultan never even visited pakistan.he was a great indian leader.
***At an auction in London in 2004, the industrialist-politician Vijay Mallya purchased the sword of Tippu Sultan and some other historical artifacts, and brought them back to India for public display after nearly two centuries.
pakistanis have so few leaders to call their own they are not even ashamed to call leader from the middle east,turkey or india their own.


----------



## jai_shri_Ram

good reply buddy....


----------



## UnitedPak

blackbriar said:


> the british were invaders on the indian subcontinent.the mughals and muslim rulers were indians..we are proud of that part of our history.all the muslim rulers of the sub continent with all the hindu leaders have made what we re today.they are in our consiousness.akbar was born in a rajput home.netaji subhash chandra bose before attacking the britsh with the INA paid homage to bahadur shah zafar mouselum in burma before stepping on indian soil vowing to stop at the red fort.u ppl call tipu sultan ur own...hehehe tipu sultan never even visited pakistan.he was a great indian leader.
> ***At an auction in London in 2004, the industrialist-politician Vijay Mallya purchased the sword of Tippu Sultan and some other historical artifacts, and brought them back to India for public display after nearly two centuries.
> pakistanis have so few leaders to call their own they are not even ashamed to call leader from the middle east,turkey or india their own.



You have a very flawed perception of Muslim history in the subcontinent to think that you can 'claim' Muslim empires/leaders for your country. It doesnt really work that way.
I would suggest you get half a clue on who the Mughals were.

Fortunately for Pakistanis, history is not an ego game.


----------



## blackbriar

UnitedPak said:


> You have a very flawed perception of Muslim history in the subcontinent to think that you can 'claim' Muslim empires/leaders for your country. It doesnt really work that way.
> I would suggest you get half a clue on who the Mughals were.
> 
> Fortunately for Pakistanis, history is not an ego game.


im not claiming anything.the 'muslim rulers' as u call them ruled from agra,delhi,lucknow,mysore not lahore, karachi which are a part of india.our history under these rulers and hindu rulers are a part of our history and culture and taught to everyone in classrooms.our history does not start or end with a religion but is connected to the history of this land.unlike pakistan whose history starts with the muslim league and ends there.and now u want to claim rulers who ruled in india just cus they r muslims.the land of pakistan has been ruled from delhi for the past centuries by indian rulers,they may be hindus or muslims.


----------



## dabong1

blackbriar said:


> see this is again what ur government tells u...700k troops were there till 2004, now there are no more 60000 troops(rashtriya rifles) controlling terrosrism.it was in the hey days of terrorism when the indian state flooded kashmir with troops.now the counter insurgency tactics have become so refined and the rashtriya rifles have become so good at counter-insurgency that no need for so many troops.
> Rashtriya Rifles



You should have your own comedy show........the pak govt stopped the crossing of the LOC by freedom fighters to get rid of your contast excuse about "cross border terrorism" before any talks cantake place abd has nothing to do with "rashtriya rifles have become so good at counter-insurgency that no need for so many troops.".....keep dreaming.


----------



## UnitedPak

blackbriar said:


> im not claiming anything.the 'muslim rulers' as u call them ruled from agra,delhi,lucknow,mysore not lahore, karachi which are a part of india.our history under these rulers and hindu rulers are a part of our history and culture and taught to everyone in classrooms.our history does not start or end with a religion but is connected to the history of this land.unlike pakistan whose history starts with the muslim league and ends there.and now u want to claim rulers who ruled in india just cus they r muslims.the land of pakistan has been ruled from delhi for the past centuries by indian rulers,they may be hindus or muslims.



Muslim League? So you just proved that this is an ego driven number game to you. Use all the political definitions you like. Doesnt change the fact that Pakistans history starts with the Indus Valley. Its the history of the land and the people of the land. 
Pakistan also has a significant amount of Hindu and Buddhist past which belongs to the people of Pakistan. I dont know according to what logic you think its Indian.

And going by your logic of Indian Muslim empires, that would make the Sikh rule of Punjab a Pakistani empire.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

*Thread closed for moderation.

Too many posts on issues already being discussed elsewhere, and will be moved to relevant threads.*


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

*All posts related to demographics of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan moved here - continue the discussion there:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/33756-demographics-azad-kashmir-gilgit-baluchistan.html*


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

*All UNSC resolutions and 'Pakistan should have withdrawn its troops' posts moved here:*

http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/7904-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.html

*Thread opened.*


----------



## ouiouiouiouiouioui

sorry to say...but globally now afghanistan and pakistan have become global focus of terror pool.....

pakistan shud forget kashmir.....otherwise...talibans, pashtoon's and baluch and al-qaida will become migrane for the whole world......and than it will become another iraq for US, israel, france, UK.....has anybody found till date who killed benazir bhutto..and why some third party was called to investigate..????very sad....condition....


it is the political leadership of pakistan which is misleading the people.....and diverting it to india.....pakistani people shud target first their corrupt political leadership.....remove them from their throne...focus on development and try to work on it hard...otherwise the sad day will come....when on roads of lahore and islamabad...you will see NATO soldiers...patrolling...that will be really sad day..for whole of ASIA


----------



## coppernicks

believe it or not both the countries want to continue the issue... 

Kashmir issue end means financial loss to both

Kashmir issue end means people will start looking toward development and their demands will grow.

It also means lower levels of security which is necessary to show importance. politicians of both the countries are same.

Look at trade between both the countries. even during war they were trading....now they are not in 'talking terms' but they are trading....very good.

both of them want a piece of Kashmir, if they wish for free kashmir, free it just dont call it.


----------



## Icarus

> What about Balochistan?? Arent they Muslims? Why is your army operating there? Isnt it Muslim blood being spilled? Isnt Human rights being violated there?



Rest assured, there is no active military op in Balochistan, last time military op was carried out in Balochistan was when Bugti was killed.
No Human blood is being spilt and no human rights being violated.
If you don't believe me, ask this guy, he is a Baloch.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/members/pakistani-nationalist.html


----------



## deckingraj

coppernicks said:


> believe it or not both the countries want to continue the issue...
> 
> Kashmir issue end means financial loss to both
> 
> *Kashmir issue end means people will start looking toward development and their demands will grow.*



Sorry but what an insane logic.... How about applying it to every state of India and create havocs there...this would be a good way to curb people demand for growth...



> It also means lower levels of security which is necessary to show importance. politicians of both the countries are same.



Did not get what you are trying to say here...However i agree that politicians use Kashmir sentiments for their political benefits....but same is true for any other state...only the cause is different...



> Look at trade between both the countries. even during war they were trading....now they are not in 'talking terms' but they are trading....very good.


Yeah look at their trade...its is not even equal to pea-nuts as compared to their respective trade volumes...



> both of them want a piece of Kashmir, if they wish for free kashmir, free it just dont call it.



The only part i agree with you...India has made is clear Pakistan because of its stand has created a puppet govt. there....In the end both wants to have their hands on Kashmir becuase of its strategic value...


----------



## Icarus

> The only part i agree with you...India has made is clear Pakistan because of its stand has created a puppet govt. there....In the end both wants to have their hands on Kashmir becuase of its strategic value...



1)Independant Electoral Process
2)Independant Judiciary
3)Seperate National Assembly
4)Seperate PM and President
5)Access to Pakistanis beyond Muzzafarabad not granted unless given special permit by govt(Kinda like a visa).
6)Seperate bills and legislative motions.
"Puppet Govt", I don't think so....................


----------



## Jackdaws

Neither nation is going to give up its claim. I guess in a way both are right. Kashmiris will continue to suffer. The only way I see it going away is when the economies of both countries are sufficiently developed to an extent that the population of both countries doesn't really care if they lose Kashmir. Only then will a middle ground emerge.


----------



## deckingraj

Kakgeta said:


> 1)Independant Electoral Process
> 2)Independant Judiciary
> 3)Seperate National Assembly
> 4)Seperate PM and President
> 5)Access to Pakistanis beyond Muzzafarabad not granted unless given special permit by govt(Kinda like a visa).
> 6)Seperate bills and legislative motions.
> "Puppet Govt", I don't think so....................



I will let it go because it will just derail the conversation...However it would be like living in fools paradise if we say P-O-K government in not a puppet govt. As said this will derail the thread so my last reply on this topic... I will sum up by highlighting few lines from wiki and few links...



> Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) is a self-governing state under Pakistani control but is not constitutionally part of Pakistan.[1][8] It has its own elected president, prime minister, legislature, high court, and official flag. *The government of Pakistan has not yet allowed the state to issue its own postage stamps,* however, and Pakistani stamps are used in the state instead.





> *Urdu is the official language of Azad Jammu and Kashmir*


Not sure why a free state needs Pakistan govt. permission to issue stamps...Not sure why in a free state Urdu is the official language and not the regional language where Pahari is the most spoken language???
Azad Kashmir Rulers


Some more links suggesting how free is the govt. in P-O-K

DAWN.COM | Editorial | Azad Kashmir today
Secret deal in Azad Kashmir Elections 
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2568953

Something said by your X-President

Mushahid criticizes PPP government's political interference in Azad Kashmir. - Free Online Library


Not sure why a PM of a free state has to prove his patriotism towards Pakistan...
Gaea Times (by Simple Thoughts) Breaking News and incisive views 24/7


'The condition in *** is one of severe oppression'
The *** puppet-show
How FREE IS *** (Azad) Kashmir???
*** leaders seek India&#8217;s help in fight against Pak

See there are many such links but what's the point... Please go ahead and reply if you feel like however as said this is my last reply on this particular topic...Hope you understand...


----------



## deckingraj

Jackdaws said:


> Neither nation is going to give up its claim. I guess in a way both are right. Kashmiris will continue to suffer. The only way I see it going away is when the economies of both countries are sufficiently developed to an extent that the population of both countries doesn't really care if they lose Kashmir. Only then will a middle ground emerge.



It is not the economies...Its the strategic importance complemented with rivalry...Just to give you food for thought
- How much do you think Kashmir adds to economy of India or Pak as compared to their overall GDP??? No offense but it eats up a good lot due to expenditure on military to keep it safe from other party..

- Siachen has no strategic importance ..yet it is just Indi-Pak rivalry that has tunred it into worlds highest battle ground...

So even if the economies of both countries develop yet Kashmir cannot be solved...The only way is: 

- Have prolonged engagement : This move will help reduce the trust deficit
- Indulge extensively in trade : This move will raise the cost of conflict
- Give more automony to Kashmiris and change LOC to IB
- Remove Army from both sides


----------



## Jackdaws

deckingraj said:


> It is not the economies...Its the strategic importance complemented with rivalry...Just to give you food for thought
> - How much do you think Kashmir adds to economy of India or Pak as compared to their overall GDP??? No offense but it eats up a good lot due to expenditure on military to keep it safe from other party..
> 
> - Siachen has no strategic importance ..yet it is just Indi-Pak rivalry that has tunred it into worlds highest battle ground...
> 
> So even if the economies of both countries develop yet Kashmir cannot be solved...The only way is:
> 
> - Have prolonged engagement : This move will help reduce the trust deficit
> - Indulge extensively in trade : This move will raise the cost of conflict
> - Give more automony to Kashmiris and change LOC to IB
> - Remove Army from both sides



How strategically important are the Falkland Islands? And what's their contribution to the British economy? Britain spent more money on saving Falklands from the Argentinians than they could ever recover from it during the Thatcher era. You think that would be the case now? I doubt it. Times change, people move on.


----------



## DesiGuy

Let's settle Kashmir and give us back pakistan!!!!!!!!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## deckingraj

Jackdaws said:


> How strategically important are the Falkland Islands? And what's their contribution to the British economy? Britain spent more money on saving Falklands from the Argentinians than they could ever recover from it during the Thatcher era. You think that would be the case now? I doubt it. Times change, people move on.



What are you talking about...



> "In March 2009, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated in a meeting with Argentine President Cristina Fern&#225;ndez that there would be no talks over the future sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.[39] As far as the governments of the UK and of the Falkland Islands are concerned, there is no issue to resolve. The Falkland Islanders themselves are almost entirely British and maintain their allegiance to the United Kingdom"



In other words they are still hanging on to these islands even if they are not strategically important or britishers have to spend more than what the island is worth for...This is inline to my example of Siachen...Secondly Kashmir is strategically important for us...Whosoever will control Kashmir will control the whole Himalayan Region..This is the reason GOI is fine with converting LOC into IB whereas Pakistan is not....As per current status quo our situation is way better than our counterparts...


----------



## Icarus

> Not sure why a free state needs Pakistan govt. permission to issue stamps...Not sure why in a free state Urdu is the official language and not the regional language where Pahari is the most spoken language???
> Azad Kashmir Rulers



Azad Kashmir does not have it's own postal service, instead Pakistan Post manages all their mail, if they made their own stamps, it would lead to confusion over they value of stamps of Kashmir as compared to the value of postage stamps published by Pakistan. Which would be quite a pickle for the post office guys, thats why Kashmiri stamps weren't published.
And Urdu is their national language for the very same reason it is ours even though Punjabi is the most widely spoken language of Pakistan, because urdu is dear to the muslims of the Indian-subcontinent.

They are also starting the national airline of Kashmir soon.

These links speak of "Interference" none speak of complete control, and you can see even that "Interference" received criticism, validating that it is not a usual phenomenon, plus your last link was so totally biased, let me write an article on life in delhi, even though I have never seen it and then lets see how accurate it is.


----------



## Mallu

Omar1984 said:


> Not if India builds dams in Kashmir and steals Pakistan's water.



If Dams are build its for Kashmiris


----------



## Icarus

Mallu said:


> If Dams are build its for Kashmiris



No they are built to change the course of the water to Indian land.


----------



## prodevelopment

Jackdaws said:


> How strategically important are the Falkland Islands? And what's their contribution to the British economy? Britain spent more money on saving Falklands from the Argentinians than they could ever recover from it during the Thatcher era. You think that would be the case now? I doubt it. Times change, people move on.



*Strategic Importance of Falkland Islands:*

Military
The islands are one of the very few bases for the British in the Southern Atlantic; from the islands the British could maintain a vigil upon activity throughout most of the southern part of South America. For this reason too, it is of vital (probably even greater) importance to Britains key ally, the United States. The importance of the islands in friendly hands can be suggested by the unofficial assistance provided to the British task force by the American navy. 

Economic
The areas around Falkland Islands are said to have one of the world's largest reserves of oil, mainly in the north basin. There are reserves in the South and East of Falkland islands as well. The British Geological Survey estimates the oil at about 60 billion barrels


----------



## prodevelopment

Kakgeta said:


> No they are built to change the course of the water to Indian land.



Thanx for looking into the design plans of the dams and predicting the future. Any sources to back up your little theory?

PS: Kashmir IS Indian land so technically you are correct.


----------



## username

rajk20002002 said:


> How about if if you do the same in Balchustan to begin with and then in Sindh ? Was there a referndum in India when Pakistan was created ? Did British ask all Indians ? Don't live in make shift world. India does not beleive in nation states created based upon religion. *Why can't Pakistan give up her agenda of looking at everything through Islam *? Things will be much better if that happens.
> 
> RK



lol... sometimes even I hear the nuclear weapon being Islamic as though if it is used, it will kill only people other than muslims. I don't find anybody calling their nuclear weapon as Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Budhist, etc...


----------



## username

Omar1984 said:


> Millions of people in Pakistan will die if India steals our waters through the dams theyre building in Indian Occupied Kashmir, and Pakistan always sided with Kashmiris even before India made plans on these dams so it is about the people...*you dont see Pakistan making dams to steal water from India's territory*.



What are all the rivers Pakistan can block, so that it does not enter India, I don't know I am just asking...


----------



## KS

username said:


> What are all the rivers Pakistan can block, so that it does not enter India, I don't know I am just asking...



None...that y they so desperately need Kashmir...
It will secure their water resources.
Right now their Jugular vein is in our hands.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## username

binzaman said:


> R not you ashamed that you lost the territory so huge (almost same of Switzerland)???
> but
> Still you are proud of if? what a shame.....
> 
> Also the friendship of China Pakistan is role model for whole world. Its up to our govt. what they decide for our land, if it is strategically good for china than whats prob in it. At least we don't lost any area to enemy in war



If you think its your land atleast fight for it, don't give it up like a piece of cake. That's right "if you think its your land". 

Just because it is good for your friend you cannot giveup other people's land to other country. Can't you be friends without this giving up land and all ? Look at India and Nepal, People from Nepal can come and go to India freely, and vice-versa, we did not exchange lands, we exchanged people. Same way you could have given Chinese people a free pass but not give away the land.

In a hypothetical case, if tomorrow Kashmir is given to Pakistan and China thinks it is strategically important for China will you give it up ? 

Aren't you wasting the lives of people who died for it ? 

Don't you think Kashmiris have a say in it as you so vehementaly advocate that Kashmiris should be asked ?


----------



## username

Omar1984 said:


> Millions of people in Pakistan will die if India steals our waters through the dams theyre building in Indian Occupied Kashmir, and Pakistan always sided with Kashmiris even before India made plans on these dams so it is about the people...*you dont see Pakistan making dams to steal water from India's territory*.





Karthic Sri said:


> None...that y they so desperately need Kashmir...
> It will secure their water resources.
> Right now their Jugular vein is in our hands.



Oh, is that why we don't see Pakistan making dams to steal water from India's territory... ? 
very funny... 
I thought they are peace lovers ... 

Still let somebody from Pakistan confirm that they can't... as my knowledge in Geography is less.


----------



## deckingraj

Kakgeta said:


> Azad Kashmir does not have it's own postal service, instead Pakistan Post manages all their mail, if they made their own stamps, it would lead to confusion over they value of stamps of Kashmir as compared to the value of postage stamps published by Pakistan. Which would be quite a pickle for the post office guys, thats why Kashmiri stamps weren't published.
> And Urdu is their national language for the very same reason it is ours even though Punjabi is the most widely spoken language of Pakistan, because urdu is dear to the muslims of the Indian-subcontinent.
> 
> They are also starting the national airline of Kashmir soon.



See that's why i said there is no point in talking about all this...Because no matter what i post you will not agree to it...You are talking about one link that is biased but i provided you enough links(few Pakistani sources)..

Kashmiri stamps were not published because they do not have postal service yet they are starting national airline??? Starting an Airline is more easier than having a postal service??? Also what confusion are you talking about?? Are they having different money than Pakistani rupee???

Urdu is dear to all muslims of sub-continent... wow...Seems like you guys still have not learnt from the issues in BD...One of the issues that BD muslims had during 1970's era was Urdu being compulsory and no weightage to Bengali...Care to exaplain if URDU is dear to all muslims then why it is not the most spoken language across Pakistan and for that matter Azad Kashmir??? Mind it i have nothing against the language..In fact it is beautiful(My Grandpa who was born and brought up in Pakistan always admired it, in fact before he died last year was still assertive that there is no place in India as beautiful as Lahore)


Anyways let me sum up by sharing one quote of yet another link that i am sharing

*Azad Kashmir is under the indirect control of Pakistan. Its defence, foreign policy and currency are under the direct control of Pakistan.* 
Azad Kashmir travel guide




> These links speak of "Interference" none speak of complete control,


What else you mean by a puppet government???



> and you can see even that "Interference" received criticism, validating that it is not a usual phenomenon, plus your last link was so totally biased, let me write an article on life in delhi, even though I have never seen it and then lets see how accurate it is.



No it just shows politics...As far as article on delhi please feel free to share...I had no intentions to downgrade the lives of Kashmiri's or for that matter anybody...My only intentions was to show that Azad kashmir is indeed not that Azad...

Last but not the least care to explain...If Azad Kashmir is that Azad can you please explain this line from the above link

*"- A small region at the Northern frontier of Gilgit-Baltistan agency, ceded to the People's Republic of China by Pakistan in 1963."*

P.S : May be your definition of Free is different than Mine...Anyways strategically(geography, resources) wise it is foolish to let go Kashmir...Pakistan strategists would be nuts to let go Kashmir if they are not convinced that finally it would be under their control...Rest we two are on different boats and our perception about each other is way opposite...It would be very had to converge them so lets leave it here...


----------



## Icarus

deckingraj said:


> See that's why i said there is no point in talking about all this...Because no matter what i post you will not agree to it...You are talking about one link that is biased but i provided you enough links(few Pakistani sources)..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I accepted all of them without argument, however, the last one was biased and I stand by what I stated earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kashmiri stamps were not published because they do not have postal service yet they are starting national airline??? Starting an Airline is more easier than having a postal service??? Also what confusion are you talking about?? Are they having different money than Pakistani rupee???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is not whats easier, it's what's feasible, there will be no point in establishing a new mail system when an extensive network is already operating within Azad Kashmir. Starting an airline will be much more difficult but a national carrier is much more important, it screams out to the world, "Hey, We exist" !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Urdu is dear to all muslims of sub-continent... wow...Seems like you guys still have not learnt from the issues in BD...One of the issues that BD muslims had during 1970's era was Urdu being compulsory and no weightage to Bengali...Care to exaplain if URDU is dear to all muslims then why it is not the most spoken language across Pakistan and for that matter Azad Kashmir??? Mind it i have nothing against the language..In fact it is beautiful(My Grandpa who was born and brought up in Pakistan always admired it, in fact before he died last year was still assertive that there is no place in India as beautiful as Lahore)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atleast do a little research before making wild claims, prior to partition Pakistan had two national languages, Bengali and Urdu., this can be confirmed if you check out a copy of the 1962 constitution of Pakistan.
> It is spoken widely when there is inter-province reaction, however, in each province the mother tongue is spoken, Urdu was not meant to supersede all other languages, India is also a multi-lingual country in which many people cannot speak their national language, in fact In India the language changes completely after every 100km.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Azad Kashmir is under the indirect control of Pakistan. Its defence, foreign policy and currency are under the direct control of Pakistan.*
> Azad Kashmir travel guide
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will get back to you after reading this......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it just shows politics...As far as article on delhi please feel free to share...I had no intentions to downgrade the lives of Kashmiri's or for that matter anybody...My only intentions was to show that Azad kashmir is indeed not that Azad...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They just impeached their PM and placed a new one in his place last year, how else can they show that they have control, even nowadays they prime minister removed the Chief Justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"- A small region at the Northern frontier of Gilgit-Baltistan agency, ceded to the People's Republic of China by Pakistan in 1963."*
> 
> P.S : May be your definition of Free is different than Mine...Anyways strategically(geography, resources) wise it is foolish to let go Kashmir...Pakistan strategists would be nuts to let go Kashmir if they are not convinced that finally it would be under their control...Rest we two are on different boats and our perception about each other is way opposite...It would be very had to converge them so lets leave it here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect, "Parts of Gilgit Baltistan at the border of Pakistan and China" were returned to Pakistan, bulk of the population joined Pakistan in 1948 when the rebelled against Maharaja Hari Singh's attempts to drive them out of their lands.
Click to expand...


----------



## Icarus

Regarding the link, yes we do share a military and currency so Pakistan is bound to have SOME impact on these subjects.


----------



## deckingraj

Kakgeta said:


> Regarding the link, yes we do share a military and currency so Pakistan is bound to have SOME impact on these subjects.



Thanks for saying that... I will settle with it...Rest our views differ on the definition of *Some*...However can't help asking few questions...

What do you mean by



> Incorrect, "Parts of Gilgit Baltistan at the border of Pakistan and China" *were returned to Pakistan*, bulk of the population joined Pakistan in 1948 when the rebelled against Maharaja Hari Singh's attempts to drive them out of their lands.



What was returned to Pakistan???Who gave you right to give away land of a so called "Azad Kashmir" in the first place??? Also for lack of my knowledge can you please tell is Gilgit Baltistan part of Azad Kashmir or Pakistan??



> Atleast do a little research before making wild claims, prior to partition Pakistan had two national languages, Bengali and Urdu., this can be confirmed if you check out a copy of the 1962 constitution of Pakistan.



That's why i hate to indulge in such debates...However since you are behaving very sanely which i appreciate i will reciprocate in the same manner...

As far as research goes then here is the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_Language_Movement

This will give you an inclination that your major problem viz-a-viz East Pakistan occurred because of this notion that Urdu is dear to all muslims of Indian Subcontinent without looking at what majority of people speaks.....Now this brings back to the same question...

Why is Urdu official language in Azad Kashmir when majority speaks Pahadi??? Why will a free government not select most spoken language in their free land???



> It is spoken widely when there is inter-province reaction, however, in each province the mother tongue is spoken, Urdu was not meant to supersede all other languages, India is also a multi-lingual country in which many people cannot speak their national language, in fact In India the language changes completely after every 100km.



And you are right...However our National Language is Hindi because Hindi is spoken by majority of population... Having said it there is/was lot of politics involved around this and today South Indian states don't like speaking Hindi...So even though we have a national language our official language(unofficialy)is English...

Now you may be thinking why i am telling you all this...The idea is to tell you how important is Language and Culture to a so called free society...


----------



## Kinetic

binzaman said:


> *The benefits:*
> 
> &#61664; No more Heavy Defense Budgets
> &#61664; Smaller and batter army
> &#61664; More money available to reduce poverty and hunger in both countries
> &#61664; Together both the nation can rock the world.
> &#61664; Peace and stability in the Region
> &#61664; No more RSS, LeT, Hizbul Mujaheedin, SVP etc
> &#61664; No more terror attacks like happened in Mumbai etc



1) India can easily effort that defence budget. Its much less percentage of GDP than most of the top ten military powers spend.

2) India is thinking to increase the size of the Army. We really needs to increase the size from current 1.1 million to 1.5 million at least. IA also needs more officers as well. Pakistan has much smaller economy, budget, area and population but comparably larger Army.

3) Adequate money is available, only need proper leaders (politicians), plans and management of that money. 

4) Agreed.

5) How? After Kashmir there might be other problems will rise... water, terrorism, distrust, 'hegemony'.....

6) RSS, VHP will be wiped out when Indians actually learn what is best in their interest, nothing before that. RSS, VHP, LeT, Hizbul etc... all these are harmful to India more than any other country. 

7) No guarantee. As mentioned above, terrorists don't talk only about Kashmir any more.


----------



## KS

Kakgeta said:


> India is also a multi-lingual country in which many people cannot speak their national language, in fact In India the language changes completely after every 100km.



Sorry mate...there is no such thing as national language in India as per the indian constitution.
English and Hindi in the devanagari script are the co-official langiuage
and there are 18 official languages that the state govts may use for their proceedings.

Hindi is NOT the National language of India

As for ur comment abt language change every 100km there is a popular saying in India
"There are as many languages in India as the number of ppl"

Thts India for u...



Kinetic said:


> 6) RSS, VHP will be wiped out when Indians actually learn what is best in their interest, nothing before that. RSS, VHP, LeT, Hizbul etc... all these are harmful to India more than any other country.



Please mate dont equate RSS,VHP with LeT or Hizbul.
They do not send 10 men in a boat to carry out a carnage in Karachi or they hijack a Pakistani flight to release their leader.
They mayb extreme in their views but pls no comparison with LeT.
RSS,VHP are not banned by United Nations.They r our internal problems and nothing of concern to Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kinetic

Karthic Sri said:


> Please mate dont equate RSS,VHP with LeT or Hizbul.
> They do not send 10 men in a boat to carry out a carnage in Karachi or they hijack a Pakistani flight to release their leader.
> They mayb extreme in their views but pls no comparison with LeT.
> RSS,VHP are not banned by United Nations.They r our internal problems and nothing of concern to Pakistan.



Mate I mean RSS, VHP etc are problem for India only not any other country. While LeT, JuD, HM are declared terrorist orgs and these are problems for India more than anyone else. India will be happy to crush RSS, VHP whenever possible for her betterment and all of them are actually problems for India only, not a matter of concern for Pakistan as he was showing elimination of them related to Kashmir solution. 

Actually I should have written in more details about it.


----------



## Icarus

> What was returned to Pakistan???Who gave you right to give away land of a so called "Azad Kashmir" in the first place??? Also for lack of my knowledge can you please tell is Gilgit Baltistan part of Azad Kashmir or Pakistan??



They were never given away, they were already a part of China, however historically they were linked with Gilgit Baltistan, Pakistan took the matter up with GoC and the matter was resolved with the land being returned.
Gilgit Baltistan is a part of Pakistan, since they chose to break away from Kashmir to join Pakistan in 1948, it was their request that they be made part of Pakistan.





> That's why i hate to indulge in such debates...However since you are behaving very sanely which i appreciate i will reciprocate in the same manner...
> 
> As far as research goes then here is the link
> 
> Bengali Language Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> This will give you an inclination that your major problem viz-a-viz East Pakistan occurred because of this notion that Urdu is dear to all muslims of Indian Subcontinent without looking at what majority of people speaks.....Now this brings back to the same question...
> 
> Why is Urdu official language in Azad Kashmir when majority speaks Pahadi??? Why will a free government not select most spoken language in their free land???



If you notice, the Bengali language movt only existed till 1958, that when Pakistan got it's first constitution and Bengali was also made a national language. Prior to that, it wasn't anything like we were imposing urdu on them, but the fact was that Pakistan was being governed by the "Indian Independance Act" which was acting as the interim constitution and it had been made by the british stating that Urdu was to be the national language. 
All I can say is that Azad Kashmir chose the language because it is dear to them, if there were any other reasons I am not aware of them, I have served at Azad Kashmir and Urdu is also a widely spoken language in Azad Kashmir.



> And you are right...However our National Language is Hindi because Hindi is spoken by majority of population... Having said it there is/was lot of politics involved around this and today South Indian states don't like speaking Hindi...So even though we have a national language our official language(unofficialy)is English...



Roger..



> Now you may be thinking why i am telling you all this...The idea is to tell you how important is Language and Culture to a so called free society...



Cannot deny it..................


----------



## Icarus

> Sorry mate...there is no such thing as national language in India as per the indian constitution.
> English and Hindi in the devanagari script are the co-official langiuage
> and there are 18 official languages that the state govts may use for their proceedings.
> 
> Hindi is NOT the National language of India
> 
> As for ur comment abt language change every 100km there is a popular saying in India
> "There are as many languages in India as the number of ppl"
> 
> Thts India for u...




Wow................ that's a revelation to me.........thx buddy, appreciate the info........


----------



## deckingraj

Leaving rest of the post since we more or less are in agreement ....



Kakgeta said:


> *They were never given away, they were already a part of China,* however historically they were linked with Gilgit Baltistan, Pakistan took the matter up with GoC and the matter was resolved with the land being returned.


Can you share more information on bolded part??? 



> Gilgit Baltistan is a part of Pakistan, since they chose to break away from Kashmir to join Pakistan in 1948, it was their request that they be made part of Pakistan.


Who is they here??? Anyways this is your internal politics...As far as Indian POV is concerned Gilgil Baltistan is part of J&K which is disputed territory....


----------



## Icarus

> Can you share more information on bolded part???



It would be my pleasure, as you see, when Pakistan came in to being, it had border disputes with many nation, there were territories awarded to Pakistan that other nations controlled or laid claim to, for example:
NWFP(Now Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa) was claimed by Afghanistan as being Afghan territory.
Gwadar was a part of Oman
Kashmir was disputed, both Pakistan and India laid claim to it.
Similarly, there were areas of Gilgit Baltistan that were awarded to Pakistan but China had control over these areas, in 1963, Pakistan and China held bilateral talks to settle all disputes and these talks resulted in the areas which were historically and geographically a part of Gilgit Baltistan being returned by China. 
Hope I managed to clear that....



> Who is they here??? Anyways this is your internal politics...As far as Indian POV is concerned Gilgil Baltistan is part of J&K which is disputed territory....



"They" are the people of Gilgit Baltistan and I only told this because you had asked whether Gilgit Baltistan is a part of Azad Kashmir or not.....


----------



## deckingraj

Kakgeta said:


> It would be my pleasure, as you see, when Pakistan came in to being, it had border disputes with many nation, there were territories awarded to Pakistan that other nations controlled or laid claim to, for example:
> NWFP(Now Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa) was claimed by Afghanistan as being Afghan territory.
> Gwadar was a part of Oman
> Kashmir was disputed, both Pakistan and India laid claim to it.
> Similarly, there were areas of Gilgit Baltistan that were awarded to Pakistan but China had control over these areas, in 1963, Pakistan and China held bilateral talks to settle all disputes and these talks resulted in the areas which were historically and geographically a part of Gilgit Baltistan being returned by China.
> Hope I managed to clear that....
> 
> 
> 
> "They" are the people of Gilgit Baltistan and I only told this because you had asked whether Gilgit Baltistan is a part of Azad Kashmir or not.....



Thanks for the info....Anyways as i said from Indian POV Gilgit Baltistan is a disputed territory and part of J&K which makes this Kashmir issue super complex......


----------



## Icarus

deckingraj said:


> Thanks for the info....Anyways as i said from Indian POV Gilgit Baltistan is a disputed territory and part of J&K which makes this Kashmir issue super complex......



Anytime, and yes I agree, the Kashmir issue is indeed quite complex, yet it seems we were quite close to the solution.
Mr. Kasuri(Our ex-FM) recently disclosed that Pakistan and India were a signature away from declaring Kashmir an autonomous region, thus, ending this conflict once and for all, but unfortunately, the change of GoP in 2008 delayed the proceedings and the Mumbai incidents reduced the programme to a thing of the past....


----------



## The HBS Guy

Your basic premise is wrong. 

Your whole discourse is based on the assumption that Pakistanis can view the issue without the tinted glasses of religion. 

However, Kashmir is a relgious and hence a very emotional issue for the Pakistanis. 

...and the first rule of international diplomacy is that you can't solve issues by being emotional. 

In fact, looking at the larger perspective of the state of affairs in Pakistan, it becomes amply clear that the sole cause responsible for the sorry state that Pakistan today is in, is the significant role religion and emotions play in the lives of the Pakistanis and the broader boldy-politik of Pakistan. 

The day Pakistanis started looking at things without being overly emotional or attaching religious hues to them, will be the day when Pakistan will become a truly great country. 

Unless that happens, Pakistan will continue on the path to self-destruction. 

They can learn a lot from their Chinese friends, if only they wanted to learn something. 

The Chinese can teach the Pakistanis a thing or two about how to focus on nation0building rather that the emotional brouhaha.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Karachiite

The fate of Kashmir should and must be decided by the Kashmiris themselves.


----------



## alphamale

Karachiite said:


> The fate of Kashmir should and must be decided by the Kashmiris themselves.



wrong, only india & Pakistan will decide the fate of Kashmir of-course if pakistan want to.


----------



## Karachiite

alphamale said:


> wrong, only india & Pakistan will decide the fate of Kashmir of-course if pakistan want to.



Why should India and Pakistan decide the fate of Kashmir? Why is India scared of letting Kashmiris decide their own fate? Stop playing with the lives of innocent Kashmiris and give them freedom because thats what they want.


----------



## desiman

Yes we do need to settle the Kashmir issue but internally, Pakistan has nothing to do with it. Stay out of our business and we stay out of yours, simple as that.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Shabz Nist

Muslim ummah thingy is a lie. There is no "brotherhood". They kill each other. Sunnis want to kill ships. Shias want to kill sunnis. Both of them want to kill ahmedis. Sufis are caught in between. Is this is the glorious brotherhood ?! Mend your house first. Then think about "Indian Muslims"......who by the way....are doing pretty darn well.


----------



## The HBS Guy

Karachiite said:


> The fate of Kashmir should and must be decided by the Kashmiris themselves.



I wonder why you didn't think so in 1947 when you insisted than UN include only 'Join India' and 'Join Pakistan' in the options in any plebiscite in Kahsmir. 

Your folks specifically told the UN to exclude the 'independence' option for the Kahsmiris. 

Wonder why such respect for the Kashmiris' choice after 64 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## alphamale

Karachiite said:


> Why should India and Pakistan decide the fate of Kashmir? Why is India scared of letting Kashmiris decide their own fate? Stop playing with the lives of innocent Kashmiris and give them freedom because thats what they want.



u like every pakistani know that india will never conduct any referendum in J&K so why u ppl keep ranting this same thing again & again. india will give away its claim on Pakistani kashmir, in return we want LOC as IB. if Pakistan accepts this then kashmir issue will be solved, otherwise we are ok with status quo, we are not losing anything.


----------



## Shabz Nist

To pakistanis dreaming of integrating J&K. You can look....but you cannot touch.


----------



## Abhishek_

i prefer the status quo, it keeps PK as a security state dis-allowing it to focus on economic development. It enables India to marginalize pakistan and continue economic development


----------



## Shabz Nist

Its like that proverbial story of the monkey who got his hands caught in a jar. Respect India's boundaries and stay out of it. You will find that ever elusive peace in your war torn country.


----------



## Karachiite

alphamale said:


> u like every pakistani know that india will never conduct any referendum in J&K so why u ppl keep ranting this same thing again & again. india will give away its claim on Pakistani kashmir, in return we want LOC as IB. if Pakistan accepts this then kashmir issue will be solved, otherwise we are ok with status quo, we are not losing anything.



What has oppressing and occupying a piece of land achieved for you guys? Just more insurgency in IOK. Kashmiris deserve to make a decision because in the end its their land. Its a fundamental right. Why is a referendum not possible? Solve Kashmr through a peaceful process instead of getting violent. The voice of Kashmiris needs to be heard.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abhishek_

^kashmiris want independence. unfortunately GOP and GOI will not accept that outcome, hence the stalemate.


----------



## alphamale

Karachiite said:


> What has oppressing and occupying a piece of land achieved for you guys? Just more insurgency in IOK. Kashmiris deserve to make a decision because in the end its their land. Its a fundamental right. Why is a referendum not possible? Solve Kashmr through a peaceful process instead of getting violent. The voice of Kashmiris needs to be heard.



whether we achieved something or nothing but unity & integrity of our country is most important for us. we also want to solve it peacefully but not at the expense of our territory not even a inch of it.


----------



## Shabz Nist

Karachiite said:


> What has oppressing and occupying a piece of land achieved for you guys? Just more insurgency in IOK. Kashmiris deserve to make a decision because in the end its their land. Its a fundamental right. Why is a referendum not possible? Solve Kashmr through a peaceful process instead of getting violent. The voice of Kashmiris needs to be heard.


 
Yes we did. We achieved a lot. We messed up Pakistan "Just" by holding Kashmir.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Johny D

not a big deal to settle this issue...everyone knows there is only one solution..status quo.....let pak take PaOK but deal can be sweetned by adding something like...people of PaOK and Indian Kashmir can travel between this two parts of kashmir without visa after 10 years of sucesssfuly and peaeful completion of deal between two countries......and after that may be...India and Pak citizens can travel in each others country without visa...

there is no solution than this...those who day dream indendence for kashmir and then intergrating it with pak...are mere stupid minds who ve kept this issue burning for half century....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Secur

Shabz Nist said:


> Yes we did. We achieved a lot. We messed up Pakistan "Just" by holding Kashmir.


 and in the meantime got messed badly too


----------



## alphamale

Secur said:


> and in the meantime got messed badly too



and how u came to this conclusion?????????


----------



## opps

Its worth the mony holding kashmir.India can now any time choke pakistan's water supply.


----------



## Rusty

opps said:


> Its worth the mony holding kashmir.India can now any time choke pakistan's water supply.



The 1960 Indus water treaty says otherwise. 

but you can keep on having your wet dreams about destroying Pakistan, no once will take that away from you


----------



## harshad

Karachiite said:


> What has oppressing and occupying a piece of land achieved for you guys? Just more insurgency in IOK. Kashmiris deserve to make a decision because in the end its their land. Its a fundamental right. Why is a referendum not possible? Solve Kashmr through a peaceful process instead of getting violent. The voice of Kashmiris needs to be heard.



ask your govt why did it invade free country of kashmir,read the un resolution on referendum,india will accept loc as international border any day but its your govt who is not budging


----------



## Rusty

harshad said:


> ask your govt why did it invade free country of kashmir,read the un resolution on referendum,india will accept loc as international border any day but its your govt who is not budging



This is so hypocritical of you to say
after independence India fiercely denied any state the option for independence.
Many principalities didn't want to join India or Pakistan but rather wanted freedom and India did not let them. 
There were also a few territories, who had Muslim rulers and wanted to Join Pakistan.
But Pakistan did not push for them because the majority of the population was Hindu and we wanted to respect their wishes. 
India on the other hand is still trying to come to grips with Kashmir. 
give it up guy, the the Kashmiries don't want you, time to let get.


----------



## Bukhari.syed

Thing are not like that you think, Kashmir is the part of Pakistan & the people of Kashmir (except) few want it to be done as soon as possible...


----------



## PakShah

I don't know if the Kashmir dispute will be solved anytime soon.

India does not want to solve the Kashmir dispute according to just and moral principles.

So the conflict remains.

---------- Post added at 11:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 AM ----------

The longer the conflict remains, the more time it will give to make Pakistan more culturally different from India. 

Pakistan already has a different culture from India, but the more different Pakistan and India are, the better.


----------



## Bang Galore

Rusty said:


> The 1960 Indus water treaty says otherwise.



Treaties depend on goodwill, if India did not wish to abide by the treaty there is very little anyone can do. Sure, you can go to the International court but they are only of use if both parties agree to abide by the decision. No one can physically force India to alter a decision, it, like all such treaties is dependent on mutual goodwill & common sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## alphamale

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
@chess writer.

buddy do not expect any practical ans from pakistani members here. kashmir is just a emotional issue for them & they are full of emotions while talking abt kashmir. a pak member will not give any practical or logical ans here because it will burst the bubble.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> @PakShah,
> Just and moral principles would be this - "We want Kashmiris to prosper whether they stay with India or Pakistan". Pakistan insists that they can simply not live happily in India, why my dear? ARen't other Muslims staying in India. Hasn't a Muslim been one of the most popular presidents of India, Isn't a good part of the Indian cricket team and Film industry muslim ?!
> 
> Pakistan is a country that refuses to change its opiniion with changing times. Your forefathers at the time of partition told you that Muslims can't stay happy in India - you beleived it then. No problem, but look at what has happened and revise your opinion. A fool is a person who commits the same and same mistake again. You still are stuck on the same 60 yr old argument.



Don't give ridiculous arguments.

The Kashmiris don't want India. The Kashmiris want independence.

The 1990's insurgency is evident of that.

Pakistan has the right to claim Kashmir according to just and moral principles.

Your propaganda won't work here.

The Indian film industry and whoever becomes the President of India is irrelevant here.

The point is, the Muslims of Kashmir don't want to be a part of India.

I will give my full and uncompromising support to my Muslim brothers in Kashmir.


----------



## Bang Galore

PakShah said:


> Don't give ridiculous arguments.
> 
> The Kashmiris don't want India. The Kashmiris want independence.
> 
> The 1990's insurgency is evident of that.
> 
> Pakistan has the right to claim Kashmir according to just and moral principles.
> 
> Your propaganda won't work here.



You believe we are interested in what *"you want"*? we could not care less for your propaganda either. Do you seriously believe that whining, either by the likes of you or your leaders has any effect on what we do in matters we consider to be in our national interest? We have Kashmir, we have no interest in letting go. Save your wishes for someone who might actually give a damn because we sure as hell don't!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PakShah

Bang Galore said:


> You believe we are interested in what *"you want"*? we could not care less for your propaganda either. Do you seriously believe that whining, either by the likes of you or your leaders has any effect on what we do in matters we consider to be in our national interest? We have Kashmir, we have no interest in letting go. Save your wishes for someone who might actually give a damn because we sure as hell don't!



Interestingly, I said Pakistan has the *right* to claim Kashmir.

The Kashmiris don't *want *India.

The Kashmiris have the *right * to get rid of their Indian oppressors.


----------



## chava

PakShah said:


> Don't give ridiculous arguments.
> 
> The Kashmiris don't want India. The Kashmiris want independence.
> 
> *The 1990's insurgency is evident of that.*
> 
> *Pakistan has the right to claim Kashmir according to just and moral principles.*
> 
> Your propaganda won't work here.
> 
> The Indian film industry and whoever becomes the President of India is irrelevant here.
> 
> The point is, the Muslims of Kashmir don't want to be a part of India.
> 
> I will give my full and uncompromising support to my Muslim brothers in Kashmir.



1990 saw terror invasion from pakistan. most fighters were afghan mercenray who got a new assignment after USSR withdrew in 1989. Do you think the timing is only coincidental.. no it was by design.

what just and moral principles.... if kashmir has to go, morally only Bangladesh can claim it, because they were the winners of the last elections when pakistan was the unified entity. now we cannot recognize only you guys and hand over kashmir. you have one half of kashmir and gilgit-baltistan. the only claiman to the other half is bangladesh and not you.


----------



## Bang Galore

PakShah said:


> Interestingly, I said Pakistan has the *right* to claim Kashmir.
> 
> The Kashmiris don't *want *India.
> 
> The Kashmiris have the *right * to get rid of their Indian oppressors.



Read our lips, *WE DON'T CARE !* Simple enough for you ? We are not going anywhere whether you like it or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PakShah

Bang Galore said:


> Read our lips, *WE DON'T CARE !* Simple enough for you ? We are not going anywhere whether you like it or not.



So you Indians don't want to solve the Kashmir dispute according to just and moral principles.

Well we Kashmiris and Pakistanis *DO CARE* !

The Kashmiris don't want Indian Occupation.


*THE KASHMIRIS CARE!
THE PAKISTANIS CARE!*

*We PAKISTANIS will never give up to free our Kashmiris brothers from Indian oppression if India does not want to solve the Kashmir dispute according to just and moral principles!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Polemos

Who cares? Cry all you want. While Pakistan has been bled white in the last ten years, we have had a decade of solid growth. Kashmiris will see sense or we will make them see sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shabz Nist

PakShah said:


> Pakistanis *DO CARE* !



Nice.....So what exactly are you going to do about it ? Now don't issue a fatwa...lol...


----------



## chava

PakShah said:


> So you Indians don't want to solve the Kashmir dispute according to just and moral principles.
> 
> Well we Kashmiris and Pakistanis *DO CARE* !
> 
> The Kashmiris don't want Indian Occupation.
> 
> 
> *THE KASHMIRIS CARE!
> THE PAKISTANIS CARE!*
> 
> *We PAKISTANIS will never give up to free our Kashmiris brothers from Indian oppression if India does not want to solve the Kashmir dispute according to just and moral principles!*



we do want to solve it justly and morally. So we will talk to bangladesh regarding kashmir.. why should it go west pakistan and east pakistan not get a share.


----------



## Bang Galore

PakShah said:


> *We PAKISTANIS will never give up to free our Kashmiris brothers from Indian oppression if India does not want to solve the Kashmir dispute according to just and moral principles!*



Don't give up, who cares? Certainly not us. See where 64 years of caring has got you? We can go on for another 64 years & then another 64 without a resolution.You still won't get Kashmir.


----------



## SpArK

PakShah said:


> So you Indians don't want to solve the Kashmir dispute according to just and moral principles.
> 
> Well we Kashmiris and Pakistanis *DO CARE* !
> 
> The Kashmiris don't want Indian Occupation.
> 
> 
> *THE KASHMIRIS CARE!
> THE PAKISTANIS CARE!*
> 
> *We PAKISTANIS will never give up to free our Kashmiris brothers from Indian oppression if India does not want to solve the Kashmir dispute according to just and moral principles!*




I know you want it but you never gonna get it
Tere haath kabhi na aani
Maane na maane koi duniya yeh saari, tere ishq to gone meri jaani..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## tvsram1992

Merge pakistan with India , problem solved

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## toxic_pus

PakShah said:


> Pakistan has the right to claim Kashmir according to just and moral principles.


There is a word for this misplaced sense of entitlement. It's called irredentism. Look it up.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SpArK

tvsram1992 said:


> Merge pakistan with India , problem solved



U kiddin right?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Don Jaguar

tvsram1992 said:


> Merge pakistan with India , problem solved



Self Delete.


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> @* PakShah*
> 
> This is what I had posted
> 
> And This is your Illogical Answer to it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kindly don't say that the arguments are ridiculous - Prove it ! This can be done by using facts, not by using emotionally charged statements that you accept as the truth. Convince us mate ! I have supported every assertion of mine with a fact, can you please do the same or are you not articulate enough to participate in a rational debate.
> 
> Your whole paragraph just served to prove point 1 in my answer right "Any minority in any country will want independence and a separate state if they think it is an achievable aim". You in your post did exactly what I accuse Pakistan of - you show them empty dreams that you see yourself because your Army shows you those dreams.
> 
> Prove even one of my arguments (in the quoted post above) wrong and I will take my whole argument back. Don't give us rhetoric. Don't expect us to accept you as an intelligent member of the forum just because you can come up with such emotional arguments - Only if you can argue your case, will you get that respect.








Sorry, you are flat out wrong.

Point 1:
Muslims in certain provinces of the British Raj were the majority. If we didn't want to be with Hindu majority provinces, and we wanted to form our country, who were the British to stop us?

Point 2:
You are using twisted facts. You say there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan. You are wrong. In fact there are more Muslims in Pakistan than there are Muslims in India.

According to the Pew , it says there are more Muslims in Pakistan than there are Muslims in India.

The Muslim population of Pakistan is: *174,082,000*
The Muslim population of India is : *160,945,000*

http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf

I have beaten you with facts.

Now for the sake of argument, lets suppose present-day India has more Muslims than present-day Pakistan, thats still misleading.

What about Bangladesh. The combined Muslim population of Pakistan and Bangladesh is much more than India's Muslim population.

So when Pakistan got independence in 1947, Most Muslims decided not to be with the Hindu majority provinces. So there are more Muslims in South Asia that are not in the Hindu majority areas(today's Bharat). There are more Muslims in the Muslim majority regions (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Maldives), than in India. So stop your blatant lies!



So stop spreading lies. Don't try to look at things from twisted angle!

Point 3: Balochis don't want independence from Pakistan. There is no legitimate Islamic justification for them to do so. Balochistan is not disputed territory like Kashmir.

Pakistanis know Kashmir is disputed territory. Kashmiris know Kashmir is disputed territory.

Down with Indian oppression of Kashmir!

chess-writer your arguments about "economics" have nothing to do with the Kashmir dispute. You are merely trolling and trying to divert the focus of the arguments.


Clearly the Kashmiris don't care about money! The Kashmiris want their *FREEDOM*. *INSH'ALLAH*, the Kashmiris in IOK will have their *FREEDOM*.

Your arguements are ridiculous because much of it is irrelevant and merely to distract people from the focus of the argument.

Again I shall say it again. 


*Don't give ridiculous arguments.

The Kashmiris don't want India. The Kashmiris want independence.

The 1990's insurgency is evident of that.

Pakistan has the right to claim Kashmir according to just and moral principles.

Your propaganda won't work here.

The Indian film industry and whoever becomes the President of India is irrelevant here.

The point is, the Muslims of Kashmir don't want to be a part of India.

I will give my full and uncompromising support to my Muslim brothers in Kashmir.*


----------



## Manas

> Settle Kashmir and Get the Reward!!!



*Forget Kashmir and get smart !!!*


----------



## tvsram1992

SpArK said:


> U kiddin right?


 You must have quoted title instead of my post


----------



## Hulk

Chess-writer said:


> @PakShah
> 
> I will talk about your arguments point by point :
> 
> _Point 1 : Muslims in certain provinces of the British Raj were the majority. If we didn't want to be with Hindu majority provinces, and we wanted to form our country, who were the British to stop us?_
> 
> You're right. In certain provinces, Muslims were in majority. But then, you take any country - There will be some provinces in which some minority community will be concentrated and hence be form the majority there. However, it doesn't mean that they get entitled to create a separate country because of it. If we do not restrict ourselves to religion then you'd realise that Baluchs are the majority in Baluchistan, Pashtuns are in majority elsewhere in Pakistan - you'd agree with me that this does not mean that they have a right to get separated. You'll find examples like that everywhere in the world. I will reassert my point that - "ny minority in any country will want independence and a separate state if they think it is an achievable aim". You se this happen in your own country (we'll come to the disputed/undisputed argument later)
> 
> 
> _Point 2: You are using twisted facts. You say there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan. You are wrong. In fact there are more Muslims in Pakistan than there are Muslims in India.According to the Pew , it says there are more Muslims in Pakistan than there are Muslims in India. The Muslim population of Pakistan is: 174,082,000. The Muslim population of India is : 160,945,000. What about Bangladesh. The combined Muslim population of Pakistan and Bangladesh is much more than India's Muslim population. So when Pakistan got independence in 1947, Most Muslims decided not to be with the Hindu majority provinces. So there are more Muslims in South Asia that are not in the Hindu majority areas(today's Bharat). There are more Muslims in the Muslim majority regions (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Maldives), than in India. So stop your blatant lies!_
> 
> Ok, I concede, your facts are accurate. But they do not support your argument or oppose mine. The crux is this - The pro-Pakistan leaders during the pre-independence era convinced the muslims that they would be in a state of perpetual disadvantage vis-a-vis hindus if they stayed in India. However, this has proven to be wrong. I concede there have been communal tensions off and on between hindus and muslims in India, but those tensions are nowhere near the scale your leaders talked you into believing. My point when i talk about muslims in Indian politics, cricket team and film industry was meant to reinforce this point. Muslims are better off in India than Pakistan.
> If merely being in majority in certain geographical region were used to decide the boundaries than the creation of Bangladesh too was correct. The Bangladeshis would use the exact same arguments that you are using. The only difference would be that instead of Hindus vs Muslims they would categorise it as Urdu muslims vs Bangla muslims. Tomorrow Baluchis may use the same argument, and by your criterion they'd be right !
> So my point that just being in a minority doesn't give anyone the right to having another country holds true.
> 
> 
> _Point 3: Balochis don't want independence from Pakistan. There is no legitimate Islamic justification for them to do so. Balochistan is not disputed territory like Kashmir._
> Well, I talked of Minorities in my comments, they could be a religious minority, a linguistic minority or an ethnic minority, It doesn't matter. The question of Islamic justification does not arise. If that were so people would dig up Christian justification, Hindu justification, Buddhist justification and god knows which other justification to support their arguments in favour of a separate state.
> 
> 
> _Point 4 : Pakistanis know Kashmir is disputed territory. Kashmiris know Kashmir is disputed territory. Down with Indian oppression of Kashmir!_
> That is the point - you simply know that Kashmir is disputed because you dispute it, And you do so on the basis of religion. Well India is a secular country, all religions co-exist here pretty well. There is no reason that if someone (a Kashmiri) has a separate religion, he'd demand to change his country and be right.
> As for the oppression is concerned - It is not that India, Indians or Indian soldiers like to commit human rights violations. It is that the population of Kashmir has been shown this bogey, this dream of a plebiscite and re-unification with an Islamic Pakistan that makes them want to separate. I'd repeat what I said again and explain it - "Any minority in any country will want independence and a separate state if they think it is an achievable aim". In that sentence Kashmiris Muslims are the minority and they are being made to think by Pakistan that to separate from India is an acheivable aim. (the way India made the Bangladeshis think the same - But we're not discussing that here).
> This leads to heavy military presence by Indian forces in Kashmir, and like any other heavily militarised zone, rights violations do occur ! As I mentioned, the forces do not do it for fun !! Moreover, they simply do not know which person is a militant and who is not so a kind of mass suspicion results. All of this would stop if Pakistan stopped showing them this bogey of independence.
> 
> _Point 5:Chess-writer your arguments about "economics" have nothing to do with the Kashmir dispute. _
> Economics has everything to do with Kashmir, friend. Economics has everything to do with everything in the world today. It is the reason why India and China trade more amongst themselves than Pakistan. On the level of an individual citizen , it means that a person will have a better school and a better playground for his kids, a better job for himself, enough money to retire and enough money to have social status. It means that he can fulfill some of the dreams all of us develop as a child. Do not tell me economic arguments are irrelevent.
> It will be much better for you if you lived in USA and had more money, that is probably the reason you'd have a relative there. See, Economic reason !
> 
> _Point 6 : You are merely trolling and trying to divert the focus of the arguments_
> Just because you cannot come up with a coherent argument does not mean that I am trolling. I have suggested a solution to the Kashmir issue - It should be to either agree to maintain status quo for a prolonged period (say 50 years) or conversion of the Line of Control into the International border. And resolving it this way has rewards for Pakistan(and India too !) - Now kindly read the title of the thread again, it is about rewards !
> 
> 
> *Lastly my own word*
> The facts you gave were correct and accurate but do not support your arguments or go against mine. Pakistan should give India Pak occuped Kashmir because the rate of HIV infection in South Africa is 10% - That is how it is !
> 
> The case of Kashmir is exactly the same as the case of Bangladesh or the case of Baluchistan or the case of many other places in the world and in India where there are minorities who demand a separate country. Everyone can't have a country simply because they belong to a separate class (especially in a secular country like India in case of Kashmir).
> 
> And economics are important, do you not want more money, what makes you think that Kashmiris don't want it ! Having no money is the reason why people come to IOK from Pak occ Kashmir to fight. Had these guys had a job, had they been married and had kids, they wouldn't agree. The average age of Men in Pakistan is 26.3 years - you'd notice no doubt that this is the age when a person is the most economically unstable. This is about the average age when any society faces the maximum amunt of turmoil - As said by Samuel Huntington ! Check it out !



In my entire life, I have never read better argument then this, who are you? What do you do?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bhairava

PakShah said:


> .......
> We PAKISTANIS will never give up to free our Kashmiris brothers from Indian oppression .......



Have you ever for once thought that this is *exactly* what India wants you to do ? Chasing your own tail in Kashmir & in the process destroying yourself ?

Read up on this article and you will get to know about it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> @PakShah
> 
> I will talk about your arguments point by point :
> 
> _Point 1 : Muslims in certain provinces of the British Raj were the majority. If we didn't want to be with Hindu majority provinces, and we wanted to form our country, who were the British to stop us?_
> *You're right. In certain provinces, Muslims were in majority. But then, you take any country - There will be some provinces in which some minority community will be concentrated and hence be form the majority there. However, it doesn't mean that they get entitled to create a separate country because of it. If we do not restrict ourselves to religion then you'd realise that Baluchs are the majority in Baluchistan, Pashtuns are in majority elsewhere in Pakistan - you'd agree with me that this does not mean that they have a right to get separated. You'll find examples like that everywhere in the world. I will reassert my point that - "ny minority in any country will want independence and a separate state if they think it is an achievable aim". You se this happen in your own country (we'll come to the disputed/undisputed argument later)
> *
> 
> _Point 2: You are using twisted facts. You say there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan. You are wrong. In fact there are more Muslims in Pakistan than there are Muslims in India.According to the Pew , it says there are more Muslims in Pakistan than there are Muslims in India. The Muslim population of Pakistan is: 174,082,000. The Muslim population of India is : 160,945,000. What about Bangladesh. The combined Muslim population of Pakistan and Bangladesh is much more than India's Muslim population. So when Pakistan got independence in 1947, Most Muslims decided not to be with the Hindu majority provinces. So there are more Muslims in South Asia that are not in the Hindu majority areas(today's Bharat). There are more Muslims in the Muslim majority regions (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Maldives), than in India. So stop your blatant lies!_
> 
> *Ok, I concede, your facts are accurate. But they do not support your argument or oppose mine. The crux is this - The pro-Pakistan leaders during the pre-independence era convinced the muslims that they would be in a state of perpetual disadvantage vis-a-vis hindus if they stayed in India. However, this has proven to be wrong. I concede there have been communal tensions off and on between hindus and muslims in India, but those tensions are nowhere near the scale your leaders talked you into believing. My point when i talk about muslims in Indian politics, cricket team and film industry was meant to reinforce this point. Muslims are better off in India than Pakistan.
> If merely being in majority in certain geographical region were used to decide the boundaries than the creation of Bangladesh too was correct. The Bangladeshis would use the exact same arguments that you are using. The only difference would be that instead of Hindus vs Muslims they would categorise it as Urdu muslims vs Bangla muslims. Tomorrow Baluchis may use the same argument, and by your criterion they'd be right !
> So my point that just being in a minority doesn't give anyone the right to having another country holds true.
> *
> 
> _Point 3: Balochis don't want independence from Pakistan. There is no legitimate Islamic justification for them to do so. Balochistan is not disputed territory like Kashmir._
> *Well, I talked of Minorities in my comments, they could be a religious minority, a linguistic minority or an ethnic minority, It doesn't matter. The question of Islamic justification does not arise. If that were so people would dig up Christian justification, Hindu justification, Buddhist justification and god knows which other justification to support their arguments in favour of a separate state*.
> 
> 
> _Point 4 : Pakistanis know Kashmir is disputed territory. Kashmiris know Kashmir is disputed territory. Down with Indian oppression of Kashmir!_
> *That is the point - you simply know that Kashmir is disputed because you dispute it yourself, And you do so on the basis of religion. Well India is a secular country, all religions co-exist here pretty well. There is no reason that if someone (a Kashmiri) has a separate religion, he'd demand to change his country and be right.
> As for the oppression is concerned - It is not that India, Indians or Indian soldiers like to commit human rights violations. It is that the population of Kashmir has been shown this bogey, this dream of a plebiscite and re-unification with an Islamic Pakistan that makes them want to separate. I'd repeat what I said again and explain it - "Any minority in any country will want independence and a separate state if they think it is an achievable aim". In that sentence Kashmiris Muslims are the minority and they are being made to think by Pakistan that to separate from India is an acheivable aim. (the way India made the Bangladeshis think the same - But we're not discussing that here).
> This leads to heavy military presence by Indian forces in Kashmir, and like any other heavily militarised zone, rights violations do occur ! As I mentioned, the forces do not do it for fun !! Moreover, they simply do not know which person is a militant and who is not so a kind of mass suspicion results. All of this would stop if Pakistan stopped showing them this bogey of independence.*
> 
> _Point 5:Chess-writer your arguments about "economics" have nothing to do with the Kashmir dispute. _
> *Economics has everything to do with Kashmir, friend. Economics has everything to do with everything in the world today. It is the reason why India and China trade more amongst themselves than Pakistan. On the level of an individual citizen , it means that a person will have a better school and a better playground for his kids, a better job for himself, enough money to retire and enough money to have social status. It means that he can fulfill some of the dreams all of us develop as a child. Do not tell me economic arguments are irrelevent.
> It will be much better for you if you lived in USA and had more money, that is probably the reason you'd have a relative there. See, Economic reason !*
> 
> _Point 6 : You are merely trolling and trying to divert the focus of the arguments_
> *Just because you cannot come up with a coherent argument does not mean that I am trolling. I have suggested a solution to the Kashmir issue - It should be to either agree to maintain status quo for a prolonged period (say 50 years) or conversion of the Line of Control into the International border. And resolving it this way has rewards for Pakistan(and India too !) - Now kindly read the title of the thread again, it is about rewards !
> *
> 
> *Lastly my own word*
> The facts you gave were correct and accurate but do not support your arguments or go against mine. Pakistan should give India Pak occuped Kashmir because the rate of HIV infection in South Africa is 10% - That is how it is !
> 
> The case of Kashmir is exactly the same as the case of Bangladesh or the case of Baluchistan or the case of many other places in the world and in India where there are minorities who demand a separate country. Everyone can't have a country simply because they belong to a separate class (especially in a secular country like India in case of Kashmir).
> 
> And economics are important, do you not want more money, what makes you think that Kashmiris don't want it ! Having no money is the reason why people come to IOK from Pak occ Kashmir to fight. Had these guys had a job, had they been married and had kids, they wouldn't agree. The average age of Men in Pakistan is 26.3 years - you'd notice no doubt that this is the age when a person is the most economically unstable. This is about the average age when any society faces the maximum amunt of turmoil - As said by Samuel Huntington ! Check it out !



Answering with sincerity and passion doesn't make you right chess-writer.

Point 1: I dispute this: "Any minority in any country will want independence and a separate state if they think it is an achievable aim."

What do you mean by this?
*Point 1:*
The All India Muslim League felt that Muslim majority regions would be at a disadvantage, because the Muslim majority regions would not have autonomy. We Muslims want to rule our lands according to Sharia and by own people. In a secular India, would that have happened? No Hindu in power would have allowed that.

*Point 2:*
lol, there were many religious benefits by creating Pakistan. By creating Pakistan it gave us Pakistanis the opportunity to rule our lands with Sharia.

Now whether Pakistan is ruled under Sharia today that is a different matter. Pakistan should be. And don't bring what Mr. Jinnah wanted. 

Muhammad Asad and Chaudry Rehmat Ali wanted to have a Pakistan to be ruled by Sharia.

Chess-master you are trying to make partition sound as if it was a matter of economics. 

There was also religious angle to it.

Point 3:
I don't know if Muslims in India are better than Muslims in Pakistan. I need do my own research to reach a conclusion.

Point 4:
Don't compare the Balochis to Kashmir. You don't know what you are talking about. Do you even know how things work in Pakistan? Religion is always taken into consideration. Even on the passport your religion is stated.
Most Balochis don't want independence from Pakistan. Most Balochis want to stay with Pakistan. I have yet to see any Balochi in my entire life who wants independence from Pakistan. Balochis are practicing Muslims. They know there is no Islamic justification of Balochi independence from Pakistan. This is where you fail chess-master. Kashmir is a real territorial dispute according to the UN. By the way Balochis do not make up a majority in Balochistan. There is a very large Pukhtoon population in Balochistan. You fail again.

Point 5:
Whether India is a secular country or not, that is irrelevant to the Kashmir dispute. The Kashmiris want freedom from India. This is an undeniable fact. You are just beating around the bush. Pakistani has an education system and a stable yet critical economy.
You are trying to make Pakistan sound like a sub-Saharan country. Don't kid yourself.

There are many Kashmiri leaders such as Syed Ali Geelani and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq want to get Kashmir rid of Indian occupation.

Even fair minded Indians such as Arundhati Roy knows the Indian government is wrong.

Point 6:
Before the British came to South Asia, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh were a bunch of Kingdoms. So what makes you think present day Pakistan was a part of Bharat in the first place? 

You fail again. 

There is no Balochi Muslims vs Urdu Muslims in Pakistan. All the ethnicities in Pakistan are united under the banner of Islam.

The independence of Bangladesh is a different matter pertaining with politics. The Balochis don't have any real grievances with Pakistan, except some issues with resource distribution.

You are comparing ethnic independence with people with want to be independent because they have a different religion. Balochistan will never get independence from Pakistan, because the Balochis know their obligations in Islam. The Balochis have no legitimate reason according to moral and just principles to be independent from Pakistan. This is where you fail again chess master.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Secondly your post 231 is a fail, because if you read the previous thread pages carefully, I was responding to Bang alore, not you.

Therefore my statements you quoted in your post 231, are valid. You just cherry-picked one of my posts and then started to debate with me.* 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are trying to divert the focus the debate of Kashmir to economics, the history of the independence of Pakistan. 

All your questions will be satisfactorily answered. However I need time too, to understand your lengthy posts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So you are trying to say there is a minority within the ethnic minority of Balochis of Pakistan who want independence from Pakistan? Those Balochis have no justification according to moral and just principles to secede from Pakistan. 

You are comparing the Balochis to the independence of Pakistan?
All Muslims in the majority regions did not want to be with Hindus. Pretty simple.
All Balochis in Balochistan, who don't even make a majority in Balochistan want to be with Pakistan.

There is only a "few to some" 70 to 100 Balochis that want independence from Pakistan.

Its not going to happen.

*I think the crux of the matter is this:
Point 1: I dispute this: "Any minority in any country will want independence and a separate state if they think it is an achievable aim."

I disagree with this argument. This argument doesn't hold might weight. It depends on which type of minority and the circumstances involved. You are using a too general statement.*

*Telugu speakers are a minority in India. Yet they don't feel the need for independence. Why???
LOL, this is where you are defeated.*



*The Muslims were not a minority in the "British India Empire." Muslims were merely part of the British India Empire.
You are somehow claiming that Pakistan should have been a part of India, in India's independence which quite absurd to be frank.*

And what about Myanmar? Myanmar too was part of the British Indian Empire. Myanmar too could have been a part of today's Bharat. So could have Sri Lanka. This is where you fail again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*All this is nonsense chess master. you just want to distract us from the main issue.

Point is: Kashmir is a territorial dispute according to the UN. Pakistan has a principled stand on Kashmir and India does not. This is very common knowledge.

All this debate about Pakistan-Indian independence, Balochis, Bangladesh, economics is all nonsense and irrelevant. Pakistan has decent educational system and economy by South Asian standards.

This is all about just and moral principles and India is not following it.

I've already answered all your points.*


*Kashmiris are Muslims, and make a majority in their country. They want to rule according to their beliefs. Kashmiris were promised a referendum. Kashmiris weren't given one.

Mr. Nehru promised a referendum would be held in Kashmir.*

*Down with Indian occupation of IOK!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## harshad

Rusty said:


> This is so hypocritical of you to say
> after independence India fiercely denied any state the option for independence.
> Many principalities didn't want to join India or Pakistan but rather wanted freedom and India did not let them.
> There were also a few territories, who had Muslim rulers and wanted to Join Pakistan.
> But Pakistan did not push for them because the majority of the population was Hindu and we wanted to respect their wishes.
> India on the other hand is still trying to come to grips with Kashmir.
> give it up guy, the the Kashmiries don't want you, time to let get.



arent you guys hypocritical,you can see the suffering of muslims in kashmir but not of kashmiri pandits,tamils in sri lanka,tibetans in china
india didnt attack,control the territory of kashmir,since you guys show the world that how much you care for them and you are the same people who went against the wishes of kashmiris and tried to capture kashmir
india is a secular country so your logic that since a state has majority muslim so it should join pakistan fails
india was also ready for referendum but if you read the un resolution it says that pakistan army should withdraw from kashmir,did it do that? so there is no point just blaming india,pakistan is at as much fault as india

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## NirmalKrish

PakShah said:


> Sorry, you are flat out wrong.
> 
> Point 1:
> Muslims in certain provinces of the British Raj were the majority. If we didn't want to be with Hindu majority provinces, and we wanted to form our country, who were the British to stop us?
> 
> Point 2:
> You are using twisted facts. You say there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan. You are wrong. In fact there are more Muslims in Pakistan than there are Muslims in India.
> 
> According to the Pew , it says there are more Muslims in Pakistan than there are Muslims in India.
> 
> The Muslim population of Pakistan is: *174,082,000*
> The Muslim population of India is : *160,945,000*
> 
> http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf
> 
> I have beaten you with facts.
> 
> Now for the sake of argument, lets suppose present-day India has more Muslims than present-day Pakistan, thats still misleading.
> 
> What about Bangladesh. The combined Muslim population of Pakistan and Bangladesh is much more than India's Muslim population.
> 
> So when Pakistan got independence in 1947, Most Muslims decided not to be with the Hindu majority provinces. So there are more Muslims in South Asia that are not in the Hindu majority areas(today's Bharat). There are more Muslims in the Muslim majority regions (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Maldives), than in India. So stop your blatant lies!
> 
> 
> 
> So stop spreading lies. Don't try to look at things from twisted angle!
> 
> Point 3: Balochis don't want independence from Pakistan. There is no legitimate Islamic justification for them to do so. Balochistan is not disputed territory like Kashmir.
> 
> Pakistanis know Kashmir is disputed territory. Kashmiris know Kashmir is disputed territory.
> 
> Down with Indian oppression of Kashmir!
> 
> chess-writer your arguments about "economics" have nothing to do with the Kashmir dispute. You are merely trolling and trying to divert the focus of the arguments.
> 
> 
> Clearly the Kashmiris don't care about money! The Kashmiris want their *FREEDOM*. *INSH'ALLAH*, the Kashmiris in IOK will have their *FREEDOM*.
> 
> Your arguements are ridiculous because much of it is irrelevant and merely to distract people from the focus of the argument.
> 
> Again I shall say it again.
> 
> 
> *Don't give ridiculous arguments.
> 
> The Kashmiris don't want India. The Kashmiris want independence.
> 
> The 1990's insurgency is evident of that.
> 
> Pakistan has the right to claim Kashmir according to just and moral principles.
> 
> Your propaganda won't work here.
> 
> The Indian film industry and whoever becomes the President of India is irrelevant here.
> 
> The point is, the Muslims of Kashmir don't want to be a part of India.
> 
> I will give my full and uncompromising support to my Muslim brothers in Kashmir.*





> *I will give my full and uncompromising support to my Muslim brothers in Kashmir. *




my reply short and sweet

My fellow Indian members let us take a pledge, that in any circumstances will we not let our Indian Kashmiris (Muslims, Hindu and other monitories) which make up the greater Kashmir succumb to Pakistan hostiles & to defend her from all axis of evil. We will ensure that our guard is not let down as to even allow the thought of our enemies to take an anther inch of our lands. Pakistanis can blabber whatever they want if they try something let them, the consequences will be dire. go cry all you want

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## RazPaK

I think this thread should be put on hiatus. Indians we can deal on this issue mutually at a later time, as this issue can only be resolved between us. Right now Pakistan has lost 24 jawans that are in theory the soul and backbone of our country. I would apprciate all Indian members that refrain from trolling at this time.


Thanks in advance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RazPaK

Wow, I applaud all Indians on this forum alike for stopping flame posts, in respect of our Pakistani troops. If Indians can give us this much respect, in our hearts we can already return the favour. Thanks Indian PDF posters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## NirmalKrish

RazPaK said:


> Wow, I applaud all Indians on this forum alike for stopping flame posts, in respect of our Pakistani troops. If Indians can give us this much respect, in our hearts we can already return the favour. Thanks Indian PDF posters.



Your Welcome, respect given is respect earned the feelings mutual. Our deepest condolences for your loss, may they rest in peace.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## tony singh

How about Pakistan close the terror camps in *** and stop sending jihadis into India first.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## alphamale

Chess-writer said:


> So many people online, doesn't anyone want to discuss/debate something.



what do u want to debate?????? the usual answers would be like there should be referendum, india should call back its forces, one day, we hope, inshallah etc etc etc.


----------



## IND151

> Just not done... Terrorists are not looking for reasons to spread gloom and death, they are looking for excuses. It would be very stupid to think that terror will end if Kashmir is given away to a third country.



right.

a defense expert has said that Pakistan wants to match India's power.

he is right.

PAK doesn't like the dominance of in India in south Asia due to the fact that India is most powerful in the region.

Pakistanis ( not all ) used to see as weak people having different faith , easily conquerable , ruled by Muslims by more that 1000 years ( barley 300 years in reality ).

*so they cant bear that India is getting stronger every day, having dominance in whole SA, enjoying strong position in Kashmir.*

acknowledgement of India by experts as potential superpower is final straw

thus they have developed deep hatred towards India.


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> @PakShah :
> I will try to once again try to rebut most of your statements.
> 
> *You have said :I dispute this: "Any minority in any country will want independence and a separate state if they think it is an achievable aim."*
> *Well, look around you and you will find a lot of evidence in favour of that statement, here are a few examples
> 1.Breakup of the USSR
> 2.Irish terrorism in UK
> 3.Catalan and Basque separatism in Spain
> 4.Hutus vs Tutsis in Rwanda
> 5.Partition of India and Pakistan
> 6.Separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan
> 7.Tamil separatism in Sri Lanka
> 
> -In all these cases, there was a minority which was concentrated in a certain region of the country and demanded independence. The motivation for this can be Religious (as in case of India and Pakistan) or Linguistic (as in case of Pakistan and Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and LTTE, or Basque separatism in Spain) or Ethnicity (breakup of the USSR) or even something stupid like the size of a people's nose(this is unbelievable, but in Rwanda, Hutus fight against Tutsis, Hutus are the guys with the long nose, Tutsis are the ones with smaller noses). By quoting these examples, I seek to show you that people will inevitably find a reason to fight when they are in the minority in a country but in the majority locally in a certain area of that country. In case of Pakistan and Kashmir, this reason is supplied by using Religion.
> 
> -The minorities need the following to ask for independence - (a)A sense of being wronged , oppressed or persecuted (b)A Belief that they would be victorious if they fight (c)Resources for political or military resistance (d) A sense of being differrent from the people whom you're fighting.
> In all the examples above you would see that these 3 things are supplied by either internal or external forces. For example, in case of Ireland, all 4 of these came from within except the resources like weapons etc. which in many cases came from people like Gaddafi who wanted to spread terrorism in the UK.
> 
> -In the case of Pakistan and Kashmir, Kashmiris get all 4 of the above things come from Pakistan. I will discuss them one by one
> (a)A sense of being wronged , oppressed or persecuted - I just proved to you in my last post that Indian muslims are not exactly perseuted, in fact they are happier than their brethren in Pakistan. But Pakistan has convinced Kashmiris that they have been deliberately oppressed ! As I said before, Indian security forces do not get fun out of persecuting anyone. The Human rights violations are a direct result of Kashmir being a heavily militarised zone. Pakistan convinces Kashmiris that rights violations happen because they are Muslims.
> (b)A Belief that they would be victorious if they fight - I hope no further elaboration is necessary. Your being here on forum and arguing with me over a 60 year old dispute proves the point that Pakistanis still think that they can get IOK and encourage Kashmiri Muslims to think similiarly. Isn't it a bit unethical to do so - considering that the gap between the military, political and economic capabilities of our countries is widening day by day in India's favour. In the near future, it is impossible for Pakistan to take IoK unless India agrees. Pakistan knows this but convinces Kashmiri Muslims of the exact opposite.
> (c)Resources for political or military resistance -Weapons, Training Camps, Ghulam Nabi Fai, etc etc etc etc etc, Enough said !
> (d) A sense of being differrent from the people whom you're fighting - By telling Kashmiri Muslims that Indian Hindus are oppressing them . The truth is if Kashmiris are being oppressed then Indian Hindus as well as India Muslims are doing so. After all our Armed forces have a lot of Muslims, Two of our presidents and Numerous supreme court judges have been Muslims. We are no different from the Kashmiri Muslims as indeed we are no different from the Pakistani Muslims, yet you convince the Kashmiris of the exact opposite.
> *
> *Point (d) also goes to address your statement "Whether India is a secular country or not, that is irrelevant to the Kashmir dispute". It is very much relevant my friend, Pakistan has convinced itself as well as the Kashmiris that this is not relevent.*
> 
> 
> *A rebuttal to a few other Points you raised*
> _Points 1 and 2 - Regarding your quotes on Pakistan,Partition and Sharia etc_. I was using partition as an example of how a minority will always demand separation from the majority if certain conditions exist. The examples I gave in the beginning from other countries makes this clearer I hope. I was not asking for reuniting Pakistan with India(it would be bad for India) and where have I used an economic argument to oppose the creation of Pakistan?
> You said that Pakistan has no Sharia as was earlier intended by the founding fathers - Why then do you think Kashmiris will be better with you than us. In India Muslims are governed by the "Muslim Personal law" which is different from the one that applies to Hindus and others, they have almost the same religious rights as you have.
> 
> _Point 3: don't know if Muslims in India are better than Muslims in Pakistan. I need do my own research to reach a conclusion_.
> Ok Take your time on that one. But had I been in your place I will have conceded that this statement is correct and congratulated my opponent.
> 
> _Point 4 : Baluchistan_
> I concede, you being Pakistani know more about Balochistan than I do. But again, it was just meant to be an example of a minority which feels wronged by the majority. The Baloch issue would never be in the news if it weren't important for Pakistan to address their concerns
> (However small the number of separatists you have in Baluchistan).
> 
> _Point 6:Before the British came to South Asia, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh were a bunch of Kingdoms. So what makes you think present day Pakistan was a part of Bharat in the first place? _
> I for one never mention old crap in my posts to this forum. You will notice that I do not talk about 1947, plebiscite, etc... because those issues are not important to me. I use the examples of partition etc just to prove a point. The purpose of history is to use it to learn lessons, that is exactly what I do in my comments. I am not interested in who was right or wrong then or if the creation of Pakistan was justified. I am interested in the present only.
> 
> _There is no Balochi Muslims vs Urdu Muslims in Pakistan. All the ethnicities in Pakistan are united under the banner of Islam._
> They used to say that about Bangladesh too. As I said above, learn lessons from history or it will come back to bite you.
> 
> 
> And what about Myanmar? Myanmar too was part of the British Indian Empire. Myanmar too could have been a part of today's Bharat. So could have Sri Lanka. This is where you fail again.[/I]
> Now, who is derailing the issue PakShah - India, Bangladesh and and Pakistan were ruled as one unit by the Britishers, they called it "India" collectively. Where does the question of Burma or Sri Lanka arise in this.
> 
> 
> *Closing Arguments and Criticism of Your Attitude*
> 
> _You are trying to divert the focus the debate of Kashmir to economics, the history of the independence of Pakistan. _
> _All this is nonsense chess master. you just want to distract us from the main issue._
> *Just because I mentioned that Kashmiri Muslims in IoK will be better with India than Pakistan because India is an economically growing, secular country where they will get oppurtunity to live a better life than in Pakistan ,doesn't mean I am derailing the forum. It is directly relevent to the solution to the Kashmir problem that I am suggesting - Status quo or Conversion of LoC to IB.*
> 
> 
> _Kashmiris are Muslims, and make a majority in their country. They want to rule according to their beliefs. Kashmiris were promised a referendum. Kashmiris weren't given one. Mr. Nehru promised a referendum would be held in Kashmir. Down with Indian occupation of IOK!
> 
> *Again you end your post with emotional hyperbole. Have you ever thought why do you have to always fall back on emotions and false bravado
> Open up your mind and see the truth when someone shows it to you. I am a guy who has read good amount of the Quran even though I am not a Muslim. I usually know what I am talking about and open minded as well (as I have shown you by accepting a few of your arguments). My only request to you and other Pakistanis is to learn lessons from history !*_


_


Don't really have the time to talk nonsense with you, but:

Point 1:
*I do not accept the Britishers governing the regions of Pakistan, Today's Bharat, and Bangladesh as one unit, since the Britishers were invaders.*

*I do not accept what the Britishers how they wanted to rule South Asia.
*

*I do not accept Muslims were the minority in the British Indian Empire.
*

*I do not accept the Britisher's governance or sovereignty over the Muslim lands. 
*

So you can say whatever you like mr. chess-master.



Point 2:

The Kashmiris are the majority in Kashmir.
u. 
Your argument of ": Any minority in any country will want independence and a separate state if they think it is an achievable aim." 

is grossly wrong. The Telugu are a minority in India. Do they want independence? No they do not. So the circumstances and background is also necessary to understand.

Just because this a forum, you can easily get away by posting wrong arguments. I have answered all your points.

Kashmir is not an integral part of today's Bharat.
Kashmiris were promised a referendum or a plebiscite but Mr. Nehru did not allow that to happen.


You are wasting our time. I don't care if India is a secular country or not.

I believe Muslims are better in Pakistan and I have done my research. Pakistan is better than India when it comes to wealth distribution an many other social indicators.

The education and economy in Pakistan is decent by South Asian standards. I know you Indians have launched media war, so it doesn't matter, because you constantly fed lies.

It is just the War on Terrorism which has hurt Pakistan. When the War on Terrorism ends, Pakistan will end up having social indicators rivaling Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Malaysia, and Iran.

I don't care if you accept my arguments or not. Accepting my arguments doesn't mean any of your arguments are right.

The Kashmir issue has already been debated on defence.pk

This is just merely trolling because there are no official rules governing this debate, so debating with you is worthless to begin with.

And you use the economics and education debate. . When that has nothing to do with the crux of the Kashmir dispute.

You are just running around in circles.

Ever heard of Pakistani universities such as LUMS or NUST._


----------



## tvsram1992

@PAKSHAH
I will say in a sentence,
Kashmir would have been like Hyderabad if it was completely in India .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mehboobkz

Any Indian Government, which compromises on Kashmir, would loose its election en mass, hence nobody would touch this political hot potato.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kalyugi Mirza

mehboobkz said:


> Any Indian Government, which compromises on Kashmir, would loose its election en mass, hence nobody would touch this political hot potato.....


ya dude even Pakistani is also not honest to solve this issue..it needs India ,Pakistan and Kashmir to solve this one

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sinnerman108

Chess-writer said:


> What happened, no response to #252 from the Pakistani contigent. PakShah I am missing your Rants, buddy !



Sure , here you go.



> This would be similiar to the English not considering Scotland and Ireland a pert of their country because both Normans and Saxons were external invaders who came to their country and gave it the shape that you see on the map today. In our case, the Mughal invaders too consolidated by conquering smaller kingdoms like the Rajputs of rajasthan for example. Before them the Rajputs had also consolidated by conquering smaller city states.
> 
> Going by the same logic, Hindus can say that Kashmir was in the past entirely Hindu till Mughal invaders etc spread Islam - And hence they will disagree to even negotiate about Kashmir with you. I hope you can see that this will create problems.
> 
> I hope you are able to see why I tell you that the past is irrelevent. It has already happened, whether right or wrong - your accepting or not accepting it will change nothing at all. So please for the sake of your own sanity, stay in the present (I know it hurts you though, I empathise with you )



VS


> You still haven't proven it using a coherent argument though. Plebiscite etc. is all in the past buddy - is that so hard to understand. Some from the Indian side would say that Pakistan didn't let the Plebiscite happen ! While I don't agree with them, I would certainly appreciate it if you could see the problems such an argument causes. Much better it would be, if you talked about the Present.



So you think where it is OK for you, you can fall back on history, but if you are falling on a rough patch it is OK to ignore it.

Now come up with an argument which doesn't reflect a flaw in rationality on your part and I will consider answering you.



> Tut ! Tut ! In a debate never allow your opponent to repeat a good point.But since you've given me the chance, I will use it - (1) India's being secular is a point in favour of keeping Kashmir with India (2) If Kashmiri muslims are being oppressed, then they are being oppressed by both Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims. It is not that Hindus are oppresssing Muslims and they need to separate from India for that reason.



OK, he's going to use to take the opportunity. He's a taker.



> Arguing that Pkistan is ahead of India in Economics, Education and Standard of living is a non-starter. Another lesson in debating - Never give your opponent a point that he can relentlessly hammer you on. I will have mercy on you and let that pass this time.


 Oh, he's not a taker !

AS for economics etc ... 

You are from Hindu-stan. For you economics might move the world. Your kind together with Jews made and perfected the 
interest based system that is crushing humanity now. If you still believe you can use economics to buy out morality sure ;
these days it is very much possible but than THAT is where you and me will be two different people.

Lastly I have a question for you, and think before you answer.

What do you think about the breakup of East Pakistan, and what do you think about the two nation theory ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jade

Why such a stupid thread.!!!!

Simply put, Kashmir is the *integral part *of India; hence what this 'settling Kashmir' and 'getting reward'.

It is like behead yourself and get reward....laughable proposition

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sinnerman108

Jade said:


> Why such a stupid thread.!!!!
> 
> Simply put, Kashmir is the *integral part *of India; hence what this 'settling Kashmir' and 'getting reward'.
> 
> It is like behead yourself and get reward....laughable proposition



Total number of personnel @ Pak Army = 550,000 give or take.
Number of personnel in IOK approximately equal to total Pak Army.

What does that tell you ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

salman108 said:


> Total number of personnel @ Pak Army = 550,000 give or take.
> Number of personnel in IOK approximately equal to total Pak Army.
> 
> What does that tell you ?


 
It tells me that you don't have a hope in hell of wresting Kashmir from us. We have far too many troops for you to handle. if we can have that number in just one state & have plenty still left over, what realistic chance do you think that you guys have?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sinnerman108

Bang Galore said:


> It tells me that you don't have a hope in hell of wresting Kashmir from us. We have far too many troops for you to handle. if we can have that number in just one state & have plenty still left over, what realistic chance do you think that you guys have?



THAT ... might be one way of looking at things.

Another way is Hindu-stan needs as many troops to guard one province as Pakistan needs to guard the whole country

YEY !

We DO HAVE a chance cose they suck at their job.

and mind you, before you hit the reply button ... be thankful to Bhuttos for letting you survive;
Had punjab slipped when the time was right, Hindu-stan would have been many orders smaller.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jade

salman108 said:


> Total number of personnel @ Pak Army = 550,000 give or take.
> Number of personnel in IOK approximately equal to total Pak Army.
> 
> What does that tell you ?



It does tell me that there are external forces that want to create problems in Kashmir valley and India is defending itself.

See...it has been 65 years since the independence, and lot of blood has flown across Indus. Now nationalistic identities have been formed in both countries and they are very strong. It is better Pakistan forget Kashmir and move on. If Pakistan wants to persist with its position, then fine, India too can wait.


----------



## Sinnerman108

Jade said:


> It does tell me that there are external forces that want to create problems in Kashmir valley and India is defending itself.
> 
> See...it has been 65 years since the independence, and lot of blood has flown across Indus. Now nationalistic identities have been formed in both countries and they are very strong. It is better Pakistan forget Kashmir and move on. If Pakistan wants to persist with its position, then fine, India too can wait.



Nothing wrong with that.

Lets us all wait for the day when this shall be decided.


----------



## PakShah

Jade said:


> Why such a stupid thread.!!!!
> 
> Simply put, Kashmir is the *integral part *of India; hence what this 'settling Kashmir' and 'getting reward'.
> 
> It is like behead yourself and get reward....laughable proposition



*Kashmir is NOT an integral part of India. Stop trolling!
*
*Kashmir is disputed territory according to the UN.

Kashmir is disputed territory according to the OIC.

*
*Stop lying!*


----------



## Bang Galore

salman108 said:


> THAT ... might be one way of looking at things.
> 
> Another way is Hindu-stan needs as many troops to guard one province as Pakistan needs to guard the whole country
> 
> YEY !
> 
> 
> We DO HAVE a chance cose they suck at their job.
> 
> and mind you, before you hit the reply button ... be thankful to Bhuttos for letting you survive;
> Had punjab slipped when the time was right, Hindu-stan would have been many orders smaller.




yeah, yeah, I have to give you guys this; you have no shortage of wet dreams even if your backside is on fire. The brain is still getting the nose to poke into other people's business instead of trying to put out the fire that is spreading from the backside up.

History is all about ifs & buts. Playing yesterday's chess game has become an habit for you guys instead of facing up to tomorrow's challenges. What could have been in Punjab should matter less than what is in Pakistan now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Bang Galore said:


> yeah, yeah, I have to give you guys this; you have no shortage of wet dreams even if your backside is on fire. The brain is still getting the nose to poke into other people's business instead of trying to put out the fire that is spreading from the backside up.
> 
> History is all about ifs & buts. Playing yesterday's chess game has become an habit for you guys instead of facing up to tomorrow's challenges. What could have been in Punjab should natter less than what is in Pakistan now.



You don't need to worry about Pakistan. Everything in Pakistan is under control.

You Indians should worry about the Maoists and China!


----------



## Jade

salman108 said:


> Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Lets us all wait for the day when this shall be decided.



Yes, that is a good answer. I hope Pakistan sticks to its position. Let us see....

---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 PM ----------




PakShah said:


> *Kashmir is NOT an integral part of India. Stop trolling!
> *
> *Kashmir is disputed territory according to the UN.
> 
> Kashmir is disputed territory according to the OIC.
> 
> *
> *Stop lying!*



Who is UN or OIC to decide what is India's? Kashmir is India's integral part.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## STEELMAN

salman108 said:


> Sure , here you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS for economics etc ...
> 
> n THAT is wheYou are from Hindu-stan. For you economics might move the world. Your kind together with Jews made and perfected the
> interest based system that is crushing humanity now. If you still believe you can use economics to buy out morality sure ;
> these days it is very much possible but thare you and me will be two different people.
> 
> Lastly I have a question for you, and think before you answer.
> 
> What do you think about the breakup of East Pakistan, and what do you think about the two nation theory ?







Well I have gone through the theory of Islamic base Banking system......and could not found much different with normal Banking system.Please explain the morality ground for Banking system.


----------



## Tshering22

PakShah said:


> *Kashmir is NOT an integral part of India. Stop trolling!*



But that is what you are going to say obviously.



> *Kashmir is disputed territory according to the UN.*


*

There are a lot of things according to the UN that you would not want me to pull up regarding you. Make up your mind about UN's authenticity. 




Kashmir is disputed territory according to the OIC.

Click to expand...


Oh I see!  What are they going to do? wail and bawl over it? After all that's all they can do.




Stop lying!

Click to expand...


Calm down. You'll fall off the chair. *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mehboobkz

ISI still working on 'Karachi Project' to attack India - Rediff.com News

And u want india to settle kashmir, why would they?


----------



## Sinnerman108

@ Chess-writer,

Now, I asked you a simple question about the two nation theory,
you believe birth of Pakistan == birth of Bangladesh == Birth of Kashmir. 

Pakistan was created on the basis of religion and religion shall remain the only purpose of this country,
now tell me what you think ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Aryavart

binzaman said:


> These fascists Hindus are leading the whole region into confrontation. The politics in India is always based upon religion and faith, yet its secular India. I dont know when the general Indian will realize the price they are paying in Siachen and Kashmir? India and Pakistan both fought 4 wars. Never India nor Pakistan can occupy or destroy each other.
> *
> Indian Casualties In Kashmir:*
> As an estimate 200-500 Army personal killed each year in Kashmir alone.
> 
> *Indian Casualties in Siachen:*
> According to global security till 1997 more than 2000 indian solders lost their lives in siachen alone.
> 
> As an estimate on every fourth day one Pakistani solder and on every other day one Indian solders is losing his life on siachen.
> 
> *Financial Aspects:*
> India alone spent 100 Billion Rs. So far, while her half of population living under the poverty line.
> 
> Thats what Kashmir and Siachen costing India and still they want to open more fronts.
> 
> If India settles the issues of Kashmir according to the will of Kashmiri people the future of whole region will be changed. Here I am saying* Kashmir according to Kashmiries will.* And there should not be any doubted on it as we all Indian and pakistanies get indepence on the same formula.
> 
> *The benefits:*
> 
> &#61664; No more Heavy Defense Budgets
> &#61664; Smaller and batter army
> &#61664; More money available to reduce poverty and hunger in both countries
> &#61664; Together both the nation can rock the world.
> &#61664; Peace and stability in the Region
> &#61664; No more RSS, LeT, Hizbul Mujaheedin, SVP etc
> &#61664; No more terror attacks like happened in Mumbai etc




So u admit the Mumbai attack was planned was Pakistanis......

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## harshad

salman108 said:


> THAT ... might be one way of looking at things.
> 
> Another way is Hindu-stan needs as many troops to guard one province as Pakistan needs to guard the whole country
> 
> YEY !
> 
> We DO HAVE a chance cose they suck at their job.
> 
> and mind you, before you hit the reply button ... be thankful to Bhuttos for letting you survive;
> Had punjab slipped when the time was right, Hindu-stan would have been many orders smaller.



did pakistan try entering india except the way of insurgents after we posted the troops in kashmir-no
except one incident kargil where it occupied abandoned posts which i dont consider act of heroism but cowardice

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tshering22

Chess-writer said:


> Before any of our Pakistani or Indian friends go on a rant against Jews or Hindus or Christians or Muslims, Please consider this - Allah(or God) created all humanity, the fact that you are a Muslim/Hundu is entirely Allah's will. Had he commanded that you be born in a different country to different parents, you would probably have been arguing from the other side and insulting another religion. So kindly cut the crap, Stop the drivel, Get civilised, Get mature and above all - Stick to facts !



By taking the "neutral" side, you are only showing how weak you are. This is not definition of our nation. So quit your weakness and have the courage to face reality. Running away from it will not make it vanish into thin air.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tshering22

Chess-writer said:


> Yaar, Tshering, I am taking a neutral side because otherwise these Pakistanis will shout that they are being selectively victimised and maybe that there is a Zionist conspiracy to take them away from Islam and convert them to hinduism.



But by being neutral you are weakening and leaving your own people's support. They will keep shouting nonsense. Would that mean you would one day convert and become Pakistani?  Seriously, your logic is weird dude. 




> After all Pakistan is a country where people will do anything to avoid admitting that they are wrong - This even takes extreme forms like deliberately acting paranoid and claiming victimisation. Had I worded my ideas in a non-neutral way these people would immediately cry partiality. I do not want to give these people like Salman etc the chance to do that. I want them to stick to facts. So that was my way of making sure they are not able to divert the issue and change the topic away from 'Facts' !



Unfortunately facts are looked as conspiracy theories in their country and that won't change. So you are only showing your weak stand here by taking the neutral position.


----------



## Icarus

Tshering22 said:


> But by being neutral you are weakening and leaving your own people's support. They will keep shouting nonsense. Would that mean you would one day convert and become Pakistani?  Seriously, your logic is weird dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately facts are looked as conspiracy theories in their country and that won't change. So you are only showing your weak stand here by taking the neutral position.





With reference to the last part, conspiracy theories are a global phenomenon. You can't simply pin them to our heads and go off scotch free. 
India believes that ISI aids terrorists in India....proof ?
Americans believe there were aliens in Roswell.....proof ?
Russians believe the moon landing was faked....proof ?
Afghans believe polio vaccines cause sterility....proof ?

And these are only some of the many conspiracy theories that float about the world.


----------



## Bukhari.syed

Kakgeta said:


> With reference to the last part, conspiracy theories are a global phenomenon. You can't simply pin them to our heads and go off scotch free.
> India believes that ISI aids terrorists in India....proof ?
> Americans believe there were aliens in Roswell.....proof ?
> Russians believe the moon landing was faked....proof ?
> Afghans believe polio vaccines cause sterility....proof ?
> 
> And these are only some of the many conspiracy theories that float about the world.



Agreed. We have straight proofs for the barbarian acts of India in Kashmir....


----------



## bobthebuilder

Kashmir would have been settled easily . India could have aquired pakistan occupeid cashmere easily. India had 3-4 chances. First in 1947,1965,1971. 
But our govt piss in pants .


----------



## Icarus

bobthebuilder said:


> Kashmir would have been settled easily . India could have aquired pakistan occupeid cashmere easily. India had 3-4 chances. First in 1947,1965,1971.
> But our govt piss in pants .




That makes no sense whatsoever. India did fight for Kashmir in 47. There were skirmishes in Kashmir during 65 and 71 was a completely different theatre of war.


----------



## bobthebuilder

Kakgeta said:


> That makes no sense whatsoever. India did fight for Kashmir in 47. There were skirmishes in Kashmir during 65 and 71 was a completely different theatre of war.


 
in 1947 if IA had advanced it could have aquired kashmir. Again in 1965 pakistan was not in situation for further waq. Had we advanced we could have aquired kashmir. But foreign powers stopped us.
In 1971 we had 1 lac pow we could have bargained ***.
But sadly Jnehru had idea that pakistan keep half of kashmir India keep half.then what to do.


----------



## Rocky25

Chess-writer said:


> Mr Bukhari, How does that matter. *The problem is not that there are human rights violations in Kashmir, the problem is that Pakistan insists that - Indian security forces which are Hindu are oppressing the Kashmiri muslims.*
> 
> That is a big lie that Pakistanis tell themselves to justify things to themselves. The truth is this :
> 
> - There are certainly rights violations in Kashmir but these occur because it is a *Heavily Militarised Zone* and not because there are Muslims in Kashmir.
> - If Indians are oppressing Kashmiri Muslims, then it is *both, the Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims* that are doing so, because a large part of Indian security forces is Muslim. Also India has had 2 Muslim presidents if you know your history !
> 
> - Till Pakistan keeps up the propaganda that Indian Hindus are oppressing Kashmiri Muslims, the local populace will believe it too and keep up support for the insurgents.
> - Till there are insurgents, IoK will remain a heavily militarised zone. Thus this becomes a vicious circle and Pakistan is directly responsible for it !



Hey Chess-Writes,
I have a question, All these insurgencies started from 1989 onwards, Why there was nothing before 1989?

I hope the local Kashmiri youth got inspired by the fall of Berlin wall and all the mujahideens were redirected to Kashmir by Pakistan when Indian Army did not have any means to stop them, And all these Army getting into Kashmir and human rights violation started only after 1989.

So what answer India have to stop the Mumbai like incidents? If Pakistan sends 10 bomb blasts why cant India cant blast a single bomb in LeT rally or training area and claim it never did it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Icarus

bobthebuilder said:


> in 1947 if IA had advanced it could have aquired kashmir. Again in 1965 pakistan was not in situation for further waq. Had we advanced we could have aquired kashmir. But foreign powers stopped us.
> In 1971 we had 1 lac pow we could have bargained ***.
> But sadly Jnehru had idea that pakistan keep half of kashmir India keep half.then what to do.



In both 47 and 65 it was India that called for ceasefire. You could have kept on and you had those POWs, you could have bargained but I doubt that we would have traded Kashmir for those men. India would have had to free them eventually or maintain their living as dictated by the Geneva Accords(very expensive deal).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## EjazR

salman108 said:


> @ Chess-writer,
> 
> Now, I asked you a simple question about the two nation theory,
> you believe birth of Pakistan == birth of Bangladesh == Birth of Kashmir.
> 
> Pakistan was created on the basis of religion and religion shall remain the only purpose of this country,
> now tell me what you think ?


 
The fact that religion was USED to create Pakistan does not mean it was correct. This politicized Islam has nothing to do with authentic or traditional Islam, the Islam of the Quran and Sunnah. The Two Nation Theory has no basis in Islam and was infact first propounded by a Hindu Mahasabha founder Sarvarkar. So please stop insulting yourself by connecting it with Islam.

This ideology of religious nationalism is a perverted version of similar western ideologies that is nothing but a way to grab political power using religion as a tool. There is nothing pious about it. That is why those who genuinely followed Islam rejected this viewpoint. 

The Kashmiri public made a choice when in the first elections in the state in 1951, the national conference came to power and passed a resolution acceding to India. They accession was on TOP of the treaty signed by the Maharaja. So the people of Kashmir had shown their decision back in 1951 itself.

That should be the basis of the resolution of Kashmir. And seriously its about time this Two Nation theory nonsense is put in the bin. Pakistan is a multi-racial, multi-ligusitic and multi-religious country and all these sub-nations have to be given equal opportunities if Pakistan as a state has to succeed.


And on Kashmir, many Pakistanis wrongly believe that Kashmiris want to join Pakistan. That is wrong. Infact, by almost all independent polling studies a major majority oppose joining Pakistan. The valley mostly want independence and if you take J&K as a whole less than half want independence. But independence was never in the UN resolutions so that is out of the question.

*98% Kashmiris do not want to join Pakistan*


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> What happened PakShah, you stopped responding to my posts. I didn't think you will admit defeat this easily. Glad to see that you have started seeing things our way. I am really glad to see you mature.
> 
> If you are confused over any of my points, lemme know, Always glad to educate you !



*I'm not convinced by your trash crap.*  He exposed your hypocrisy about you use history when it suits you, but when I used history you simply ignored it.

Dont' worry, salman108, told me not to waste my time with hypocrites like you.


----------



## Rocky25

PakShah said:


> *I'm not convinced by your trash crap.*  He exposed your hypocrisy about you use history when it suits you, but when I used history you simply ignored it.
> 
> Dont' worry, salman108, told me not to waste my time with hypocrites like you.



You could have told this yesterday itself... You have been silent and now you came back.... You took this much time to think How to avoid this logical guy?

And be assured that there will be NO plebishete on the so called MORAL ground.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

EjazR said:


> The fact that religion was USED to create Pakistan does not mean it was correct. This politicized Islam has nothing to do with authentic or traditional Islam, the Islam of the Quran and Sunnah. The Two Nation Theory has no basis in Islam and was infact first propounded by a Hindu Mahasabha founder Sarvarkar. So please stop insulting yourself by connecting it with Islam.
> 
> This ideology of religious nationalism is a perverted version of similar western ideologies that is nothing but a way to grab political power using religion as a tool. There is nothing pious about it. That is why those who genuinely followed Islam rejected this viewpoint.
> 
> The Kashmiri public made a choice when in the first elections in the state in 1951, the national conference came to power and passed a resolution acceding to India. They accession was on TOP of the treaty signed by the Maharaja. So the people of Kashmir had shown their decision back in 1951 itself.
> 
> That should be the basis of the resolution of Kashmir. And seriously its about time this Two Nation theory nonsense is put in the bin. Pakistan is a multi-racial, multi-ligusitic and multi-religious country and all these sub-nations have to be given equal opportunities if Pakistan as a state has to succeed.
> 
> 
> And on Kashmir, many Pakistanis wrongly believe that Kashmiris want to join Pakistan. That is wrong. Infact, by almost all independent polling studies a major majority oppose joining Pakistan. The valley mostly want independence and if you take J&K as a whole less than half want independence. But independence was never in the UN resolutions so that is out of the question.
> 
> *98% Kashmiris do not want to join Pakistan*



Actually you are uneducated. You are of that crowd which keeps screaming Maulana Azad.

There were many Islamic Scholars that agreed with the creation of Pakistan such as *Chaudhry Niaz Ali Khan.*
There were many practicing Muslims such *Muhammad Asad ( formerly known as Leopold Weiss) and Chaudry Rehmat Ali who helped in the creation of Pakistan and were members of the All India Muslim League and helped create Pakistan out of their dedication for Islam.*

But of course you have been blinded by propaganda.

As for you chess-writer you are *hypocrite*. Lets try again, so me and Salman108 can understand what you are trying to say.

First of all Nehru promised that there would be a referendum in Kashmir. This has not happened.

The KASHMIRIS do not want India. Everybody knows that for sure. Even Arundhati Roy goes and tells that to the world.

According to the partition plan it did not matter where the princely states acceded to, because that would only be conditional, *for a referendum would then be done to see what the people wanted: Pakistan or India.*

That is were India FAILED! India did not want to hold a referendum in Indian Occupied Kashmir.

Pakistan was ready to do so in her Kashmir.

*Sheikh Abdullah in 1952 wanted self-determination for Kashmiris, but conveniently India ignored this.
*
And what does your argument of "a minority in any country will want independence, if they believe if it is an achievable aim."

What does this argument have to do with the Kashmir dispute?

Muslims are not a minority in Kashmir. And a referendum was supposed to happen according to the partition rules. 

Chess-writer you are just beating around the bush.

---------- Post added at 11:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 AM ----------




Chess-writer said:


> @PakShah : LOL Buddy, I understand ! People say that when they are defeated. Sort of like the child who takes his bat and ball home when his friend hits him for a few sixes.
> 
> It is extremely hard for an unitellectual buffalo to understand that I used Historical examples to support an idea because you yourself demanded that I prove things. But I didn't talk about pelbiscite and stuff at all, because that is the only argument you have and it is the most flawed of all your arguments (because the Indian side has points too). So I saw it better to discuss the common threads and underlying ideas sorrounding the Kashmir issue. The Answer does not lie in the History of Kashmir, it lies in the Future of Kashmir and we can shape it by learning from the History of the whole world ---- Get my point ?!
> 
> Unfortunately , I had to tell you a few truths and humiliate you in doing so. But , you would of course admit that part of the problem lay in your rigidity. You were stuck like an old tape recorder on a few points(like saying economics don't matter and that I am a troll) but I used that to put you in your place.
> 
> Guess what, I am feeling a bit sorry now, You are after all, a human being, and an educated one at that (although it looks like you have been educated by a Mad Mullah in a Madrassa or something), so I sympathise with you.
> 
> Happy Debating, just don't mention anything ilogical here, or I will have to reply to it and then you wouldn't like it ! So far you keep yourself to liking other people's comments, you'll be fine and the stupidity of your arguments will stay hidden.



No, that is where you are wrong, the future of Kashmir is about *just and moral principles.* India does not have any arguments if one looks at the history of the Kashmir dispute. India is holding Indian Occupied Kashmir by Force.

Go tell you pathetic arguments to Syed Ali Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, and Arundhati Roy. 

I'm a university student by the way. I don't have a lot of time to waste with you. 


And where are you chess-writer? Are you afraid to talk to me and salman108. Or have you realized you have been caught as a hypocrite and ran away? 

And chess-write your arguments about the "future" and the "economic" situation of Kashmiris are pretty pathetic arguments.

Point1:

You are saying since so much time has passed, the principle of following the rules of the partition of the British Raj, is outdated?

Thats a pretty stupid argument.

If a person A borrows something from person b, and is supposed to give it back, but 30 years has passed, this means person A should not return the (eg.car) back to person B?

If person A does not return the borrowed object back to person B that is stealing and agianst *principles*. 

Likewise to India. If India is supposed to hold a referendum in Indian occupied Kashmir but going according to your nonsense, ooops 30-40 years has passed, and then your foolish countrymen say "just accept the line of control", this is going against the rules, this is going against principles.

This is where India FAILS.


Point 2:
Again you use "Economics." You cannot use money to buy out principles. That is where you fail.

Forget which country is more economically better.

I would rather be in my country and have my rights and be poor, than live with injustices and be rich!

Money cannot be used to buy freedom!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rusty

^^^^
you wrote alot but said very little

Kashmir wants freedom, that is undeniable
You promised them a vote, which later you did not give and thus are proven liers.

just accept those two facts and we can move from there to a better future.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

Rusty said:


> ^^^^
> you wrote alot but said very little
> 
> Kashmir wants freedom, that is undeniable
> You promised them a vote, which later you did not give and thus are proven liers.
> 
> just accept those two facts and we can move from there to a better future.



Well in that case, you have a problem. Your claim on Kashmir was based on it being a Muslim majority state & Pakistan being the state created for Muslims. That argument was negated by India becoming a secular state & further negated once again when Bangladesh became independent since Pakistan could no longer claim to represent for all Muslims of India which if logically followed renders your very claim for Kashmir on the grounds made earlier defunct.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Secur

bobthebuilder said:


> in 1947 if IA had advanced it could have aquired kashmir. Again in 1965 pakistan was not in situation for further waq. Had we advanced we could have aquired kashmir. But foreign powers stopped us.
> In 1971 we had 1 lac pow we could have bargained ***.
> But sadly Jnehru had idea that pakistan keep half of kashmir India keep half.then what to do.


 You would have done that if only that was possible  Stop living in wonderland ... No foreign power ever stopped you ... In 1947 , Nehru went running to the UN for cease fire , not Pakistan ... Shastri died of heart attack at Tashkent after calling for ceasefire in 1965 ... What reason would have been there for someone gaining territory to call for ceasefire and not the other party ?  POW's could have been bargained for territory , are you serious ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

Secur said:


> You would have done that if only that was possible  Stop living in wonderland ... No foreign power ever stopped you ... Nehru went running to the UN for cease fire , not Pakistan ... Shastri died of heart attack at Tashkent after calling for ceasefire in 1965 ... What reason would have been for someone gaining territory to call for ceasefire and not the other party ?  POW's could have been bargained for territory , are you serious ?



Okay, why did you agree for the ceasefire?


----------



## Secur

Bang Galore said:


> Okay, why did you agree for the ceasefire?


 Because we thought UN was a credible organization that could implement its resolutions over Kashmir properly but we were wrong ... There's was no reason for Pakistan to continue fighting in Kashmir if UN and world leaders were calling for ceasefire ... It would have been a major foreign crisis for us then not accepting the proposals of UN ... The Pakistani leaders thought Kashmiris can vote for them ( in case of plebiscite ) so there was no reason to fight and take it ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

Secur said:


> Because we thought UN was a credible organization that could implement its resolutions over Kashmir properly but we were wrong ... There's was no reason for Pakistan to continue fighting in Kashmir if UN and world leaders were calling for ceasefire ... It would have been a major foreign crisis for us then not accepting the proposals of UN ...



That explains your crying now, why did you accept a ceasefire in 1965 when you had not yet manged to get what you started with Operation Gibraltar? Obviously, you didn't care for the U.N. then. So it is okay for you guys to try & overturn the U.N. resolution on Kashmir as you did in 1965 but having failed in that attempt you want us to agree to go back to a 1947 resolution?

Nice try but no Cigar !

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Abhishek_

as it stands now, PK has more to gain from a normalized relationship with India. So the onus is on Pakistan to move forward and resolve the long-standing issues. 
India has no problems keeping kashmir on the back burner.


----------



## Secur

Bang Galore said:


> That explains your crying now, why did you accept a ceasefire in 1965 when you had not yet manged to get what you started with Operation Gibraltar? Obviously, you didn't care for the U.N. then. So it is okay for you guys to try & overturn the U.N. resolution on Kashmir as you did in 1965 but having failed in that attempt you want us to agree to go back to a 1947 resolution?
> 
> Nice try but no Cigar !


 Try to talk sense ... Kashmir's a disputed territory and whenever a side feels that it can snatch some land away from the other , they will not hesitate to do it since its temporary boundary  Operation Gibraltar and all every other mess wouldn't have happened if only your deceptive leaders held plebiscite... The war will continue ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Bang Galore said:


> That explains your crying now, why did you accept a ceasefire in 1965 when you had not yet manged to get what you started with Operation Gibraltar? Obviously, you didn't care for the U.N. then. So it is okay for you guys to try & overturn the U.N. resolution on Kashmir as you did in 1965 but having failed in that attempt you want us to agree to go back to a 1947 resolution?
> 
> Nice try but no Cigar !



War of 1965 was in response when India went against the UN and forced Indian Occupied Kashmir to be considered as a "province" of India.

The UN does not recognize Indian Occupied Kashmir as an integral part of India.

Secur was right, chess-writer only knows how to write a lot, without writing concisely! 

@ chess-writer
Kashmiris are not a minority in India, because Kashmiris are not a part of India. 

Just because Indians say so, doesn't make Indian occupied Kashmir a part of India. 

Kashmir is disputed territory. 

And so the war continues...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hulk

Bang Galore said:


> That explains your crying now, why did you accept a ceasefire in 1965 when you had not yet manged to get what you started with Operation Gibraltar? Obviously, you didn't care for the U.N. then. So it is okay for you guys to try & overturn the U.N. resolution on Kashmir as you did in 1965 but having failed in that attempt you want us to agree to go back to a 1947 resolution?
> 
> Nice try but no Cigar !



Bang on, Bang lore


----------



## Bang Galore

Secur said:


> Try to talk sense ... Kashmir's a disputed territory and whenever a side feels that it can snatch some land away from the other , they will not hesitate to do it  Operation Gibraltar and all every other mess wouldn't have happened if only your deceptive leaders held plebiscite...



You need some sense to understand, the LoC is a treaty signed by Pakistan & India.The territory may be disputed but gives no right for any party to try & change it by force. You tried, you failed, so why the crying now? You had your chance when you attacked in 1965 & in Kargil in 1999, we are not about to reward your failures. After all, your "deceptive leaders" tried everything, didn't they?

Learn to live with your failures, reinforcing them is a bad idea as any one familiar with military history will tell you.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PakShah

indianrabbit said:


> Bang on, Bang lore



You mean you need your head to banged with a hammer. Can't make sense?
Kashmiris are not a part of India. Kashmiris have never been. Kashmiris were part of the Jammu and Kashmir princely state.

And don't give me your Maharaja acceding to India crap! 

If the princely state (Kashmir) was to accede to India, on the understanding that this would only be *temporary prior to "a referendum, plebiscite, election".*

So India has broken the law! Since no election was held in Kashmir, India is holding Indian occupied Kashmir by force.

India is holding Indian Occupied Kashmir *illegally.*


----------



## Secur

Bang Galore said:


> You need some sense to understand, the LoC is a treaty signed by Pakistan & India.The territory may be disputed but gives no right for any party to try & change it by force. You tried, you failed, so why the crying now? You had your chance when you attacked in 1965 & in Kargil in 1999, we are not about to reward your failures. After, your "deceptive leaders" tried everything, didn't they?
> 
> Learn to live with your failures, reinforcing them is a bad idea as any one familiar with military history will tell you.



Pakistan and India signed the plebiscite resolution too , was it ever implemented ?  
You have no idea how much the LOC has changed since 1947 so go research a little ... 
Even the ceasefire announced in 2002 isn't respected properly by both sides ...
and who's crying here ? Check who started the thread before jumping in ...
We ended up controlling Chicken's Nook and other strategic posts ... 
Learn what ? Probably you mean correct them and come try another time ...
Atleast thats the policy of our army , What if one failed ? Try the next plan ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> It seems PakShah that you appreciate only those people whom you are able to defeat in a debate by out-shouting them. I write a lot because I think about important issues a lot. Then I have to take care to not be repitive. Also, I have to explain everything to you and cater to your IQ level. S the post obviously takes more space.
> 
> Kashmiris are not a part of Pakistan either. If anything, Kashmir belongs more to India because India is Secular (saying this the 4th time)and Growing, and will offer Kashmiris be they Kashmiri Muslims, Pandits or Buddhists better options than joining your failed country !
> 
> Think of the terrible misfortune the Kashmiris will suffer if they have to join your impoverished and failed fundamentalist state given to conspiracy theories. It is the place where people insists that 'Ghairat' is important, 'Economics and Education' can go to hell !



Complete crap!

Do you believe in principles? This is a very simple question. Yes or No?

LOL, oh is chess-writer crying, because when one agreed to follow the law, then he/she must follow the law.

It is you who is typing a lot and shouting.

Write you points using the least amount words possible. I don't have time to read essay written by you! 

Oh why don't you think of the Kashmiri's rights.

LOL, as if India is not impoverished. *India has the world largest population of people living in pverty!* 

*India has more poor than Sub-Saharan Africa.
*
*And you talk about providing facilities to the Kashmiris?* 

*How can you provide facilities to Kashmiris in Indian Occupied Kashmir, when India happens to have more poort than sub-saharan Africa. By the way Kashmir is not a part of India.
*


----------



## Hulk

If you want to call dispute or land grab whatever it is bottom line is there is no way you can force India to get its part of Kashmir.

Now second part, in history there were lot of attacks and kings conquered lands.It was common practice in past to grab land. There are lot of places in the world where original habitants are no more the rulers. So when others can do it and be called hero we can do it to sometimes.

If we lost some land and money and gold many times and the winners were happy some times they have to be on losing side as well.

You cannot have it both ways, when I won we were hero's, when we lost it is not ethical. Like we accepted the loss in past and living with reality, so does people of Pakistan has to do. Accept that Kashmir is not winnable right or wrong.

Not as far as Kashmiri's are concerned Chess-Writer is right, it is just because they think they can be a nation they are focusing on that, if they realize it is not possible, they will focus more on important stuff like, bread butter and jobs.

Kashimiri's have more rights than anyone in the world, if at all they get out from protest mode and come to real world. There will be no better place.

Also both Kashmir and Srinagar have Indian names, which suggest their Origin was Indian.


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> Kashmiris are not a part of Pakistan either. If anything, Kashmir belongs more to India because India is Secular (saying this the 4th time)and Growing, and will offer Kashmiris be they Kashmiri Muslims, Pandits or Buddhists better options than joining your failed country !
> 
> Think of the terrible misfortune the Kashmiris will suffer if they have to join your impoverished and failed fundamentalist state given to conspiracy theories. It is the place where people insists that 'Ghairat' is important, 'Economics and Education' can go to hell !


 Once again , you are trying to be " holier than the Pope " ... What gives you the right to decide for Kashmiris whats better for them ?  You think Kashmiris wont consider all scenarios and facts on the ground before voting for anyone in a plebiscite ... Think of the terrible misfortune that Kashmiris are suffering at the moment by almost daily human rights abuses and killings by world's biggest democracy even though the same doesn't happen in Azad Kashmir or Northern Areas ... Why keep almost 5+ million troops if you think Kashmiris want to live with you ... Can it get any worst than that ? ... I doubt that ... and what does being secular changes for Kashmiris to be Indian ? ... Ever heard of the Chenab formula ... It was exactly designed keeping those Pandits and Buddhists monks in mind if they dont want to live with Pakistan ... Go , ponder over it ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

PakShah said:


> You mean you need head to banged with a hammer. Can't make sense?
> Kashmiris are not a part of India. Kashmiris have never been. Kashmiris were part of the Jammu and Kashmir princely state.
> 
> And don't give me your Maharaja acceding to India crap!
> 
> If the princely state (Kashmir) was to accede to India, on the understanding that this would only be *temporary prior to "a referendum, plebiscite, election".*
> 
> So India has broken the law! Since no election was held in Kashmir, India is holding Indian occupied Kashmir by force.
> 
> India is holding Indian Occupied Kashmir *illegally.*



Yawn, stop boring us with that old trash. we don't care what you consider, you are not in a position to make us consider your opinion. Tough! Live with it !



Secur said:


> Pakistan and India signed the plebiscite resolution too , was it ever implemented ?
> You have no idea how much the LOC has changed since 1947 so go research a little ...
> Even the ceasefire announced in 2002 isn't respected properly by both sides ...
> and who's crying here ? Check who started the thread before jumping in ...
> We ended up controlling Chicken's Nook and other strategic posts ...
> Learn what ? Probably you mean correct them and come try another time ...
> Atleast thats the policy of our army , What if one failed ? Try the next plan ...



Are we crying? What is it that you have that we remotely want? *Chicken nook?*? That explains why you guys keep chickening out,I guess. As for trying, go ahead. Given the proven "competence" of you guys, all we will ever have to do is try & decide who our new high Commissioner to Baluchistan is.


----------



## PakShah

Bang Galore said:


> Yawn, stop boring us with that old trash. we don't care what you consider, you are not in a position to make us consider your opinion. Tough! Live with it !
> 
> 
> 
> Are we crying? What is it that you have that we remotely want? *Chicken nook?*? That explains why you guys keep chickening out,I guess. As for trying, go ahead. Given the proven "competence" of you guys, all we will ever have to do is try & decide who our new high Commissioner to Baluchistan is.



LOL, its not an opinion! You are just saying that, because you have no argument to the compulsory referendum.
*Tough Luck to you and your country, because Pakistan has the moral upper hand here! *

Don;t bring Balochistan in here, Balochistan is irrelevant to the Kashmir dispute. 

Typical hypocrites! When you guys can't beat our arguments you guys try to get irrelevant arguments.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

Bang Galore said:


> Yawn, stop boring us with that old trash. we don't care what you consider, you are not in a position to make us consider your opinion. Tough! Live with it !
> 
> Are we crying? What is it that you have that we remotely want? *Chicken nook?*? That explains why you guys keep chickening out,I guess. *As for trying, go ahead. Given the proven "competence" of you guys, all we will ever have to do is try & decide who our new high Commissioner to Baluchistan is.*


 
If you are a bipolar patient , then you shouldn't have come to debate in the first place 
Yes , they do get bored when presented with information they simply cant digest ... 
I thought you must heard of the Chicken Nook because that is what its called in India ...
The Pakistani name for that particular place is " Dagger " fine now ? 

Yes , when hell freezes over ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abhishek_

PakShah said:


> LOL, its not an opinion! You are just saying that, because you have no argument to that.
> *Tough Luck to you and your country, because Pakistan has the moral upper hand here! *



PK can keep the moral upper hand, India will keep the kashmiri land.


----------



## PakShah

Secur said:


> If you are a bipolar patient , then you shouldn't have come to debate in the first place
> Yes , they do get bored when presented with information they simply cant digest ...
> I thought you must heard of the Chicken Nook because that is what its called in India ...
> The Pakistani name for that particular place is " Dagger " fine now ?
> 
> Yes , when hell freezes over ...



These guys are such hypocrites. They keep bringing Balochistan and other irrelevant things.

This thread is about the Kashmir dispute and we need to keep focus.


----------



## Secur

Abhishek_ said:


> PK can keep the moral upper hand, India will keep the kashmiri land.


 
Enjoy it while it lasts  Because it wont be forever ... Kashmiris will have what they want one day ... Continue oppressing and they will never have a favorable opinion of India ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Abhishek_ said:


> PK can keep the moral upper hand, India will keep the kashmiri land.



lol, don't worry what makes you think you can keep land illegally? By force?

When there is another country willing to fight you with moral justifications!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

PakShah said:


> These guys are such hypocrites. They keep bringing Balochistan and other irrelevant things.
> 
> This is thread is about the Kashmir dispute and we need to keep focus.



They need to "troll" to satisfy their ego's and derail the thread ... Even i can talk about countless insurgencies in India but why go for off topic things ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abhishek_

Secur said:


> Enjoy it while it lasts  Because it wont be forever ... Kashmiris will have what they want one day ... Continue oppressing and they will never have a favorable opinion of India ...


kindly send us a memo when our kashmir joins PK. good luck to you sir.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

Secur said:


> If you are a bipolar patient , then you shouldn't have come to debate in the first place
> Yes , they do get bored when presented with information they simply cant digest ...
> I thought you must heard of the Chicken Nook because that is what its called in India ...
> The Pakistani name for that particular place is " Dagger " fine now ?
> 
> Yes , when hell freezes over ...



Bipolar? Wow, i'm impressed. Since you are good with diagnosing, maybe you can turn past the "chicken nook" & prescribe some chicken soup for the Pakistani soul because whatever it is that they are taking doesn't seem to be adequate for whatever condition you, the good doctor might diagnose, ails your country. If you hold "chicken nook" & so on (never mind the fact that you couldn't hold on to half your country), why do you guys keep crying about Siachen (no Pakistani soldier can even see it), Kashmir & so on? Just *Bring it on !*(credit George Bush)

---------- Post added at 11:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 PM ----------




PakShah said:


> LOL, its not an opinion! You are just saying that, because you have no argument to that.
> *Tough Luck to you and your country, because Pakistan has the moral upper hand here! *
> 
> Don;t bring Balochistan in here, Balochistan is irrelevant to the Kashmir dispute.
> 
> Typical hypocrites! When you guys can't beat our arguments you guys try to get irrelevant arguments.




You can have any kind of moral upper hand you feel like, we'll settle for keeping Kashmir. Deal?? Baluchistan is relevant, if as your friend said, you want to try again. Hypocrites? So says a Pakistani who after failing in their attempts of militarily enforcing their will end up running with a "moral" fig leaf to cover their exposed parts. The world doesn't reward failures, take your fig leaf elsewhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hulk

Pakistan has lost so much in ****** war that they are in position to go for war in next decade. That is good enough time to settle Kashmir. The peak of insurgency is over and it will never go back. The people of Kashmir are de-motivated for any moment. You see they already know that 2 decade of insurgency did not get them the result, so now they have better that for any fair chance. Same thing goes for protest and stone pelting, they did that for 6 months, so any new protest now know that they have to go beyond 6 months. See people get tired of this protest.


----------



## Trichy

Is India &pakistan act upon the referendum as per 1947? What are the conditions? Any one give point by point?


----------



## Secur

> 1. False Pakistan's propaganda in IoK -----> Kashmiri Muslims believe they are being oppressed because of being 'Muslim' -------> Kashmiri Muslims demonstrate support for Pakistan in rallies etc and a minor number offer refuge to terrorists when they cross over the LoC ----------> India is forced to maintain a heavy military prescence in Kashmir -------> Human rights violations occur ---------> False Pakistani propaganda again


 and again all Kashmiris believe this ISI propaganda ?  and how exactly is that propaganda done ? You are from your first post trying to imply that you can decide better than the Kashmiris whats better for them ... Why keep repeating the debunked arguments again and again ... Hate against India occurs because of the hate and human rights violation against muslims and oppressive laws such as special army's act thus creating a favorable opinion for Muslim Pakistan ... So Indians are being forced to keep 5+ million troops just to counter a few thousand militants ? Impressive strategy you got there ...

and keep beating around the bush , we can continue arguing forever in that case

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> Here are three things I have already said earlier
> 
> 1. Pakistani arguments on Kashmir are based on the following :
> 1)Kashmiris are Muslims, So are Pakistanis, so they shouldn't be with India - Wrong, because India is not Hindu, India is 'Secular'. So it is not as if Kashmiris will be lynched in the streets if they stay with us.
> (2)Kashmiri Muslims are being Oppressed by Indian Security forces because they are Muslims - Wrong, because while there are human rights violations in Kashmir committed by our forces, they occur because it is a heavily militarised zone. Rights violations are common in almost every heavily militarised zone in the world. So *Religion has nothing to do with the fact that there are Human right violations. And if Kashmiri Muslims are indeed being oppressed, then they are being oppressed by both the Hindus and Muslims of India ! You see, Muslims form a large number of our security forces, two of our presidents in the past have been Muslims. SO saying that their Religion is the reason for HR violations is just a theory that Pakistani propagandists have fed the Kashmiri Muslim populace.*
> (3)Kashmiris were promised a Plebiscite which never happened - Well, For every argument a Pakistani makes in favour of a Plebiscite, the Indian side has a Counter argument, so this argument about plebiscite can only create problems when both sides sit to try and resolve the issue. You have to look at the underlying principles in the present time and whether they are just
> 
> 
> 2. False Pakistan's propaganda in IoK -----> Kashmiri Muslims believe they are being oppressed because of being 'Muslim' -------> Kashmiri Muslims demonstrate support for Pakistan in rallies etc and a minor number offer refuge to terrorists when they cross over the LoC ----------> India is forced to maintain a heavy military prescence in Kashmir -------> Human rights violations occur ---------> False Pakistani propaganda again
> 
> 
> *Pakistan is responsible for this Vicious Cycle*. And this is the reason Kashmiris will not vote for India in a plebiscite even though that would be a better choice for them than joining a banana republic like Pakistan !
> 
> 3.Just and moral principles would be this - "*We want Kashmiris to prosper whether they stay with India or Pakistan". Pakistan insists that they can simply not live happily in India, why my dear? ARen't other Muslims staying in India. Hasn't a Muslim been one of the most popular presidents of India, Isn't a good part of the Indian cricket team and Film industry muslim* ?!
> 
> Pakistan is a country that refuses to change its opiniion with changing times. Your forefathers at the time of partition told you that Muslims can't stay happy in India - you beleived it then. No problem, but look at what has happened and revise your opinion. A fool is a person who commits the same and same mistake again. You still are stuck on the same 60 yr old argument.



Stop running away chess-writer. Stop using tricks!

*The focus is Kashmiris were promised a referendum.
*

According to the partition rules Kashmiris are to get a referndum.

Where's the Indian counter-argument you said there would be?

The answer you don't have a counter-argument and hence you are running away. 

No you are wrong:

The moral and just principle is this: 

Hold a plebiscite in Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir while Pakistan gives Kashmiris in Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir economic assistance and education, while India gives economic assistance and education Kashmiris in Indian Occupied Kashmir and India holds a plebiscite in Indian Occupied Kashmir, to see what the Kashmiris want.

The moral and just principle is that India helps the Kashmiris they occupied while at the same time holding plebiscite on what the Kashmiris want: Pakistan or India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

Bang Galore said:


> Bipolar? Wow, i'm impressed. Since you are good with diagnosing, maybe you can turn past the "chicken nook" & prescribe some chicken soup for the Pakistani soul because whatever it is that they are taking doesn't seem to be adequate for whatever condition you, the good doctor might diagnose, ails your country. If you hold "chicken nook" & so on (never mind the fact that you couldn't hold on to half your country), why do you guys keep crying about Siachen (no Pakistani soldier can even see it), Kashmir & so on? Just *Bring it on !*(credit George Bush)


 Yeah , if you dont want to debate then dont ... Why keep saying that you are bored and such ?  Is someone forcing you to post here ? Whatever seem adequate for us is another story ... and about Siachen , only if you knew anything about the geography of that region , you wouldn't say such a thing ... All the high peaks around it are held by Pakistan ... Go search Saltoro or Peak 5353 ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> That is the problem now isn't it. Pakistanis believe that their cause is just and are too willing to fight us(and themselves lol !) despite the fact that it has brought you only pain and destruction in the past.



No, it is you who are bringing destruction and pain. Now you are cornered.

Who are you to decide what is best for the Kashmiris?

let the Kashmiris decide?

Awww..whats the matter...not acknowledging that you lost this debate and the moral aspects of it too! 

---------- Post added at 02:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 PM ----------




Chess-writer said:


> A Dozen militants ! You do not read your books properly. Admitted that in recent times militancy has gone down, but it wasn't always like that after 1989 (I hope you remember that as the year when USSR got disbanded). Kindly read that again, it explains the Pakistani propaganda (Kashmiris oppressed by only Hindus in a Secular armed force that has Muslims too)as well as the Human rights violations (Militarized zone, therefore naturally HR violations occur). Now read it again.
> 
> False Pakistan's propaganda in IoK -----> Kashmiri Muslims believe they are being oppressed because of being 'Muslim' -------> Kashmiri Muslims demonstrate support for Pakistan in rallies etc and a minor number offer refuge to terrorists when they cross over the LoC ----------> India is forced to maintain a heavy military prescence in Kashmir -------> Human rights violations occur ---------> False Pakistani propaganda again


'

Don;t talk crap. Amnesty International stated that there gross human violations in Indian Occupied Kashmir and draconian laws used to keep the Kashmiris oppressed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> False Pakistan's propaganda in IoK -----> Kashmiri Muslims believe they are being oppressed because of being 'Muslim' -------> Kashmiri Muslims demonstrate support for Pakistan in rallies etc and a minor number offer refuge to terrorists when they cross over the LoC ----------> India is forced to maintain a heavy military prescence in Kashmir -------> Human rights violations occur ---------> False Pakistani propaganda again


 So once again Ctril+C and Ctrl+V  ... You are just going round and round in circle avoiding the main questions ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## alphamale

i want to ask one ques to all who think one day kashmir will be free. How Kashmir could be liberated from india????? i give u many options to consider.

Option 1- kashmiris themselves will liberate kashmir on their own.

Bubble Burst- First of all no one support kashmiris in india, leave aside india even in kashmir itself hindus, sikhs, buddhists & muslims of jammu & ladakh do not support kashmiri muslims. kashmiri muslims have tried everything from protests to boycotts to armed rebellion but failed every time. they can't get independence on their own no matter how hard they try.

Option 2- india itself leave kashmir

Bubble burst- if anyone think it is possible then that person is the biggest fool in whole world.

Option 3- pakistan help Kashmirs to liberate kashmir.

Bubble burst- Pakistan has tried everything possible on this earth to liberate Kashmir from wars to support kashmiris both morally & armed support, sending so called mujaheedins to kashmir, rising kashmir issue in international arena & what not but all things ended in a Big huge failure.

option 4- international arena's pressure on india to leave kashmir.

Bubble burst- international arena never put pressure on india to leave kashmir even when india had no or little importance in the world. now when india is developing & rising as a economic giant & becoming stroger day by day only a fool will think that international arena will pressurize india on kashmir. 

i don't see how Kashmir can be liberated.if someone think kashmir will be liberated one day then please also mention *HOW*??? don't just shoot arrows in the dark.


----------



## PakShah

alphamale said:


> i want to ask one ques to all who think one day kashmir will be free. How Kashmir could be liberated from india????? i give u many options to consider.
> 
> Option 1- kashmiris themselves will liberate kashmir on their own.
> 
> Bubble Burst- First of all no one support kashmiris in india, leave aside india even in kashmir itself hindus, sikhs, buddhists & muslims of jammu & ladakh do not support kashmiri muslims. kashmiri muslims have tried everything from protests to boycotts to armed rebellion but failed every time. they can't get independence on their own no matter how hard they try.
> 
> Option 2- india itself leave kashmir
> 
> Bubble burst- if anyone think it is possible then that person is the biggest fool in whole world.
> 
> Option 3- pakistan help Kashmirs to liberate kashmir.
> 
> Bubble burst- Pakistan has tried everything possible on this earth to liberate Kashmir from wars to support kashmiris both morally & armed support, sending so called mujaheedins to kashmir, rising kashmir issue in international arena & what not but all things ended in a Big huge failure.
> 
> option 4- international arena's pressure on india to leave kashmir.
> 
> Bubble burst- international arena never put pressure on india to leave kashmir even when india had no or little importance in the world. now when india is developing & rising as a economic giant & becoming stroger day by day only a fool will think that international arena will pressurize india on kashmir.
> 
> i don't see how Kashmir can be liberated.if someone think kashmir will be liberated one day then please also mention *HOW*??? don't just shoot arrows in the dark.



Here's the largest bubble burst for Indians!

As long as Pakistan has the moral and just principled stand, then Pakistan is not going to give up on the Kashmiris.


----------



## Jade

The real face of the Separatists

*Youth critically injured as he refuses to obey shutdown call *

Rising Kashmir News
Srinagar, Dec 3: A young man was critically injured in Nowhatta when some miscreants tried to force a shutdown in the area and struck him in head with cricket bat.

Eye witnesses said that early in the morning some youth appeared in the market and insisted shopkeepers to shutdown to protest the use of pepper guns by police on Friday against protesters.

*They said as the protesting youth reached Ranghamam area of Nowhatta, some shopkeepers resisted the porters and refused to close their shops.* They said one among the protesters got angry and hit Traiq Ahmad Bhat s/o Abdul Salam of Ranghamam with cricket bad injuring critically.

The youth was immediately shifted to the SKIMS where doctors operated upon him in his head and shifted to surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

&#8220;The youth has suffered fracture in head and is in coma. Although the operation was successfully conducted on him but nothing can be said yet,&#8221; said the authorities.

Meanwhile, the residents of down town Srinagar Saturday closed their business for many hours and protested against the alleged use of pepper guns on Friday by police to disperse the protesters.

Scores of people chanted the slogans against the use of pepper guns by police and claimed that it has caused severe health problems among them.
They alleged that due to the use pepper guns people especially children and women suffered various problems like breathlessness and suffocation.

The people urged police to refrain from using the health hazard weapons in future and threatened to go on strike if same guns were sued again to contain protests.

However, witnesses said that police lobbed many tear smoke shells and resorted to baton charge to disperse the protesters. 

Pertinently, on Friday afternoon, youth took to streets at Nowhatta, Saraf Kadal-Nawa Kadal, Kawdara and Rajouri Kadal to lodge protest against the arrests made by police last.

According to witnesses as soon as Friday prayers were over youth appeared on roads and government forces dispersed them by firing teargas, pepper guns and lathi charge.


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> Once again a simplistic solution suggested by a Pakistani who is unable to comprehend thee complex nature of the problem !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The counter arguments have been made by Indian members in some of the earliest posts to this forum. Enough said, we unlike you do not live in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the partition rules Kashmiris are to get a referndum.
> 
> Do not tell me Pakistan follows all rules set by the international community. There are international laws about terrorism, about proliferation etc etc etc that Pakistan breaks, on all those cases pakistan shouts and implores the world with tears in its eyes, to look at the circumstances. Now India is insisting that you see the circumstances that exist presently and you suddenly remember 'Rules' ! Ha!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, hypocrite and deceiver.
> 
> You bringing things that are irrelevant to the Kashmir dispute. Things that do not have anything to do with the Kashmir dispute.
> 
> Anything that are irrelevant are *disqualified *to be counter-arguments!
> 
> Don;t you know how to debate?
> 
> We believe in principles!
> However you keep ranting that "money" and "time" can buy out principles.
> 
> HA TO YOU!
Click to expand...


----------



## Secur

alphamale said:


> Option 1- kashmiris themselves will liberate kashmir on their own.
> 
> Bubble Burst- First of all no one support kashmiris in india, leave aside india even in kashmir itself hindus, sikhs, buddhists & *muslims of jammu & ladakh do not support kashmiri muslims*. kashmiri muslims have tried everything from protests to boycotts to armed rebellion but failed every time. they can't get independence on their own no matter how hard they try.
> 
> Option 3- pakistan help Kashmirs to liberate kashmir.
> 
> *Bubble burst- Pakistan has tried everything possible on this earth to liberate Kashmir from wars to support kashmiris both morally & armed support, sending so called mujaheedins to kashmir, rising kashmir issue in international arena & what not but all things ended in a Big huge failure.
> *


 So Kashmiri muslims are some other breeds than the ones living in Ladakh , Jammu ?  Impressive IQ level you seem to have ...

Has Pakistan backed down ?  No , and it will try again ... As a matter of fact , every side will try to take advantage if it feels it can because Kashmir's a disputed territory and its borders are ever changing ... The war continues ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ashokdeiva

PakShah said:


> Here's the largest bubble burst for Indians!
> 
> As long as Pakistan has the moral and just principled stand, then Pakistan is not going to give up on the Kashmiris.


\
I hope that then Pakistan will never give up and will always be there to try for a liberated Kashmir which will not happen for eternity,


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> The thing is buddy, I have already answered everything you have asked in Posts 217, 235, 245, 252 and 271. But you do not comprehend. I have also added more comments apart from the Ctrl C and V, but you seem to ignore those comments when convenient.
> 
> Now look at me, I answer everything you ask me - you are just unsatisfied because I do not give you the answer that you want !



The thing is, we don;t have to time to read essays of irrelevant garbage.

Point is Kashmiris are promised to have a referendum.

*Point is lets ask what matters to the Kashmiris? Money or Freedom?
*
That is the moral and right thing to do!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

> The counter arguments have been made by Indian members in some of the earliest posts to this forum. Enough said, we unlike you do not live in the past.


 We are yet to hear those counter arguments ... Because we know you dont have one ... The UN resolutions doesn't set a time limit for plebiscite , it is valid even today ... So " living in the past " is a crap argument ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Secur said:


> We are yet to hear those counter arguments ... Because we know you dont have one ... The UN resolutions doesn't set a time limit for plebiscite , it is valid even today ... So " living in the past " is a crap argument ...



lol, we have them conered.

Point 1: Economics and Future

Lets ask what matters to the Kashmiris? Money or their freedom? 

Point 2: Forget all other irrelevant things that do are not part of the Kashmir conflict. chess-writer is playing games by bringing in Balochistan and other crap!

Kashmiris are promised a referendum.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> PakShah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had said in that post that you'd now call me a troll, and that is the exact thing you did. But why did you edit that line out of your quote !
> 
> See that is the problem, you insist that there are principles and that yours are correct because there are rules that India should follow. Well, the principles that India follows are different. Prosperity is our Number 1 principle. Yours is to grab a peice of land and make it join a basketcase of a country
> 
> ---------- Post added at 12:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> Now you have got closer to the crux - Kashmiris need more than want Freedom to earn money so that their children have a better future than Pakistan's Mullahs can promise them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, are you saying Pakistan cannot give them an adequate education?  If that is what you are saying then you delusional.
> 
> I don't care who can offer the better education.
> 
> It is what the Kashmiris want!
> 
> Oh resorting to "Mullahs." You know I have many Mullah friends who have Phd's and master degrees in Chemical Engineering.
> 
> Being a mullah doesn't mean you are uneducated.
> 
> Anyways enough of the irrelevant arguments.
> 
> Let the Kashmiris decide what they want.
> 
> You never seem to be able to answer this.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chess-writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PakShah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had said in that post that you'd now call me a troll, and that is the exact thing you did. But why did you edit that line out of your quote !
> 
> See that is the problem, you insist that there are principles and that yours are correct because there are rules that India should follow. Well, the principles that India follows are different. Prosperity is our Number 1 principle. Yours is to grab a peice of land and make it join a basketcase of a country
> 
> ---------- Post added at 12:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> Now you have got closer to the crux - Kashmiris need more than want Freedom to earn money so that their children have a better future than Pakistan's Mullahs can promise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha, are you saying Pakistan cannot give them an adequate education?  If that is what you are saying then you delusional.
> 
> I don't care who can offer the better education.
> 
> It is what the Kashmiris want!
> 
> Oh resorting to "Mullahs." You know I have many Mullah friends who have Phd's and master degrees in Chemical Engineering.
> 
> Being a mullah doesn't mean you are uneducated.
> 
> Anyways enough of the irrelevant arguments.
> 
> Let the Kashmiris decide what they want.
> 
> You never seem to be able to answer this.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

> It is not that India, Indians or Indian soldiers like to commit human rights violations. It is that the population of Kashmir has been shown this bogey, this dream of a plebiscite and re-unification with an Islamic Pakistan that makes them want to separate.


 So chess-writer ?
Thats what you were saying all along that even though Kashmiris want reunification with Pakistan , they will not be allowed because you dont think its better for them ... Impressive logics you make by themselves ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> Now you have got closer to the crux - Kashmiris need more than want "Freedom" to earn "Money" so that their children have a better future than Pakistan's Mullahs can promise them.



No no, hypocrite.

Lets ask what the Kashmiris want in Indian Occupied Kashmir.  Don;t put your illogical thoughts down their throats you hypcritical obfucated and delusional person that you are!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> *And Insha-Allah, you will never hear them. Because they are irrelevant. We think of the future here in India not the past. ANd we also look at issues more deeply. Also, we are able to differentiate between what is 'Popular' and what is 'Good'.*
> 
> China is also able to do the exact same kind of thinking and look where it has reached !


 Yes , i will never hear them because i know you dont have no counter arguments for that one ... Irrelevant just because you think so ?  You and your Govt very well knows whom will Kashmiris vote for and thus not fulfilling its promise ... " The plebiscite is past " argument is just bull **** to divert the debate ... Looking at issues more deeply would mean that you held the plebiscite that your prime minister agreed to ... Even the LOC agreement was signed after 1971 war , does it become irrelevant just because three decades have passed ? If such is the reason , then even Durand and McMahon line are invalid today going by your theory ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> And Insha-Allah, you will never hear them. Because they are irrelevant. We think of the future here in India not the past. ANd we also look at issues more deeply. Also, we are able to differentiate between what is 'Popular' and what is 'Good'.
> 
> China is also able to do the exact same kind of thinking and look where it has reached !



lol, and you are running away!

We Pakistanis are people of principles. If we borrow something from someone else, even if a 1000 years pass by, we will keep our word and return whatever needs to be returned to that specific person.

Ofcourse you and materialistic arguments have failed. Because one cannot buy freedom with money or time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Secur said:


> Yes , i will never hear them because i know you dont no counter arguments for that one ... Irrelevant just because you think so ?  You and your Govt very well knows whom will Kashmiris vote for and thus not fulfilling its promise ... Past thing is just bull **** to divert the debate ... Looking at issues more deeply would mean that you held the plebiscite that your prime minister agreed to ... Even the LOC agreement was signed after 1971 war , does it become irrelevant just because three decades have passed ? If such is the reason , then even Durand and McMahon line are invalid today going by your theory ...



Precisely! If this was official debate, all the irrelevant arguments would have disqualified chess-writer from the beginning.

And then he teaches us how to debate!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

Secur said:


> Yeah , if you dont want to debate then dont ... Why keep saying that you are bored and such ?  Is someone forcing you to post here ? Whatever seem adequate for us is another story ... and about Siachen , only if you knew anything about the geography of that region , you wouldn't say such a thing ... All the high peaks around it are held by Pakistan ... Go search Saltoro or Peak 5353 ...



Really?? Pakistani forward posts can't even see the Siachen glacier even if you keep talking about the Siachen dispute.You can add the absence of knowledge of geography to that of history. Saltoro ridge is completely controlled by India. It is the reason that no Pakistani soldier can even see the Siachen glacier. You need to read up about Bana post, earlier called Quaid post. 

Peak 5353 is in the Drass sector, nothing to do with Siachen. That's what happens when you have just a half baked knowledge on the subject and are in too much of a hurry to regurgitate that half baked stuff.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> Yes, you got it ! Finally !!
> I'd go further and say that even Pakistnis don't know what is good for them. Our two countries started at the same place, look where you are now.
> 
> Btw : I really appreciate (genuinely) the fact that you have gone through my earlier posts unlike PakShah who repititively rants without trying to understand my arguments.



Ok then dont fool the world by calling yourself democratic , rename yourself as a fascist ... Because only a fascist decides what can the millions should / can do ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> Yes, you got it ! Finally !!
> I'd go further and say that even Pakistnis don't know what is good for them. Our two countries started at the same place, look where you are now.
> 
> Btw : I really appreciate (genuinely) the fact that you have gone through my earlier posts unlike PakShah who repititively rants without trying to understand my arguments.



Your beliefs on the issue isn't even standardized.
So if Pakistan tommorow has a larger economy than India, then Indian Occupied Kashmir should go with Pakistan only then?
What kind of messed up logic is that?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> I told you exactly why the past doesn't apply here :
> 1. India didn't decide to create Pakistan, the Britishers did
> *2.Those rules are old
> *3.Pakistan has broken too many rules herself
> 4.Pakistan has attempted to take Kashmir by force in many Wars
> 
> All rules from the past are *Null and Void now* !



The UN resolutions dont seem to think so ...


----------



## Bang Galore

Secur said:


> ... So Indians are being forced to keep *5+ million troops* just to counter a few thousand militants ? Impressive strategy you got there ...



Bloody hell! *5+ million.*...that's might impressive of us, I must say !


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> I told you exactly why the past doesn't apply here :
> 1. India didn't decide to create Pakistan, the Britishers did
> 2.Those rules are old
> 3.Pakistan has broken too many rules herself
> 4.Pakistan has attempted to take Kashmir by force in many Wars
> 
> All rules from the past are Null and Void now !



Wrong! Pakistan only aced when India broke the rules on Kashmir!

Your statements are too general. If Pakistan broke rules on issues that are irrelevant to Kashmir, then your arguments fail.

This is about the Kashmir dispute, not anything else.

Don't embarass yourself, it were the Muslims of today's Pakistan who did not wwant to be part of Hindu majority regions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> If I am disqualified, it will be because this is a Pakistani Forum. Given the difficulty Pakistanis have in listening their country being criticised, anything is possible.
> 
> Unless I talk about what you want me to talk about i.e Plebiscite, you'd say that I am off topic.
> 
> I however insist that this is about finding a solution to Kashmir that would be best for Kashmiris (whether popular or not) and Keeps peace. I am suggesting a solution mind you, albeit a different one !



So the Kashmiris know what is good for them.  Don;t try to shove your economics argument down their throats and our throats when it doesn't work. 

No you are disqualified because you keep bringing irrelevant things which have nothing to do with Kashmir, the Kashmiris, and the Kashmir dispute.

that is where you fail.

Get lost if you don't know how to debate!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> The world right now has changed buddy. the age of wars has gone. And the age of boundary change is also gone. No point now trying to force a solution that ioncorporates either of those.
> 
> That is precisely what you're advocating.



No, too bad. Oh really. Then what is the Iraq War and the Afghanistan war then?
Age of wars over?

You are so delusional, to the point of embarrassment!

You can;t admit you lost in a simple debate!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> Yes the Muslims didn't want to be a part of India because as I explained , they thought that they would be persecuted. But has it come true ?


Don;t bring irrelevant debates which have nothing to do with the Kashmir dispute.

Muslims wanted to create an Islamic state.

End of discussion of this irrelevant debate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## alphamale

Secur said:


> The UN resolutions dont seem to think so ...



who give a damn abt UN resolutions. do u seriously think india ever given any importance to it. UN resolution huh..


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> But as I said, I am suggesting a solution. It is your problem if you don't like it, not mine.
> 
> You are an extremist dude because you are stuck on a plebiscite and constipated with it !- An extremist is a man who won't change his opinion and won't let you change the topic !



You sound like an extremist and terrorist.

Telling Kashmiris what you think is right for them?  Whats this bull **** logic?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> But as I said, I am suggesting a solution. It is your problem if you don't like it, not mine.
> 
> You are an extremist dude because you are stuck on a plebiscite and constipated with it !- An extremist is a man who won't change his opinion and won't let you change the topic !


 What solution are you suggesting all along ?  ... Just repeating the same " Kashmir's a integral part of our country " stance makes you what ! A bigger extremist than we are , doesn't it ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Secur said:


> What solution are you suggesting all along ?  ... Just repeating the same " Kashmir's a integral part of our country " stance makes you what ! A bigger extremist than we are , doesn't it ?



lol, He is jumping around in circles, when we have debunked all his arguments. 

His suggestion is not to listen to the Kashmiris. That is an extremist and terrorist opinion! 

---------- Post added at 03:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:34 PM ----------




Chess-writer said:


> I do not think Borders are being changed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrorism is being combated there.
> 
> A loser in a debate is a guy who gets repetitive and boring. And refuses to listen or read or even consider his opponents arguments patiently. And the loser generally talks in simplistic terms.
> 
> So far you're the one who can be accused of all of that !



No a loser is a person who cannot talk about his arguments using the most concise arguments.
Stop running away you coward. 

you suggestion is that you want us to listen to what you think is right for the Kashmiris.

On the other hand Secur and I reject your terrorist mentality, and say lets ask what the Kashmiris want.

Ofcourse your "materialistic" arguments have collapsed like a deck cards collapse.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> Horrors ! No !! I am suggesting that you keep the part of Kashmir that you have and we keeep what we have. Incidentally, the part you have is better than the one we have, it gives you access to China and prevents India's ingress into Afghanistan.
> I do not see any reason why it is not the better part of Kashmir. ANd I do not understand why will your country not be satisfied with converting the LoC into International border OR Agree to maintain status quo for 100 years for a better, wiser generation to pull us two nations out of the conundrum.


 A illegally occupied land must be taken back , not compromised ... You are speaking the same tune which the FM's of India usually do so good luck with that ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> Horrors ! No !! I am suggesting that you keep the part of Kashmir that you have and we keeep what we have. Incidentally, the part you have is better than the one we have, it gives you access to China and prevents India's ingress into Afghanistan.
> I do not see any reason why it is not the better part of Kashmir. ANd I do not understand why will your country not be satisfied with converting the LoC into International border OR Agree to maintain status quo for 100 years for a better, wiser generation to pull us two nations out of the conundrum.



The wise thing to do is follow just and moral principles and listen to what the Kashmiris want. Simple!

Don;t bring irrelevant arguments. Doesn't matter who has the better part of the princely state.

What matters is the crux of the debate, which you can't answer me and secur.

The post in which you said "this is a pakistani defence forum."

Thats was a sign that you were failing and needed an "exit" or an excuse from this debate. 

but the reality is you have no arguments. Unless ofcourse you want us to listen to your irrelevant nonsense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## alphamale

Secur said:


> A illegally occupied land *must be taken back* , not compromised ... You are speaking the same tune which the FM's of India usually do so good luck with that ...



How??????? do u have anything practical or ur box is just full of assumptions, perceptions, helplessness etc etc etc


----------



## Secur

alphamale said:


> How??????? do u have anything practical or ur box is just full of assumptions, perceptions, helplessness etc etc etc


 By another Kargil with a better politician than corrupt Nawaz in charge !  Militarily ofcourse !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> Wrong again PakShah, I am not just saying what I am saying - I unlike you, am also proving it.
> 
> All you are doing is ranting without adding anything to the debate intellectually. Those my freind are the signs of a guy who has lost the ability to think (since the opponent won't discuss what you want discussed)
> 
> Emotions is all you have and probably facts about plebiscites and wars. Sorry mate, I have better things, I have sociological ideas



Then answere my arguments than just talking about my personality. 

Answer my and Secur's arguments. We are waiting for it.

Hurry up!

What's talking so long.

*You said you know what is good for the Kashmiris and Pakistanis, but the Kashmiris and Pakistanis don't know what is good for the Kashmiris.
*

My and Secur's argument: *Lets ask what the Kashmiris think is best for them. Lets ask what the Kashmiris want!*


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> Wrong again PakShah, I am not just saying what I am saying - I unlike you, am also proving it.
> 
> All you are doing is ranting without adding anything to the debate intellectually. Those my freind are the signs of a guy who has lost the ability to think (since the opponent won't discuss what you want discussed)
> 
> Emotions is all you have and probably facts about plebiscites and wars. Sorry mate, I have better things, I have sociological ideas


 No , we are just responding to your repetitive arguments again and again ... You have been going round and round in circles since the debate started ... Your idea that " **** the Kashmiris opinion , we will decide whats better for them " isn't going to work ... What are you proving ? That democracy is just to mask the fascist nature of the Indians ... This thing , then you have proved it ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> Well Now ! You have decided that it is illegal haven't you !! I have also decided the same with regard to you. Fighting wars with us, Pushing in terrorists since 1989 is illegal.
> 
> You must realise that no matter what the rules say, India will not accept any solution that changes borders. So lease suggest something Practical.
> 
> It is a great compromise from India if we were to allow you to have Pak Occupied Kashmir. Can't Pakistan let India keep IoK. This is much more practical than what you seem to be advocating.



What Pakistan did was only in response to India breaking the law.

So when India breaks the law to attempt to get a upper hand, then Pakistan should sit there and do nothing.

That would be unjust. An eye for an eye!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> And my solution is to accommodate the other side (India), but you seem to be stuck on what you want. Is a solution possible in those circumstances.
> 
> God I'll be a Captain before I switch off the Computer today ! Yay !!



You suggestion was to listen to your pathetic argument about not listening to the Kashmiris.

I don;t care if you become a general or not on this forum. Don;t bring any irrelevant trash to this debate.

Stay focused now!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## alphamale

Secur said:


> By another Kargil with a better politician than corrupt Nawaz in charge !  Militarily ofcourse !



Militarily  u are kidding right?????? ur army couldn't save ur eastern half which was under ur full control & u are dreaming abt kashmir. Good luck with ur dreams, after-all day dreaming is not a crime.


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> Secur , you don't realise this - But I could accuse you of the exact same thing. Having repetitive argumants and going round and round.
> 
> Tell me (keeping practical considerations into mind) What solution do you suggest then ?



We want a just solution to Kashmir, and we want what the Kashmiris want.

Simple!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

PakShah said:


> The wise thing to do is follow just and moral principles and listen to what the Kashmiris want. Simple!



Yeah, we have seen how wise you guys are. Thanks but no thanks. Having failed to win militarily in 1965 & 1999, you are now whining about morality. You can't get on the table what you failed to do militarily. The Kashmiris can get what they want but within the limits of the Indian constitution. Nothing more is given to any other Indian citizens & so will it be for those in J&K.

If you are interested in morals, try doing that in Baluchistan. How does it matter if isn't in the U.N.? Morality seems not available to you unless mandated by the U.N. Moral arguments are double edged swords, legal positions are different. You cannot argue Baluchistan's legal position & Kashmir's moral position whenever it suits you. Arguments of convenience expose you for what you really are; Hypocrites ! you tried changing the U.N resolution of 1947 in 1965 & 1999. You failed. Why should you be rewarded for your failures by us agreeing to go back to 1947 when you didn't care for the same on those two occasions?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Secur

alphamale said:


> Militarily  u are kidding right?????? ur army couldn't save ur eastern half which was under ur full control & u are dreaming abt kashmir. Good luck with ur dreams, after-all day dreaming is not a crime.


 Tell you what ? I am simply amazed at the Indian ability to troll and derail the thread ... The thing which you are talking about is entirely different story ... Hasn't India already lost 2/5 of Kashmir to Pakistan and Aksai Chin to China ?  So who's day dreaming here ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> Well so far you're the only ones who seems to have lost eyes and limbs. This is the exact attitude that got you there !!



Oh really India too has suffered alot. Enough of irrelevant nonsense. Back to the crux of the debate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

Bang Galore said:


> If you are interested in morals, try doing that in Baluchistan. How does it matter if isn't in the U.N.? Morality seems not available to you unless mandated by the U.N. Moral arguments are double edged swords, legal positions are different. You cannot argue Baluchistan's legal position & Kashmir's moral position whenever it suits you. Arguments of convenience expose you for what you really are; Hypocrites ! you tried changing the U.N resolution of 1947 in 1965 & 1999. You failed. Why should you be rewarded for your failures by us agreeing to go back to 1947 when you didn't care for the same on those two occasions?


 We can extend the same idea to all seven sister states , Khalistan and Assam too ! Doesn't it become practical now ?  Genius , Is Baluchistan a disputed territory somehow like Kashmir ? Or we are occupying it with millions of troops ? We tried changing the UN resolution after Indian stubbornness not to hold plebiscite ... not before and its been the official stance of the GoP that we will continue to support Kashmiri freedom movement ... Whatever they want to do next is another matter ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Secur said:


> Tell you what ? I am simply amazed at the Indian ability to troll and derail the thread ... The thing which you are talking about is entirely different story ... Hasn't India already lost 2/5 of Kashmir to Pakistan and Aksai Chin to India ?  So who's day dreaming here ?



Remember ignore the trolls bringing in irrelevant subjects such as Balochistan or losing Bangladesh which have nothing to do with the Kashmir dispute or the Kashmiris.

These trolls don;t know how to debate.

The Focus is:
1) Kashmiris do not want India
2) Kashmiris are promised a referendum.
*3) chess-writer's argument is not to listen to the Kashmiris
4) Secur's and my argument is to listen to the Kashmiris.*
5) If India did anything unjust, Pakistan only answered India in the name of justice: eye for an eye

This is everything pretty such summarized.
The most important part has been bolded.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> That was the Past to the first and that was China to the second.



Time and money does not make *justice or principles* irrelevant!

Principles = Justice

Justice = Principles

---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------




Chess-writer said:


> That was the Past to the first and that was China to the second.



You saying that time has passed is *irrelevant *itself. It doesn't *invalidate *principles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> India's past record sort of indicates that India will be more successful if India attempted something similar., Iam confused, you tell me ?!


 One of our territories isn't thousands of km's away now ... Keep trying , after all BLA and other insurgent groups are getting back on table to talk with GoP ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abhishek_

Secur said:


> We can extend the same idea to all seven sister states , Khalistan and Assam too ! Doesn't it become practical now ?  Genius , Is Baluchistan a disputed territory somehow like Kashmir ? Or we are occupying it with millions of troops ? We tried changing the UN resolution after Indian stubbornness not to hold plebiscite ... not before and its been the official stance of the GoP that we will continue to support Kashmiri freedom movement ... Whatever they want to do next is another matter ...


you've already tried khalistan, and miserably failed as usual. and geography doesn't allow you to meddle in our north east.
nobody gives credence to your moral upper hand and you've tried military options as well, what else is left now?


----------



## PakShah

Secur said:


> One of our territories isn't thousands of km's away now ... Keep trying , after all BLA and other insurgent groups are getting back on table to talk with GoP ...



Look at how this hypocrite chess-write is running away.
He cannot justify his stand according to moral and just principles.
He brings in irrelevant things like "time" and "money." Things that are irrelevant and don't affect the Kashmir dispute.

---------- Post added at 04:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:03 PM ----------




Chess-writer said:


> Come on dude, do not go to sleep befor you have received enough bashing,Besides I want to be Captain today.
> 
> My Take of course differs :
> We'll gladly take the remaining eye too. Funny how you want to listen to Kashmiris because you know they will say what you want them to say , completely ignoring the fact that India is a secular country. Ststus quo is the only solution.
> 
> It will take Pakistanis 20 years more of impoverishment and fundamentalism to come to senses and agree to it though.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> Ok I will note that excuse in my diary, I'd also appreciate it if you simultaneously gave me the excuses for losing various Wars as well so that my diary of Pakistani excuses and dreams is complete !



lol, hypocrite! India being a secular country is irrelevant to the Kashmir dispute.

its all about what the Kashmiris want and what Kashmiris think is important for them.


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> My Take of course differs :
> We'll gladly take the remaining eye too.* Funny how you want to listen to Kashmiris because you know they will say what you want them to say , completely ignoring the fact that India is a secular country.* Ststus quo is the only solution.
> 
> It will take Pakistanis 20 years more of impoverishment and fundamentalism to come to senses and agree to it though.



Funny , how the Indians dont want to hold plebiscite because they knows it results before its held even ! Despite 60 years of occupation , are you telling that you weren't able to win the hearts of people and thus relying on oppressive military tactics to keep J & K under control ?  What does being secular has to do with all that ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abhishek_

Secur said:


> Funny , how the Indians dont want to hold plebiscite because they knows it results before its held even ! Despite 60 years of occupation , are you telling that you weren't able to win the hearts of people and thus relying on oppressive military tactics to keep J & K under control ?  What does being secular has to do with all that ?



we can afford to keep it in control.


----------



## Secur

Abhishek_ said:


> we can afford to keep it in control.


 Yes , everyone knows what sort of democracy India really is ... There was no need to clarify ...


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> The second statement was in response to the assertion that Pakistan will find a military solution to the problem.
> The first statement - Time and Money is overruled by underlying currents, one of which is Indian Secularism which you so conveniently forget when you chose to burry your head in the sand and hope for a day when Pakistan will force a solution on India. It favours India if you keep fixated on Kashmir and encourage your Mad Mullahs !



Why do you bashing Mullahs? I take I offensively!
Bash my arguments or bash me if you can justisfy yourself to do so.

But don't call all Mullah mad!

Enough of the irrelevant stuff. See your trick chess-writer is to derail the debate by bringing in irrelevant subjects.

It doesn't matter what India wants or whether India is secular or not.

Its all about the Kashmiris. All about what the people want in Indian occupied Kashmir and in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> India being secular is the most relevent thing to this debate. You see Indian never wanted pakistan created, the Britishers created it. I will be reasonable and not call for a reunification - The reason, why of course - Too much time has passed.
> 
> Same is the case with Kashmir !



No you are wrong!

It doesn;t matter if India is secular or not.

Its all about what the Kashmiris want.

Stop talking rubbish.

Lets see what the Kashmiris want.

Pakistan or secular India.

Very simple.

My arguments are very simple.


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> No, it is about what is possible and what is not.
> 
> btw, you must be a Mad mullah I spoke of, is it?



No, it is possible to have a just and moral solution to Kashmir according to what the Kashmiris want.

Target my arguments, please we all know you are running out of arguments.


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> India being secular is the most relevent thing to this debate. You see Indian never wanted pakistan created, the Britishers created it. I will be reasonable and not call for a reunification - The reason, why of course - Too much time has passed.
> 
> Same is the case with Kashmir !


 So who wanted Pakistan in the first place  Indian muslims or some aliens ... and who's living in it now ? The Britishers ? or the same Indians muslims ... What logics are these actually ?  ... We wanted to be independent and we gained it ... Same is the case with Kashmir ... Time doesn't matter ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

Secur said:


> We can extend the same idea to all seven sister states , Khalistan and Assam too ! Doesn't it become practical now ?  Genius , Is Baluchistan a disputed territory somehow like Kashmir ? Or we are occupying it with millions of troops ? We tried changing the UN resolution after Indian stubbornness not to hold plebiscite ... not before and its been the official stance of the GoP that we will continue to support Kashmiri freedom movement ... Whatever they want to do next is another matter ...


 
Truly, I feel much like a genius when I see your posts. You can compare whatever state but it is *YOU* who are making the moral argument case, not me. Only you can be held accountable for your position. We are quite happy with the status quo.

You tried changing whenever.. we are not going back to the U.N. resolution just because you failed.

Your possession of Baluchistan is disputed by Baluchis, that should be enough for a moral argument. If it is a legal argument you seek, I have already replied earlier. you tried to change & we won't let you go back.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abhishek_

Secur said:


> Yes , everyone knows what sort of democracy India really is ... There was no need to clarify ...


then there should be no arguments, ehh?
Kashmir stays with us since we can afford to control it.


----------



## PakShah

Secur said:


> So who wanted Pakistan in the first place  Indian muslims or some aliens ... and who's living in it now ? The Britishers ? or the same Indians muslims ... What logics are these actually ?  ... We wanted to be independent and we gained it ... Same is the case with Kashmir ... Time doesn't matter ...



It was Muslims of the British Raj. Don't use the term "Indian Muslims" British Raj was not present day "India."

Enough of irrelevant stuff.

India's stance on the involvement of religion in India's internal politics have nothing to do with the Kashmir dispute.

For it is what the Kashmiris want. 

chess-writer can't seem to answer us Secur. He has run stale. He is looking for tricks!


----------



## Nirvana

PakShah said:


> Why do you bashing Mullahs? I take I offensively!
> Bash my arguments or bash me if you can justisfy yourself to do so.
> 
> But don't call all Mullah mad!
> 
> Enough of the irrelevant stuff. See your trick chess-writer is to derail the debate by bringing in irrelevant subjects.
> 
> It doesn't matter what India wants or whether India is secular or not.
> 
> *Its all about the Kashmiris. All about what the people want in Indian occupied Kashmir and in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.*



If Pakistan Would have Not Invaded Kashmir , there Would Not have been Dispute In Kashmir !


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> Lets not get into the past shall we now ! i just gave you my point of view. If a miority wants to braek away and want their own land, they can't demand it - They must accept what is given - Beggars must not be choosers is an old english idiom that applies here. So be happy with what you got away with !



lol hypocrite, you bring up history when it suits you, but if Secur and I bring up history, you get scared and say don't bring up history.

learn to think first before typing hypocrite!


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> I will now go , smoke and come back. If PakShah wants to disappear, he can do so now and sneak away ! Else I'll come back and start belting him again !


 Such superiority complex and arrogance is hilarious  If you cant discuss and are constantly being debunked in your arguments and want to leave from here then you are free to do it ... Nobody's forcing you to debate with us  ... Why post that you are going to smoke or bathroom?  And if you want to come tomorrow do the same Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V thing and go round and round in circles ... Good bye for now !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## alphamale

Secur said:


> Tell you what ? I am simply amazed at the Indian ability to troll and derail the thread ... The thing which you are talking about is entirely different story ... Hasn't India already lost 2/5 of Kashmir to Pakistan and Aksai Chin to China ?  So who's day dreaming here ?



whatever kashmir u have was captured by attacking princely state of kashmir not india. pakistan forces had to retreat back once indian forces landed in kashmir & as far as Aksai chin is concerned india didn't had any military presence there plus it was mostly uninhibited that's why Chinese forces were able to capture that area but now it is not the same situation that was in 1947 & 1962. we have huge military presence along both borders & don't think china will help u, they never helped u whether it was 1965, 1971 or 1999.


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> You haven't told me PakShah, are you a Mullah ?



lol, Secur he keeps calling me a Mullah. Shows he has lost the debate.

And no, post your arguements don't say "look down."


----------



## Secur

Bang Galore said:


> Your possession of Baluchistan is disputed by Baluchis, that should be enough for a moral argument. If it is a legal argument you seek, I have already replied earlier. you tried to change & we won't let you go back.


 First prove that majority of Baluchis do want independence like Kashmir before talking morality ... Even the insurgents groups are back on the table ... I dont see daily protests happening in Baluchistan like IOK ... So why are you trolling the thread ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

alphamale said:


> whatever kashmir u have was captured by attacking princely state of kashmir not india. pakistan forces had to retreat back once indian forces landed in kashmir & as far as Aksai chin is concerned india didn't had any military presence there plus it was mostly uninhibited that's why Chinese forces were able to capture that area but now it is not the same situation that was in 1947 & 1962. we have huge military presence along both borders & don't think china will help u, they never helped u whether it was 1965, 1971 or 1999.



You are wrong. *The reason Pakistani tribesmen invaded Jammu and Kashmir princely state is because when their heard our Muslim brothers were getting slaughtered in Jammu, they felt they had an obligation to help them out.
*
Same with my Muslim brothers in Punjab, when there was rioting all over the former British Raj.


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> Agree fully with that !



Maybe if Hindus had kept their cool, Pakistani tribesmen wouldn't have come.


----------



## Secur

alphamale said:


> whatever kashmir u have was captured by attacking princely state of kashmir not india. pakistan forces had to retreat back once indian forces landed in kashmir & as far as Aksai chin is concerned india didn't had any military presence there plus it was mostly uninhibited that's why Chinese forces were able to capture that area but now it is not the same situation that was in 1947 & 1962. we have huge military presence along both borders & don't think china will help u, they never helped u whether it was 1965, 1971 or 1999.


 Pakistan got there after Maharaja unjustly signed the instrument of accession , not before ... Yeah , if Indian forces were having so much luck in Kashmir , why did Nehru go running to the UN for ceasefire ? As for Aksai Chin , you did maintain a presence there , the reason for the Indian causalities because if you didn't ... Did the aliens die there ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

Secur said:


> Such superiority complex and arrogance is hilarious  If you cant discuss and *are constantly being debunked in your arguments*




Err...... remember Siachen & Saltoro ridge & point 5353.......?? Debunked & ran like hell, never to come back. Best to remember the adage about glass houses & stones.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> I was asking so that i do not crack any Mullah jokes by accident. And you had said that you take it personally. You still haven't told us though - Are you a Mullah?!
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> I have tears in my eyes reading about your brotherly love. By the way how are the Muhajirs these days ?



Don't bring irrelevant arguments. This is all about the Kashmir dispute.

Oh by the way. During partition my family immigrated from Agra, Jodhpur, and Delhi to Gujranwala.
You ask the forum members if you don't believe me. 


Alhumdulillah, my family is doing very well.  We are very happy.


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> Till you do the plebiscite routine , I will do the Ctrl C and V routine. ATleast they are original ideas of mine which I am ready t explain if asked for an explanation.
> 
> Unlike you !


 Unlike you , i have answered all your arguments ... You still haven't presented the ever deceiving counter argument to Plebiscite ... ready to explain what ?  that you can decide better for Kashmiris than they themselves can do ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

PakShah said:


> Maybe if Hindus had kept their cool, Pakistani tribesmen wouldn't have come.



Yeah & maybe if the Pakistani tribesman had kept their pants on, you would have all of Kashmir & wouldn't be begging for it now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nirvana

Status Quo is Perfect Settlement for Kashmir , Since Both Side Cannot Afford Military Option !!
Those Dreaming About Capturing Kashmir are Wasting their Time !!

So Sleep Tight - Good Night

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

Bang Galore said:


> Err...... remember Siachen & Saltoro ridge & point 5353.......?? Debunked & ran like hell, never to come back. Best to remember the adage about glass houses & stones.....


 The west saltoro ridge is still controlled by PA whether you like to believe it or not ... So the argument that PA cant even see the Siachin glacier is debunked unless ofcourse you are saying that the weather is harsh in those areas and visibility is reduced due to fog !


----------



## Abhishek_

Secur said:


> Pakistan got there after Maharaja unjustly signed the instrument of accession , not before ... Yeah , if Indian forces were having so much luck in Kashmir , why did Nehru go running to the UN for ceasefire ? As for Aksai Chin , you did maintain a presence there , the reason for the Indian causalities because if you didn't ... Did the aliens die there ?


you need to read the correct history son. the instrument of accesion was signed after the PK attack on kashmir.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Secur said:


> Unlike you , i have answered all your arguments ... You still haven't presented the ever deceiving counter argument to Plebiscite ... ready to explain what ?  that you can decide better for Kashmiris than they themselves can do ...



lol we have answered his argument.

chess-writer thinks he knows what is better for the Kashmir than the Kashmiris themselves.

How absurd! chess-writer is a terrorist then. 

My and Secur's argument: Lets go ask what matters to the Kashmiris. Lets ask what the Kashmiris want.

Simple!


----------



## Secur

Bang Galore said:


> Yeah & maybe if the Pakistani tribesman had kept their pants on, you would have all of Kashmir & wouldn't be begging for it now.


 Maybe , if Maharaja hadn't already decided on acceding to India despite the popular public call for doing otherwise and started slaughtering Muslims in Jammu , things would have been much better ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> You are certainly a Mullah then. It is good that you left, we don't have a place for your kind here in India. Neither Muslim Mullahs nor hindu Extremists are wanted here.



Whether I am a Mullah or not, that is irrelevant to the Kashmir dispute.

You have the lost debate. Admit it. You are already looking like an idiot! 

And then you had all your bravado in the beginning, only to be *smashed in the end when you cannot justify your position according to just and moral principles.*


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> Lemme tell you Secur. I find you more civilized than this PakShah. When are you driving these chumps out of your land. They are the ones who have got you screwed every time.


 Let me ask you , where is it written that Mullah are terrorist or some bad people or you watch FOX news too much ?

Seriously do you even know the original meaning of the word ? It means a Islamic religious figure so unless you think Muslims are terrorist , you shouldn't abuse or call him names ...



Chess-writer said:


> Unless I agree with your over-simplification, I am wrong, Am I not, Maddy Mulls !
> 
> Wow, so you decided that just coz you are a Mullah and can issue fatwas, I have lost... Wah Wah !


 Now you are deliberately ruining the thread to escape from here ...  You can go to sleep / smoke or whatever you want ... Nobody's forcing you to be here and debate ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Secur said:


> Let me ask you , where is it written that Mullah are terrorist or some bad people or you watch FOX news too much ?
> 
> Seriously do you even know the original meaning of the word ? It means a Islamic religious figure so unless you think Muslims are terrorist , you shouldn't abuse or call him names ...



Secur is more civilized than you chess-writer.

It is you chess writer, trying to use "mullah" as a pejorative.

It is you chess-write who keeps saying ignore what the Kashmiris want.

Despite the fact it is the moral thing to ask what is important to the Kashmiris and what the Kashmiris want.

All your materialistic arguments falls apart.

---------- Post added at 04:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 PM ----------




Chess-writer said:


> Unless I agree with your over-simplification, I am wrong, Am I not, Maddy Mulls !
> 
> ---------- Post added at 02:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, so you decided that just coz you are a Mullah and can issue fatwas, I have lost... Wah Wah !



My arguments are to the point and not your nonsensical essay irrelevant stuff you keep bringing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> I agree, I went a bit far with that one. but I was pissed at Pak Shah for not telling me if he is a Mullah, that would hve helped me understand Pakistan much better.
> 
> I have read a large part of the Quran myself.
> 
> I can tell you this much, Pak Shah and you are both good people. Secur , you are a bit more rational while PakShah does have strains of extremism in him. Basically he is a bit misguided. And I am not talking about Kashmir in this post.



Stop talking about me.

This is all about Kashmir.

Don't matter what you think of us. Its all about the arguments. 

Lets summarize:
What has chess-writer been able to come up with:
1) Don;t listen to what the Kashmiris want

What has Secur and I been able to come up with:
1) Lets ask what the Kashmiris want, and lets ask what is important to the Kashmiris.

Simple!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> I agree, I went a bit far with that one. but I was pissed at Pak Shah for not telling me if he is a Mullah, that would hve helped me understand Pakistan much better.
> 
> *I have read a large part of the Quran myself.
> *
> I can tell you this much, Pak Shah and you are both good people. Secur , you are a bit more rational while PakShah does have strains of extremism in him. Basically he is a bit misguided. And I am not talking about Kashmir in this post.


Why exactly should someone tell you about what he is / where he belongs to ? We aren't discussing Mullahs or PakShah personal character here ...

Appreciated ! that you understand muslims and Islam better than the average joe ..

What sort of extremism ? Care to elaborate ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Secur said:


> Why exactly should someone tell you about what he is / where he belongs to ? We aren't discussing Mullahs or PakShah personal character here ...
> 
> Appreciated ! that you understand muslims and Islam better than the average joe ..
> 
> What sort of extremism ? Care to elaborate ?



Don;t fall for his traps or tricks.
Just stick to the crux of the Kashmir dispute.

chess-writer is looking for an exit.


----------



## Abhishek_

kashmiris want independence, neither GOP or GOI will allow that. 
and given the fact its much easier for us to hold kashmir, I don't see why we should let it go.


----------



## Secur

PakShah said:


> Don;t fall his traps or tricks.
> Just stick to the crux of the Kashmir dispute.
> 
> chess-writer is looking for an exit.


 Nobody's forcing him to debate here ... He can go if he wants or continue the Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V thing ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

Secur said:


> Maybe , if Maharaja hadn't already decided on acceding to India despite the popular public call for doing otherwise and started slaughtering Muslims in Jammu , things would have been much better ...



Errr...You are now indulging in revisionist history. I see you use decide instead of saying he actually acceded. In any case why did your tribesmen decide to help the poor suffering Kashmiris by pulling their pants down? Did they think using what they had in their pants rather than what they held in their hands would help Kashmiris?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

Abhishek_ said:


> kashmiris want independence, neither GOP or GOI will allow that.
> and given the fact its much easier for us to hold kashmir, I don't see why we should let it go.


Tell you what ! If they want independence , GoP would be willing to offer them that ... We aren't all fussed about Kashmiris joining Pakistan for one ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Secur said:


> Nobody's forcing him to debate here ... He can go if he wants or continue the Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V thing ...



He keeps bringing his old trash about not listening to Kashmiris, or the irrelevant stuff he and Ejazr cooked up which has nothing to do with the Kashmir dispute. lol.

lol, if he runs away, he in the beginning taunted me by saying he missed me. 

Well I'm here. Lets finish this debate. He knows if he leaves, he forfeits the debate. 
I still have some time left before I study.


----------



## Secur

Bang Galore said:


> Errr...You are now indulging in revisionist history. I see you use decide instead of saying he actually acceded. In any case why did your tribesmen decide to help the poor suffering Kashmiris by pulling their pants down? Did they think using what they had in their pants rather than what they held in their hands would help Kashmiris?


 pulling their pants down ? Kashmiris living on our side of LOC are in much better condition than their counterparts ... Do you hear news of human rights abuses and protests in Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas ? Is it heavily militarized like IOK ?

Obsessed with pants are you ?  You can debate in civilized manner too ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abhishek_

Secur said:


> Tell you what ! If they want independence , GoP would be willing to offer them that ... We aren't all fussed about Kashmiris joining Pakistan for one ...


great, I guess you should start with pushing your govt. for changing the constitution of Azad kashmir and your demands at the UN. 
as per UN mandate, indendence is not an option for kashmiris...yet


----------



## PakShah

Abhishek_ said:


> kashmiris want independence, neither GOP or GOI will allow that.
> and given the fact its much easier for us to hold kashmir, I don't see why we should let it go.



Kashmir to be independent as a unit from Pakistan and India is *irrelevant *to the Kashmir dispute because its not even an option according to the partition plans.


----------



## alphamale

listen to kashmiris what they want, listen to kashmiris what they want, listen to kashmiris what they want.

Referendum, Referendum, Referendum.

Pakistani members have only these two things to say & they are repeating it again & again. i don't know why u can't get the simple thing india never did that, india will never do that. go do whatever u want to???? india don't give a damn.


----------



## Secur

Abhishek_ said:


> great, I guess you should start with pushing your govt. for changing the constitution of Azad kashmir and your demands at the UN.
> as per UN mandate, indendence is not an option for kashmiris...yet


 Let them be independent , if they want to be ... We aren't oppressive like you and more than willing to offer independence to Kashmir ...


----------



## Secur

alphamale said:


> listen to kashmiris what they want, listen to kashmiris what they want, listen to kashmiris what they want.
> 
> Referendum, Referendum, Referendum.
> 
> Pakistani members have only these two things to say & they are repeating it again & again. i don't know why u can't get the simple thing india never did that, india will never do that. go do whatever u want to???? india don't give a damn.


 We give a damn and hence normal routines can begin after 2014 dont worry  The Kargil wasn't the first and surely will not be the last ... Sit back and enjoy ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

Secur said:


> The west saltoro ridge is still controlled by PA whether you like to believe it or not ... So the argument that PA cant even see the Siachin glacier is debunked unless ofcourse you are saying that the weather is harsh in those areas and visibility is reduced due to fog !



West Saltoro ridge? No such thing. Pakistan has been pushed *west* of the Saltoro ridge into the glacial valleys. No way you are going to see anything from there regardless of the weather.



> The Indian army controls all of the 70 kilometres (43 mi) long Siachen Glacier and all of its tributary glaciers, as well as the three main passes of the Saltoro Ridge immediately west of the glacier&#8212;Sia La, Bilafond La, and Gyong La


----------



## PakShah

alphamale said:


> listen to kashmiris what they want, listen to kashmiris what they want, listen to kashmiris what they want.
> 
> Referendum, Referendum, Referendum.
> 
> Pakistani members have only these two things to say & they are repeating it again & again. i don't know why u can't get the simple thing india never did that, india will never do that. go do whatever u want to???? india don't give a damn.



yes, but the Kashmiris have to play by the rules of the partition rules. Don't modify the rules to your personal whims or desires.

---------- Post added at 04:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:49 PM ----------




Chess-writer said:


> In a way by insisting on talking about Plebiscite, both of you are doing the Ctrl C and V routine yourself. At least I explain what I am talking about unlike the two of you.
> 
> I still say that the crux of the Kashmir problem comes from Pakistan. I have proven it and you have so far not questioned it coherently. If you did so quoting a specific element from my assertions, I'd be glad to explain.
> 
> What isi wrong when I say that let there be status quo for 100 years and let another generation smarter than us decide?



No, the problem is really coming from India. India does not want to listen to the Kashmiris.
Pakistan has an obligation to help the Kashmiris.

Don't bring in the irrelevant future statements. The "future arguments" doesn't affect the Kashmir dispute like the "past agruments" do.


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> In a way by insisting on talking about Plebiscite, both of you are doing the Ctrl C and V routine yourself. At least I explain what I am talking about unlike the two of you.
> 
> I still say that the crux of the Kashmir problem comes from Pakistan. I have proven it and you have so far not questioned it coherently. If you did so quoting a specific element from my assertions, I'd be glad to explain.



Ok so Kashmiris willing to join Pakistan from the first day is a Pakistani created problem somehow ? What absurd logic is that ?
You have yourself admitted that Kashmiris are pro Pakistanis ... How does the crux of the problem come from Pakistan then ?  

You occupy a territory , tell us that people have no choices but to accept us ( in the meantine people become more closer to your neigbor ) and then you blame your neighbor for this problem ! Wonderful !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

Bang Galore said:


> West Saltoro ridge? No such thing. Pakistan has been pushed *west* of the Saltoro ridge into the glacial valleys. No way you are going to see anything from there regardless of the weather.





> Pakistan controls the glacial valleys immediately west of the Saltoro Ridge.[3][4]





> The Indian Army controls a few of the top-most heights, holding on to the tactical advantage of high ground, however with Pakistani forces in control of Gyong La pass, Indian access to K-2 and other surrounding peaks has been blocked effectively and mountaineering expeditions to these peaks continue to go through with the approval of the Government of Pakistan. The situation is as such that Pakistanis cannot get up to the glacier, while the Indians cannot come down. Presently India holds two-thirds of the glacier and commands two of the three passes including the highest motorable pass &#8211; Khardungla Pass. Pakistan controls Gyong La pass that overlooks the Shyok and Nubra river Valley and India`s access to Leh district. The battle zone comprised an inverted triangle resting on NJ 9842 with Indira Col and the Karakoram Highway as the other two extremities.


You deliberately omitted the very next line !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ThePakistanPrince

I think its high time we have a good fashion Jihad to drive these Hindu scum from the beautiful land of Kashmir and incorporate the state into Pakistan. There can be no dealing with the Hindus except at the barrel of a gun.


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> No problem, we will enjoy it then. History will repeat itself the 6th time after 1947,65,71,84,Kargil
> 
> How many times do you want to lose before you come to your senses ? tell us now so that we tell our leaders to defeat you that many times as soon as possible.



The new generation will be taught the same things the previous generations were taught.

From octogenerians like Syed Ali Geelani to relatively younger people like Arundhati Roy state with facts why the Indian position is unjust and wrong.

And even younger folk like Mirwaiz Umar Farooq will not give up the fight.


----------



## Abhishek_

PakShah said:


> What has Secur and I been able to come up with:
> 1) Lets ask what the Kashmiris want, and lets ask what is important to the Kashmiris.





Abhishek_ said:


> kashmiris want independence, neither GOP or GOI will allow that.


 


PakShah said:


> Kashmir to be independent as a unit from Pakistan and India is *irrelevant *to the Kashmir dispute because its not even an option according to the partition plans.



i thought you guys were the torch bearers for what kashmiris want, now all of a sudden their wishes become irrelevant?


----------



## alphamale

Secur said:


> We give a damn and hence normal routines can begin after 2014 dont worry  The Kargil wasn't the first and surely will not be the last ... Sit back and enjoy ...



don't worry guns of our soldiers are also not empty. keep trying, good luck with that.


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> No problem, we will enjoy it then. History will repeat itself the 6th time after 1947,65,71,84,Kargil
> 
> How many times do you want to lose before you come to your senses ? tell us now so that we tell our leaders to defeat you that many times as soon as possible.


 Defeat after taking 2/5 of Kashmir ? How much territory have the Indians gained if i ask even ?  Some most important strategic peaks weren't returned after Kargil ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abhishek_

Secur said:


> We aren't oppressive like you and more than willing to offer independence to Kashmir ...



PA/GOP disagree with you. why not push them to allow kashmiri independence first?


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> Now you are concerned that Kashmiri Muslims will start liking Indian Secularism and enjoy the fruits of development in the meantime. Aren't you backing what I say when I suggest that staying with India is the best option for Kashmiri Muslims !


 You have been secular for the past 60 years and still Kashmiris dont want to live with you ... Isn't it enough to open your eyes and look at the facts ? Backing from ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Abhishek_ said:


> i thought you guys were the torch bearers for what kashmiris want, now all of a sudden their wishes become irrelevant?



Yes we are all for what the Kashmiris want. But the Kashmiris have to play within the rules that were given to them. 
*Pakistan or India cannot modify the partition rules for their personal whims.*


----------



## ThePakistanPrince

Why are Hindus on a Pakistani board anyway? Are they the rejects from Indian boards? Admins I call for a total and complete ban on all Indians regardless of religioN!


----------



## alphamale

PakShah said:


> yes, but the Kashmiris have to play by the rules of the partition rules. Don't modify the rules to your personal whims or desires.




kashmiris have no rules to play even if they have we will not let them to do so. as far as modifying the rules is concerned then we are doing it for last 64 yrs, who has stopped us from doing so.


----------



## Abhishek_

PakShah said:


> Yes we are all for what the Kashmiris want. But the Kashmiris have to play within the rules that were given to them.
> *Pakistan or India cannot modify the partition rules for their personal whims.*


I see, so the personal whims of kashmiris no longer matter. good, now we are getting somewhere.


----------



## Secur

alphamale said:


> kashmiris have no rules to play even if they have we will not let them to do so. as far as modifying the rules is concerned then we are doing it for last 64 yrs, who has stopped us from doing so.


 Oppressive rule can only last for that long you must remember that  Neither has it stopped us from changing LOC each time

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

alphamale said:


> kashmiris have no rules to play even if they have we will not let them to do so. as far as modifying the rules is concerned then we are doing it for last 64 yrs, who has stopped us from doing so.



lol, Pakistan is for what the Kashmiris want!  But the Kashmiris have to play by the rules.

If you are not playing by the rules then how can your defend your position according to just and moral principles.

Its all about what the Kashmiris want according to the rules.

---------- Post added at 05:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------




Abhishek_ said:


> I see, so the personal whims of kashmiris no longer matter. good, now we are getting somewhere.



The Kashmiris have to work with the rules that they were given. That is either Pakistan or India.

*Not even Pakistan or India can modify the partition rules. That is where you FAIL!*

*Playing by the rules is a part of justice and moral principles!*

*Pakistan and India also has to play by the rules!*


----------



## Abhishek_

PakShah said:


> The Kashmiris have to work with the rules that they were given. That is either Pakistan or India.
> 
> *Not even Pakistan or India can modify the partition rules. That is where you FAIL!*
> 
> *Playing by the rules is a part of justice and moral principles!*



so far so good, so what do you suggest we do when kashmiris decide they want neither?


----------



## PakShah

Abhishek_ said:


> so far so good, so what do you suggest we do when kashmiris decide they want neither?



Kashmiris need to be educated about the Kashmir dispute, and how far their can exercise their rights under the rules!

This should have been a given!

Indeed you are right, so far so good.


----------



## Abhishek_

PakShah said:


> Kashmiris need to be educated about the Kashmir dispute, and how far their can exercise their rights under the rules!
> 
> This should have been a given!
> 
> Indeed you are right, so far so good.



still with you shah-ji, they should be aware of the options available to them. but given the fact that an overwhelming majority now wants independence, what's your suggestion on how we should proceed to re-educate them?


----------



## PakShah

Abhishek_ said:


> still with you shah-ji, they should be aware of the options available to them. but given the fact that an overwhelming majority now wants independence, what's your suggestion on how we should proceed to re-educate them?



I've *NOT *heard of the Kashmiris as a majority wanting independence from both Pakistan and India. An impartial referendum needs to be held by an international organisation.

There are many advocating for merging with pakistan such as Syed Ali Geelani.

So please don't act as if most Kashmiris want independence from both Pakistan and India.

They only have two choices. That are the rules.

Very simple. Not mind-boggling at all.

This is all about just and moral principles and sticking to the rules.


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> They say practise makes perfect, so far Pakistan has been practising how to lose to India and be called a failed state. By now Pakistanis have perfected the art and are now Perfect Losers.
> 
> India is the exact opposite of that - Winners and practising it more and more!


 Practicing what ?  Obsession and loosing against a 5 times smaller neighbor to whom you have lost 2/5 of Kashmir  ... What is it that you hold to prove you were victorious ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Chess-writer said:


> They say practise makes perfect, so far Pakistan has been practising how to lose to India and be called a failed state. By now Pakistanis have perfected the art and are now Perfect Losers.
> 
> India is the exact opposite of that - Winners and practising it more and more!



Instead of demonizing Pakistan, like Indians typically like to do, can we stick to the debate!

Doesn't matter if some analysts categorize "Pakistan" as a failed state, because Pakistan as a country is still functioning. Pakistan is still here. Pakistan is still has a growing GDP.

I don't know what is the criteria for a failed state. If failed state means Pakistan is going to collapse, or if Pakistan has deteroriating GDP, then those analyists are wrong.

Anyways back to the debate, shall we now!


----------



## Abhishek_

PakShah said:


> I've *NOT *heard of the Kashmiris as a majority wanting independence from both Pakistan and India. An impartial referendum needs to be held by an international organisation.
> 
> There are many advocating for merging with pakistan such as Syed Ali Geelani.
> 
> So please don't act as if most Kashmiris want independence from both Pakistan and India.
> 
> They only have two choices. That are the rules.
> 
> Very simple. Not mind-boggling at all.



pro-pk and pro-in are minority groups now (including geelani), kashmiris are now overwhelmingly pro-independence. 
what is boggling me is how do we go about re-educating the kashmiris about their options


----------



## Secur

Abhishek_ said:


> pro-pk and pro-in are minority groups now (including geelani), kashmiris are now overwhelmingly pro-independence.
> what is boggling me is how do we go about re-educating the kashmiris about their options


 Independence should be an option for them regardless of what Pakistan or India loose ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Abhishek_ said:


> pro-pk and pro-in are minority groups now (including geelani), kashmiris are now overwhelmingly pro-independence.
> what is boggling me is how do we go about re-educating the kashmiris about their options



lol, only those Kashmiris advocate for "independence" from both Pakistan and India because they think India won't play with the rules.

They are wrong.

They need to know their rights within the rules. Well, your Indian friend chess-writer keeps barking about educating Kashmiris.

Then educate them about the truth about the Kashmir dispute. What their rights are within the rules.

Then follow the rules!

Simple!


----------



## Abhishek_

Secur said:


> Independence should be an option for them regardless of what Pakistan or India loose ...


i agree, but unfortunately both govts are not allowing that option. hence the deadlock.


----------



## PakShah

Secur said:


> Independence should be an option for them regardless of what Pakistan or India loose ...



However independence is not part of the partition rules? So how can independence be even an option?


----------



## Abhishek_

PakShah said:


> lol, only those Kashmiris advocate for "independence" from both Pakistan and India because they think India won't play with the rules.
> 
> They are wrong.
> 
> They need to know their rights within the rules. Well, your Indian friend chess-writer keeps barking about educating Kashmiris.
> 
> Then educate them about the truth about the Kashmir dispute. What their rights are within the rules.
> 
> Then follow the rules!
> 
> Simple!



i intended to get suggestions from you on how to educate them about their options.


----------



## Secur

PakShah said:


> However independence is not part of the partition rules? So how can independence be even an option?


 It can be considered now ofcourse if the Kashmiris have turned pro independent ...


----------



## PakShah

Abhishek_ said:


> i intended to get suggestions from you on how to educate them about their options.



Its simple! Tell them about the Kashmir dispute. Tell them they have two choices. 

Go gather everyone in Indian Occupied Kashmir. Tell them verbally, or on a poster, make pamphlets or whatever!
Tell them according to the partition rules they have two choices. Pakistan or India!

Hold a plebiscite by a certain deadline. Let there be international observers to ensure the poll is impartial.

Let the international observers declare what option the Kashmiris voted for in Indian Occupied Kashmir.

There and done. The Kashmir dispute is solved!


----------



## suryakiran

ThePakistanPrince said:


> I think its high time we have a good fashion Jihad to drive these Hindu scum from the beautiful land of Kashmir and incorporate the state into Pakistan. There can be no dealing with the Hindus except at the barrel of a gun.



You are having this high (time) for the past 60 years. You are keep trying and keep failing for the past 60 years. By showing the barrel of guns to India, you will never succeed. India is strong enough to meet barrens with barrels.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Secur said:


> Independence should be an option for them regardless of what Pakistan or India loose ...



Are we talking about what Kashmiris want in Indian occupied Kashmir, or all of the areas of the former region of the Kashmir princely state?


----------



## alphamale

Abhishek_ said:


> pro-pk and pro-in are minority groups now (including geelani), kashmiris are now overwhelmingly pro-independence.
> what is boggling me is how do we go about re-educating the kashmiris about their options



buddy be practical unlike our Pakistani Friends. no matter whether kashmiris are pro-india or pro-pak because no one will ask them. india will not ask them & will not let anyone to do so. it is as simple as that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abhishek_

PakShah said:


> Its simple! Tell them about the Kashmir dispute. Tell them they have two choices.
> 
> Go gather everyone in Indian Occupied Kashmir. Tell them verbally, or on a poster, make pamphlets or whatever!
> Tell them according to the partition rules they have two choices. Pakistan or India!
> 
> Hold a plebiscite by a certain deadline. Let there be international observers to ensure the poll is impartial.
> 
> Let the international observers declare what option the Kashmiris in Indian Occupied Kashmir.
> 
> There and done. The Kashmir dispute is solved!



since the kashmir dispute includes your kashmir, I assume you're prepared to do the same?


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> Saying 'What have you ever done to deter us' is not exactly civil either. I am just being more open with it.
> 
> You seem to show a complete lack of ability to discuss any opinion that is something other than your own. Hence the change !
> Typical Pakistanis ,see mercy as a sign of weakness


Mercy ? Are you kinda deluded my friend ? Let me enlighten you , its been your country which has been obsessed to competing with Pakistan since 60 years ... Indians compare themselves to Pakistanis in everything despite being 5 times larger ... Be it the military , economy or poverty even 

Lack of ability ? What can someone do if you deliberately try to derail the topic just because you cant prove your arguments ?
and i didn't use any non-civil words by saying " deterred " unless ofcourse you have some new dictionary ...
So , mind your language if you want to debate further ... That change shows your desperation ... Nothing else !



PakShah said:


> Are we talking about what Kashmiris want in Indian occupied Kashmir, or all of the areas of the former region of the Kashmir princely state?


 Both sides ofcourse ... Doesn't seem logical to do it in only one part ... The results will be in Pakistan's favor and Indians know that ...


----------



## PakShah

Abhishek_ said:


> since the kashmir dispute includes your kashmir, I assume you're prepared to do the same?



Yes obviously. We Pakistanis want to solve the Kashmir dispute according to just and moral principles.

Both Pakistan and India have to follow the rules.


----------



## Abhishek_

PakShah said:


> Yes obviously. We Pakistanis want to solve the Kashmir dispute according to just and moral principles.
> 
> Both Pakistan and India have to follow the rules.



great, I will notify my govt rep in west delhi of my stand on this matter. I assume you'll do the same.


----------



## PakShah

Secur said:


> Mercy ? Are you kinda deluded my friend ? Let me enlighten you , its been your country which has been obsessed to competing with Pakistan since 60 years ... Indians compare themselves to Pakistanis in everything despite being 5 times larger ...
> 
> Lack of ability ? What can someone do if you deliberately try to derail the topic just because you cant prove your arguments ?
> and i didn't use any non-civil words by saying " deterred " unless ofcourse you have some new dictionary ...
> So , mind your language if you want to debate further ... That change shows your desperation ... Nothing else !
> 
> Both sides ofcourse ... Doesn't seem logical to do it in only one part ... The results will be in Pakistan's favor and Indians know that ...



We are talking about the Independence option here?

What happens if Kashmiris in Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir don't want independence from Pakistan?

Are we going to have an independent Indian Occupied Kashmir and some parts staying with Pakistan?


----------



## Secur

PakShah said:


> We are talking about the Independence option here?
> 
> What happens if Kashmiris in Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir don't want independence from Pakistan?


 Then they can remain ofcourse ... The applies to IOK too ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShah

Ok,

So Pakistan's Kashmir and India Kashmir should be polled as individual sectors.

Pakistan's Kashmir: 
options:
1)Independence
2)Pakistan
3)India

Indian Occupied Kashmir:
1)Independence
2)Pakistan
3)India


----------



## alphamale

to indian members.

guys just leave it. we all know we have kashmir, why u ppl are debating with fanboys here. BTW i m going to srinagar this month to enjoy the beauty & snow of srinagar. any one interested????, while our pakistani friends who unfortunately can't go to srinagar too can enjoy the beauty of Srinagar on internet of-course


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> What? Talking about 90000 donkeys is desperation,There re more donkeys left yet. As you say they will be back to donkey business after 2014 when your baap will leave ******


 You can go to sleep !
Visible signs of impairment of cognitive function

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abhishek_

PakShah said:


> Ok,
> 
> So Pakistan's Kashmir and India Kashmir should be polled as individual sectors.
> 
> Pakistan's Kashmir:
> options:
> 1)Independence
> 2)Pakistan
> 3)India
> 
> Indian Occupied Kashmir:
> 1)Independence
> 2)Pakistan
> 3)India



agreed, we can move forward on the debate when GOI and GOP modify their current stance. I hope our govts are receptive of citizen voices.


----------



## Secur

Chess-writer said:


> Keep holding imaginary referendums. While I go to sleep.... When the Donkeys arrive we'll ride them back to Lahore !


 One can even go to sleep without showing desperation and trolling !  If you wanted a escape route , you would have quietly got out of here ...


----------



## alphamale

PakShah said:


> Ok,
> 
> So Pakistan's Kashmir and India Kashmir should be polled as individual sectors.
> 
> Pakistan's Kashmir:
> options:
> 1)Independence
> 2)Pakistan
> 3)India
> 
> Indian Occupied Kashmir:
> 1)Independence
> 2)Pakistan
> 3)India



apne ghar baithe baithe hi referendum karai ja. mujhe lagta hai tuje aaj raat khawabon mein bhi refrendum hi nazar ayega.


----------



## PakShah

self-delete.


----------



## ThePakistanPrince

Once again I ask why are Hindu's allowed to post here? They should be all banned! Remove every Indian from this Pakistani board.


----------



## PakShah

Ok

The just solution: Lets hold a referendum in the whole Kashmir region.

The options to the Kashmiris are:
1)Independence
2)Pakistan
3)India

Now I have to go, I have obligations to attend to.


----------



## ThePakistanPrince

The only solution is to drive out the Indians from Kashmir through the barrel of the gun. There is no other way. These Indians will never understand.


----------

